immi_enthu
10-29 06:50 PM
Do we have to go in person to the SSN office to apply for SSN based on EAD for a person who's on H4 before ?
meridiani.planum
04-02 03:39 AM
inline...
My employer refuses to give my copy of approve LC.
-- thats not a good sign.. he does not seem to be co-operative...
I had MS + 1.5 yrs of exp.
So not sure if they had exp in the job description as I dont see any job that requires MS + 1 yr of exp.
I am willing to take the risk.
Its upto you. If you feel you'll get through without an RFE, you will be all set, if you feel there is a chance of an RFE, this will be a big mistake. Try to stay on H1-B instead of EAD if you do take a chance... In general people would advice against it, job offers keep coming and going. A chance to file I-485, especially if you are from India might be rare thing.
My employer refuses to give my copy of approve LC.
-- thats not a good sign.. he does not seem to be co-operative...
I had MS + 1.5 yrs of exp.
So not sure if they had exp in the job description as I dont see any job that requires MS + 1 yr of exp.
I am willing to take the risk.
Its upto you. If you feel you'll get through without an RFE, you will be all set, if you feel there is a chance of an RFE, this will be a big mistake. Try to stay on H1-B instead of EAD if you do take a chance... In general people would advice against it, job offers keep coming and going. A chance to file I-485, especially if you are from India might be rare thing.
cox
August 8th, 2005, 03:19 PM
That's awesome! What made you think of doing that?
Thanks, I was really happy it worked. I wanted to shoot the tide pool waves, and get this effect without having to wait for a "perfect" morning (you can accomplish the same thing just before dawn or after sunset). I am trained as a physicist, and crossed polarizers are a common method of managing light in physics experiments, so I decided to try that here. This technique allows for pretty much any exposure time, and I wanted like 20s to get several waves. A couple of words of caution if any of you want to try it too (and you are welcome to do so).
You can't use circular polarizers like most of us have for our autofocus DSLRs. Stacked C-polarizers don't black out, because they are both filtering the same light. You must buy linear polarizers. The good news is that they are cheap by comparison (<$50 ea).
Autofocus won't work worth a damn.
Adding two polarizers to the lens multiplies the internal reflections (I had problems with this, 3 or more reflections of the sun)
It vignettes at super-wide focal length on my zoom. I would always expect vignetting with a prime lens.
With two polarizers you get weird rainbow effects from diffraction, and the whole scene tends to the purple/UV. I suspect a lot of these pictures will look great in B&W.
There is a lot of potential here I think, and thanks all for the great ideas/suggestions on what else I can try. :)
Thanks, I was really happy it worked. I wanted to shoot the tide pool waves, and get this effect without having to wait for a "perfect" morning (you can accomplish the same thing just before dawn or after sunset). I am trained as a physicist, and crossed polarizers are a common method of managing light in physics experiments, so I decided to try that here. This technique allows for pretty much any exposure time, and I wanted like 20s to get several waves. A couple of words of caution if any of you want to try it too (and you are welcome to do so).
You can't use circular polarizers like most of us have for our autofocus DSLRs. Stacked C-polarizers don't black out, because they are both filtering the same light. You must buy linear polarizers. The good news is that they are cheap by comparison (<$50 ea).
Autofocus won't work worth a damn.
Adding two polarizers to the lens multiplies the internal reflections (I had problems with this, 3 or more reflections of the sun)
It vignettes at super-wide focal length on my zoom. I would always expect vignetting with a prime lens.
With two polarizers you get weird rainbow effects from diffraction, and the whole scene tends to the purple/UV. I suspect a lot of these pictures will look great in B&W.
There is a lot of potential here I think, and thanks all for the great ideas/suggestions on what else I can try. :)
lostinbeta
10-04 12:12 AM
Oh yeah "layer 1" just refers to the layer with the original shape and "layer 2" just refers to the layer with the fill. They assume you aren't giving names to your layers which is why they have it in quotes.
more...
abhisam
07-09 11:50 AM
I am working on EAD which expires on 10th Septempber 2008. I filed for my EAD on 25th June, 2008 and with the current processing dates at Nebraska, my guess is that I wont recieve my EAD until later September/early October.
Will I have to stop working for the period when I dont have my EAD? My employer is very co-operative and will bear with me. But what are my options?
My husband is the primary applicant of our 485 petition, so we wont have any issues of going out of status.
I would really appreciate your advice on this.
Will I have to stop working for the period when I dont have my EAD? My employer is very co-operative and will bear with me. But what are my options?
My husband is the primary applicant of our 485 petition, so we wont have any issues of going out of status.
I would really appreciate your advice on this.
vishwak
11-08 01:46 PM
VOTED for Narayana.
more...
dingudi
12-31 10:01 PM
No FP yet. Called TSC N number of times. Opened SR long ago. Got SR response letter but no FP notice.
I-485: July 2nd TSC
Online ND: Sept 10,2007
I-485: July 2nd TSC
Online ND: Sept 10,2007
veni001
06-04 10:18 AM
This is the text that i see on Govtrack.us
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-1348
Are we missing some thing here, I see SKILL is part of this draft!!:confused:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-1348
Are we missing some thing here, I see SKILL is part of this draft!!:confused:
more...
conchshell
07-31 04:56 PM
Paper based filing on July 2nd 2008 (NSC)
Got filing receipt on July 19th 2008
Today I got the CRIS appproval email for my EAD application. However, the EAD application for my spouse still shows pending. We both filed together (paper filing). Is this normal, has someone seen this type of situation before? Do I need to contact USCIS to remind them about the other EAD application?
Just to let you know guys ... I got a CRIS email 10 minutes back ... informing that my wife's EAD is also approved. This is a good news because our priority date will be current from tomorrow. However, I don't know we will get the EAD for one year or two year. I guess we will just wait for the cards arrival. Thanks to all the people who responded to my question.
Got filing receipt on July 19th 2008
Today I got the CRIS appproval email for my EAD application. However, the EAD application for my spouse still shows pending. We both filed together (paper filing). Is this normal, has someone seen this type of situation before? Do I need to contact USCIS to remind them about the other EAD application?
Just to let you know guys ... I got a CRIS email 10 minutes back ... informing that my wife's EAD is also approved. This is a good news because our priority date will be current from tomorrow. However, I don't know we will get the EAD for one year or two year. I guess we will just wait for the cards arrival. Thanks to all the people who responded to my question.
glus
09-24 09:11 AM
My Wife is on AOS (as a dependent with me as primary). She has recently applied for admission into Graduate School. Since she does not have her green card yet, she was being considered as an international application and was requested to submit her "visa documents". We sent in her I-485 Application, EAD and AP documents. Apparently, the school did not have these in their list of acceptable "documents for admission". The school insisted that we need to apply for my wife's F-1 and provide proof of financial support.
I was trying to convince the Director of Intl Affairs that my wife is in the country legally and while on AOS, she can attend school and work for any employer.
The school now comes back saying that they understand being able to work, but they are now asking if there is any law that explicitly states that an AOS applicant can go to school.
Could you please help?? Is there such a law? I personally went through F-1 to H1 to AOS myself and understand each of these statuses, but am looking for a way to convince that AOS can attend school while in the USA.
It's really frustrating to get denied because one is on AOS even though one qualifies for admission. Really alarming to see that not many out side the immigration community understand US visa laws.
I would really appreciate your help!
Hi,
I had the same problem some time ago. I wanted to go to school while my AOS was pending, but the school started making troubles due to this. My attorney wrote up a letter. In the letter she stated, "There is nothing in the U.S. Immigration Law (INA), that prohibits one to attend school while the Adjustment of Status of such a person is pending. INA does not require a person in Adjustment of Status to obtain form I-20" After that, the school just accepted me w/o form I-20. It was a private school so tuition was same as for others.
I was trying to convince the Director of Intl Affairs that my wife is in the country legally and while on AOS, she can attend school and work for any employer.
The school now comes back saying that they understand being able to work, but they are now asking if there is any law that explicitly states that an AOS applicant can go to school.
Could you please help?? Is there such a law? I personally went through F-1 to H1 to AOS myself and understand each of these statuses, but am looking for a way to convince that AOS can attend school while in the USA.
It's really frustrating to get denied because one is on AOS even though one qualifies for admission. Really alarming to see that not many out side the immigration community understand US visa laws.
I would really appreciate your help!
Hi,
I had the same problem some time ago. I wanted to go to school while my AOS was pending, but the school started making troubles due to this. My attorney wrote up a letter. In the letter she stated, "There is nothing in the U.S. Immigration Law (INA), that prohibits one to attend school while the Adjustment of Status of such a person is pending. INA does not require a person in Adjustment of Status to obtain form I-20" After that, the school just accepted me w/o form I-20. It was a private school so tuition was same as for others.
more...
Berkeleybee
03-31 06:00 PM
Thank you Jkays and Cpolisetti for bringing this to our attention.
I just sent Mitra an email.
best,
Berkeleybee
I just sent Mitra an email.
best,
Berkeleybee
lalithkx
07-29 04:57 PM
I was wondering if there is any update available from this meeting?
Lot of people from participated in the conference call and asked specifically about concurrent July/August filer I-140 backlogs and TSc discrimination. Ombudsman and USCIS people replied that they are aware of the problem, tried to get response from TSC but TSC is apparently not replying to their request for Information. They said that they shall post the info as soon as it is available (god knows when). They asked everybody to submit form 7001 to Ombudsman so that he can escalate the issue. Let us see if anything comes out of this.
Lot of people from participated in the conference call and asked specifically about concurrent July/August filer I-140 backlogs and TSc discrimination. Ombudsman and USCIS people replied that they are aware of the problem, tried to get response from TSC but TSC is apparently not replying to their request for Information. They said that they shall post the info as soon as it is available (god knows when). They asked everybody to submit form 7001 to Ombudsman so that he can escalate the issue. Let us see if anything comes out of this.
more...
heavencard
05-14 07:58 PM
I am planning to file Labor under EB2. Below is my education detail.
3 years Bachelor Degree i.e. B.Com.
2 years MBA(Information Technology)
10 years pure IT experience in Java, Oracle
5 Professional Certification from Sun Microsystem,Oracle and IBM
Based on these education background will I have problem with EB2 labor and I-140 approval?
Please suggest.
3 years Bachelor Degree i.e. B.Com.
2 years MBA(Information Technology)
10 years pure IT experience in Java, Oracle
5 Professional Certification from Sun Microsystem,Oracle and IBM
Based on these education background will I have problem with EB2 labor and I-140 approval?
Please suggest.
immi_enthu
09-28 04:51 PM
Q : Is USCIS prioritizing certain application(s) during the receipting process?
Yes. The Application to Adjust Status (I-485) will have first priority because USCIS needs to ensure that these applications are receipted in a timeframe that would allow processing of an application for an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) within 90 days of filing as mandated by law [8 CFR 247a.13(d)]. Our second priority will be to receipt the Application for Naturalization (N-400) so that we can minimize any delays in obtaining citizenship.
I am sure USCIS will break this law on numerous counts on Oct 1st as all the July 2nd filers will have past 90 days on that day.
Yes. The Application to Adjust Status (I-485) will have first priority because USCIS needs to ensure that these applications are receipted in a timeframe that would allow processing of an application for an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) within 90 days of filing as mandated by law [8 CFR 247a.13(d)]. Our second priority will be to receipt the Application for Naturalization (N-400) so that we can minimize any delays in obtaining citizenship.
I am sure USCIS will break this law on numerous counts on Oct 1st as all the July 2nd filers will have past 90 days on that day.
more...
sunny1000
01-14 05:30 PM
Here is an exaustive list of charitable orgs (source: msnbc):
Haiti earthquake: How to help - Haiti earthquake- msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34835478/ns/world_news-haiti_earthquake/)
------------------------------------------------
Action Against Hunger, 877-777-1420
Agape Flights, 941-584-8078
American Red Cross, 800-733-2767
American Refugee Committee, 800-875-7060
American Jewish World Service, 212-792-2900
AmeriCares, 800-486-4357
Beyond Borders, 866-424-8403
B'nai B'rith International, 202-857-6600
CARE, 800-521-2273
CarmaFoundation
Catholic Relief Services, 800-736-3467
Childcare Worldwide, 800-553-2328
Church World Services, 800-297-1516
Concern Worldwide, 212-557-8000
Convoy of Hope, 417-823-8998
Cross International, 800-391-8545
CRUDEM Foundation, 413-642-0450
CRWRC, 800-55-CRWRC
Direct Relief International, 805-964-4767
Doctors Without Borders, 888-392-0392
Episcopal Relief and Development, 800-334-7626
Feed My Starving Children, 763-504-2919
Food for the Poor, 800-427-9104
Friends of WFP, 866-929-1694
Friends of the Orphans, 312-386-7499
Habitat for Humanity, 1-800-422-4828
Haiti Children, 877-424-8454
Haiti Foundation Against Poverty
Haiti Marycare, 203-675-4770
Haitian Health Foundation, 860-886-4357
Healing Hands for Haiti, 651-769-5846
Hope for Haiti, 239-434-7183
International Child Care, 800-722-4453
International Medical Corps, 800-481-4462
International Rescue Committee, 877-733-8433
International Relief Teams, 619-284-7979
Islamic Relief USA, 888-479-4968
Lions Club International Foundation, 630-203-3836
Lutheran World Relief, 800-597-5972
Medical Benevolence Foundation, 800-547-7627
Medical Teams International, 800-959-4325
Meds and Food for Kids, 314-420-1634
Mennonite Central Committee, 888-563-4676
Mercy Corps, 888-256-1900
Nazarene Compassionate Ministries, 800-306-9950
New Life for Haiti, 815-436-7633
Operation Blessing, 800-730-2537
Operation USA, 800-678-7255
Oxfam, 800-776-9326
Partners in Health, 617-432-5298
RHEMA International, 248-652-9894
Rural Haiti Project, 347-405-5552
The Salvation Army, 800-725-2769
Samaritan's Purse, 828-262-1980
Save the Children, 800-728-3843
UN Central Emergency Response Fund
UNICEF, 800-367-5437
United Methodist Committee on Relief, 800-554-8583
World Concern, 800-755-5022
World Hope International, 888-466-4673
World Relief, 800-535-5433
World Vision, 888-511-6548
Yele Haiti, 212-352-0552
Wyclef Jean's grassroots org
Text Yele to 501 501 to donate $5 via your cellphone
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, be very careful about donating to unknown sites/emails. They could be scams (source msnbc):
Finally, the FBI urges people who are looking for ways to help with earthquake relief to be wary of solicitations that could be from scam artists.
Beware of bogus online 'help' for Haiti - Security- msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34845486/ns/technology_and_science-security/)
"Past tragedies and natural disasters have prompted individuals with criminal intent to solicit contributions purportedly for a charitable organization or a good cause," the FBI said, in passing along these tips:
Ignore unsolicited e-mails, and do not click on links within those messages.
Be skeptical of individuals representing themselves as surviving victims or officials asking for donations via e-mail or social networking sites.
Be cautious of e-mails that claim to show pictures of the disaster areas in attached files, because the files may contain computer viruses. Open attachments only from know senders.
Decline to give personal or financial information to anyone who solicits contributions.
Make contributions directly to known organizations, rather than relying on others who claim in e-mails that they will channel the donation to established groups.
The FBI says anyone receipting an e-mail that appears to be a scam should forward it to this Web site: Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) | Home (http://www.ic3.gov)
Haiti earthquake: How to help - Haiti earthquake- msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34835478/ns/world_news-haiti_earthquake/)
------------------------------------------------
Action Against Hunger, 877-777-1420
Agape Flights, 941-584-8078
American Red Cross, 800-733-2767
American Refugee Committee, 800-875-7060
American Jewish World Service, 212-792-2900
AmeriCares, 800-486-4357
Beyond Borders, 866-424-8403
B'nai B'rith International, 202-857-6600
CARE, 800-521-2273
CarmaFoundation
Catholic Relief Services, 800-736-3467
Childcare Worldwide, 800-553-2328
Church World Services, 800-297-1516
Concern Worldwide, 212-557-8000
Convoy of Hope, 417-823-8998
Cross International, 800-391-8545
CRUDEM Foundation, 413-642-0450
CRWRC, 800-55-CRWRC
Direct Relief International, 805-964-4767
Doctors Without Borders, 888-392-0392
Episcopal Relief and Development, 800-334-7626
Feed My Starving Children, 763-504-2919
Food for the Poor, 800-427-9104
Friends of WFP, 866-929-1694
Friends of the Orphans, 312-386-7499
Habitat for Humanity, 1-800-422-4828
Haiti Children, 877-424-8454
Haiti Foundation Against Poverty
Haiti Marycare, 203-675-4770
Haitian Health Foundation, 860-886-4357
Healing Hands for Haiti, 651-769-5846
Hope for Haiti, 239-434-7183
International Child Care, 800-722-4453
International Medical Corps, 800-481-4462
International Rescue Committee, 877-733-8433
International Relief Teams, 619-284-7979
Islamic Relief USA, 888-479-4968
Lions Club International Foundation, 630-203-3836
Lutheran World Relief, 800-597-5972
Medical Benevolence Foundation, 800-547-7627
Medical Teams International, 800-959-4325
Meds and Food for Kids, 314-420-1634
Mennonite Central Committee, 888-563-4676
Mercy Corps, 888-256-1900
Nazarene Compassionate Ministries, 800-306-9950
New Life for Haiti, 815-436-7633
Operation Blessing, 800-730-2537
Operation USA, 800-678-7255
Oxfam, 800-776-9326
Partners in Health, 617-432-5298
RHEMA International, 248-652-9894
Rural Haiti Project, 347-405-5552
The Salvation Army, 800-725-2769
Samaritan's Purse, 828-262-1980
Save the Children, 800-728-3843
UN Central Emergency Response Fund
UNICEF, 800-367-5437
United Methodist Committee on Relief, 800-554-8583
World Concern, 800-755-5022
World Hope International, 888-466-4673
World Relief, 800-535-5433
World Vision, 888-511-6548
Yele Haiti, 212-352-0552
Wyclef Jean's grassroots org
Text Yele to 501 501 to donate $5 via your cellphone
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, be very careful about donating to unknown sites/emails. They could be scams (source msnbc):
Finally, the FBI urges people who are looking for ways to help with earthquake relief to be wary of solicitations that could be from scam artists.
Beware of bogus online 'help' for Haiti - Security- msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34845486/ns/technology_and_science-security/)
"Past tragedies and natural disasters have prompted individuals with criminal intent to solicit contributions purportedly for a charitable organization or a good cause," the FBI said, in passing along these tips:
Ignore unsolicited e-mails, and do not click on links within those messages.
Be skeptical of individuals representing themselves as surviving victims or officials asking for donations via e-mail or social networking sites.
Be cautious of e-mails that claim to show pictures of the disaster areas in attached files, because the files may contain computer viruses. Open attachments only from know senders.
Decline to give personal or financial information to anyone who solicits contributions.
Make contributions directly to known organizations, rather than relying on others who claim in e-mails that they will channel the donation to established groups.
The FBI says anyone receipting an e-mail that appears to be a scam should forward it to this Web site: Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) | Home (http://www.ic3.gov)
mantagon
09-23 02:12 PM
to convince them by saying that if a person can legally work in the US, a fact they acknowledge, the person can very well study! I don't think there would be any law that explicitly states this because it seems to be illogical that someone can work legally in a country, but not study! The reverse makes sense and that's why there are explicit laws about that. Good luck!
more...
meridiani.planum
11-03 01:50 AM
Hi,
My employer applied for my H1b Extension and the case was received on Aug 5th by USCIS. The online status still shows the case to be in "Initial Review". Out of curiosity, I called USCIS and they told me that they can only reveal information abuot the case to my employer. So I called my employer and they gave me a shocking news - They had received an RFE about a month ago and they "forgot" to inform me. They are not revealing me the details of the RFE.
We have to respond to the RFE by Nov 3rd, and since I had a change of project(I did provide the previous client letter when we had originally applied for H1b extension) they are asking me to get a client letter and other proofs within a day!!!! My client is taking its on time and I do not think I will get the client letter to send it in time.
1) What are my options here? Not knowing what the RFE is, being told about the RFE with just 2 days remaining, can I threaten to take any legal action against my employer?
2) Is it my right to get a copy of the RFE?
3) How come the case status did not change on USCIS website?
My current visa expires on Nov 20th. Please advice ASAP!
sorry to say but your employer is useless. by playing around with your H1 petition he is messing around with your legal status in the US. Since he has already proven himself untrustworthy, I would suggest you move on asap: find another job and transfer your H1. Since you already have a client, should be easier to get a transfer done. Also, do the transfer with premium processing even if you have to pay $1k out of your own pocket.
P.S: H1 is his own petition, you are just the beneficiary. You dont have a right to see the RFE and he does not have an obligation to share information about it with you. Thats the legal part. morally and ethically the way he is acting sucks.
My employer applied for my H1b Extension and the case was received on Aug 5th by USCIS. The online status still shows the case to be in "Initial Review". Out of curiosity, I called USCIS and they told me that they can only reveal information abuot the case to my employer. So I called my employer and they gave me a shocking news - They had received an RFE about a month ago and they "forgot" to inform me. They are not revealing me the details of the RFE.
We have to respond to the RFE by Nov 3rd, and since I had a change of project(I did provide the previous client letter when we had originally applied for H1b extension) they are asking me to get a client letter and other proofs within a day!!!! My client is taking its on time and I do not think I will get the client letter to send it in time.
1) What are my options here? Not knowing what the RFE is, being told about the RFE with just 2 days remaining, can I threaten to take any legal action against my employer?
2) Is it my right to get a copy of the RFE?
3) How come the case status did not change on USCIS website?
My current visa expires on Nov 20th. Please advice ASAP!
sorry to say but your employer is useless. by playing around with your H1 petition he is messing around with your legal status in the US. Since he has already proven himself untrustworthy, I would suggest you move on asap: find another job and transfer your H1. Since you already have a client, should be easier to get a transfer done. Also, do the transfer with premium processing even if you have to pay $1k out of your own pocket.
P.S: H1 is his own petition, you are just the beneficiary. You dont have a right to see the RFE and he does not have an obligation to share information about it with you. Thats the legal part. morally and ethically the way he is acting sucks.
ivjobs
11-10 04:08 PM
Bumping just to facilitate people know about this group and if interested can join...
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/ivstartup/
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/ivstartup/
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
govindk
11-01 12:48 PM
I guess USCIS is counting 90 days from the notice date though USCIS website clearly state that the 90 days are from filing. I called USCIS several times and every time i got the answer that the system is not allowing them to file service request as 90 days are not completed.
My lawyers also replied and said that the USCIS is counting 90 days from notice date.
Service Center - NSC
Filed - July 26th
RD - July 27th
Notice Date - Aug 31st
FP - Oct 10th
LUD on 485 - Oct 18th
No LUD on AP/EAD yet.
My lawyers also replied and said that the USCIS is counting 90 days from notice date.
Service Center - NSC
Filed - July 26th
RD - July 27th
Notice Date - Aug 31st
FP - Oct 10th
LUD on 485 - Oct 18th
No LUD on AP/EAD yet.
gcformeornot
01-04 12:38 PM
^^^^^^^^^
No comments:
Post a Comment