liorsal
01-13 05:36 PM
does anyone know if uscis need a law to pass in the congress to change the law on the i-485, or thy can decide to change it?
wallpaper jennifer lopez love cover
Sachin_Stock
09-18 10:29 AM
Healthcare reforms and their covering of "illegal aliens" in question.
Both are non-issue in this forum!
Both are non-issue in this forum!
OLDMONK
06-15 02:52 PM
Initially I thought its the number on I-94, but apparantly not. This is required to be filled on almost all forms which are required to be filed now that the dates are current. I485, 131, 765 etc.
Is this the number which is on my approved I-140 (A099 XXX XXX) ?
Is this the number which is on my approved I-140 (A099 XXX XXX) ?
2011 Artist: Jennifer Lopez
LostInGCProcess
06-17 04:04 PM
Hello,
While I understand that there is legal limit on number of times AC21 can be invoked assuming it for similar job transfer, but I was wondering if some one on this forum has changed job multiple times after 180 days of 485 filing.
My husband recently changed companies for same job profile after 180 days of filing 485 and having I140 approved, but now job is not what he initially expected (in fact lot different in terms of work and responsibility) , so he is now on lookout for another change in same profile.
His title in both jobs is Sr Software Engineer.
He is the primary applicant, and has 3 three years of H1-B extension. Is there any chances for RFE? His lawyer at current company did send AC21 letter to USCIS.
Also, my understanding is that: AC 21 need not be "INVOKED". Its "AUTOMATIC"...its a law, in place. I have seen so many threads here using the wrong terminology when it comes to AC 21. It is absolutely not necessary to (so called) "invoke" AC21. When you move to a different place you have to file AR-11 form and send it to USCIS...thats all you got to do. AC21 is automatically take care of.
Just my 1 cent :D
*Disclaimer*
I am not an attorney. Please take advice from an attorney. :cool:
While I understand that there is legal limit on number of times AC21 can be invoked assuming it for similar job transfer, but I was wondering if some one on this forum has changed job multiple times after 180 days of 485 filing.
My husband recently changed companies for same job profile after 180 days of filing 485 and having I140 approved, but now job is not what he initially expected (in fact lot different in terms of work and responsibility) , so he is now on lookout for another change in same profile.
His title in both jobs is Sr Software Engineer.
He is the primary applicant, and has 3 three years of H1-B extension. Is there any chances for RFE? His lawyer at current company did send AC21 letter to USCIS.
Also, my understanding is that: AC 21 need not be "INVOKED". Its "AUTOMATIC"...its a law, in place. I have seen so many threads here using the wrong terminology when it comes to AC 21. It is absolutely not necessary to (so called) "invoke" AC21. When you move to a different place you have to file AR-11 form and send it to USCIS...thats all you got to do. AC21 is automatically take care of.
Just my 1 cent :D
*Disclaimer*
I am not an attorney. Please take advice from an attorney. :cool:
more...
sanju
08-02 01:30 PM
People have started using IV forums to report any issue with customer service. Guys, grow-up, participate in IV activity rather than screwing the effort of few good people. I am sure that people who posted on this thread about DHL/UPS/FedEx are not going to show up at the DC rally. Why are you guys wasting the bandwidth and at the same time killing your time? Wish you all the luck in finding something better to do.
peer123
04-17 09:59 AM
How did you find what job code your labor was applied for?
it is on the approved labor certificate, that my lawyer gave me
it is on the approved labor certificate, that my lawyer gave me
more...
NNReddy
08-26 02:30 PM
My friend's wife got a job. company didn't ask for ead card so far. she filed the employment applicaiton where they asked her if she is a citizen or green card, she filled everything correct, they made an offer and did the background check, she is supposed to start in 2 weeks.
Question, does she need to disclose about EAD now or wait until start give the information while filling I-9 Form. Does employeer right to not hire people on EAD?
Please clarify.
Question, does she need to disclose about EAD now or wait until start give the information while filling I-9 Form. Does employeer right to not hire people on EAD?
Please clarify.
2010 Here is the album cover for
gparr
July 26th, 2005, 04:20 PM
Well, you got me started on something new Gary.... Since I don't shoot in raw format, I have never processed RAW before in photoshop, so I had to first download the most recent version of the raw plug-in.... and what fun! But since I have never played with it before, I'm still experimenting. Thanks! You've opened up a whole new world for me! :)
Always glad to help you expand your horizons, Queen. Anxious to see your version of my image.
Gary
Always glad to help you expand your horizons, Queen. Anxious to see your version of my image.
Gary
more...
indianabacklog
10-31 07:20 AM
My EAD is pending for more than 90 days now.My received date is 27th July and Notice date is 31st Aug. I called USCIS and told that my application is pending for more than 90 days. The Level 1 officer acknowledged the fact and escalated the call to Level 2. The level 2 IO was very rude and simply deny to accept the fact that 90 days are over. She simply said that the USCIS is counting 90 days from the notice date not the received date. I told her that It is mentioned on the USCIS website that 90 days are from the received date. The IO officer scolded at me and said if I don't believe her words, then do not call USCIS.:mad:
I guess there is no point calling USCIS and checking status on EAD. I am hoping that the situation will improve and i will soon get EAD card.
If you want to try to speed this up, go online, make an infopass appointment at your local office and have them send an email or fax on your behalf.
I am not excusing the IO's right now but can you imagine the amount of calls they have had to endure since the July fiasco and the mounds of applications that they are having to deal with through no fault of their own.
I guess there is no point calling USCIS and checking status on EAD. I am hoping that the situation will improve and i will soon get EAD card.
If you want to try to speed this up, go online, make an infopass appointment at your local office and have them send an email or fax on your behalf.
I am not excusing the IO's right now but can you imagine the amount of calls they have had to endure since the July fiasco and the mounds of applications that they are having to deal with through no fault of their own.
hair Jennifer Lopez Ft. Lil Wayne
shana04
08-14 03:49 PM
Is that so?? Am I really required to wait like this months/years long if it takes that long for my employer to settle his matter with vendor?? Can an employer actually follow these kind of practice? Please provide your experienced advises.
Also kindly let me know how can I proceed if I want to file a DOL complaint?
No you don't have to wait. find new employer and file a case on your employer.
According to H1, no matter he has to pay you.
Ultimately he can recover money from vendor, but he is deniying pay to you.
other frineds have suggested so just follow them.
good luck. I know the pain. sorry for you.
Also kindly let me know how can I proceed if I want to file a DOL complaint?
No you don't have to wait. find new employer and file a case on your employer.
According to H1, no matter he has to pay you.
Ultimately he can recover money from vendor, but he is deniying pay to you.
other frineds have suggested so just follow them.
good luck. I know the pain. sorry for you.
more...
wantgc23
04-28 06:07 PM
According to my lawyer, you can travel up until the last date on the stamp as long as you have a new 797.
Please check with your own lawyer who would be familiar with your particular case for the best advice
Please check with your own lawyer who would be familiar with your particular case for the best advice
hot Jennifer Lopez is on album
pd_recapturing
08-24 02:49 PM
I did exactly the same thing. I had a EB3 May 2004 I-140 approved and I applied 485 with this. during the first quarter of this year, I applied a new labor in EB2 and got it approved in 2 months. I applied I-140 EB2 in premium on 29th June and got it approved. Now my lawyer is going to interfile this new I-140 with my existing pending 485.
First of all, dont worry with your old 140 while applying new one. They would not touch your old 140. The only issue right now is that there is no PP of 140 so you might need to wait up to one year to see 140 approved and that might kill the purpose.Just pray that they start PP soon.
First of all, dont worry with your old 140 while applying new one. They would not touch your old 140. The only issue right now is that there is no PP of 140 so you might need to wait up to one year to see 140 approved and that might kill the purpose.Just pray that they start PP soon.
more...
house “American Idol” judge Jennifer
Lasantha
03-24 03:17 PM
LOL - Yeah, you better grow a beard, cross the border and move to Mexico. You have been identified as a bad boy in these parts! :cool:
I am exposed now.
I am exposed now.
tattoo jennifer lopez love cover.
aarbi
08-01 10:43 PM
These are applications entered into the system on August 1st, not the ones received on August 1st.
i guess they are already issuing receipt number for I485 received aug. 1, 2007. so where is mine????
Receipt Number: lin07223500XX
Application Type: I485, APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
Current Status: Case received and pending.
On August 1, 2007, we received this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS, and mailed you a notice describing how we will process your case. Please follow any instructions on this notice. We will notify you by mail when we make a decision or if we need something from you. If you move while this case is pending, call customer service. We process cases in the order we receive them. You can use our processing dates to estimate when yours will be done. This case is at our NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER location. Follow the link below to check processing dates. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the link below to register.
EAD:
Receipt Number: lin0722353XXX
Application Type: I765, APPLICATION FOR EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZATION
Current Status: Case received and pending.
On August 1, 2007, we received this I765 APPLICATION FOR EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZATION, and mailed you a notice describing how we will process your case. Please follow any instructions on this notice. We will notify you by mail when we make a decision or if we need something from you. If you move while this case is pending, call customer service. We process cases in the order we receive them. You can use our processing dates to estimate when yours will be done. This case is at our NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER location. Follow the link below to check processing dates. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the link below to register.
i guess they are already issuing receipt number for I485 received aug. 1, 2007. so where is mine????
Receipt Number: lin07223500XX
Application Type: I485, APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
Current Status: Case received and pending.
On August 1, 2007, we received this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS, and mailed you a notice describing how we will process your case. Please follow any instructions on this notice. We will notify you by mail when we make a decision or if we need something from you. If you move while this case is pending, call customer service. We process cases in the order we receive them. You can use our processing dates to estimate when yours will be done. This case is at our NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER location. Follow the link below to check processing dates. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the link below to register.
EAD:
Receipt Number: lin0722353XXX
Application Type: I765, APPLICATION FOR EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZATION
Current Status: Case received and pending.
On August 1, 2007, we received this I765 APPLICATION FOR EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZATION, and mailed you a notice describing how we will process your case. Please follow any instructions on this notice. We will notify you by mail when we make a decision or if we need something from you. If you move while this case is pending, call customer service. We process cases in the order we receive them. You can use our processing dates to estimate when yours will be done. This case is at our NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER location. Follow the link below to check processing dates. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the link below to register.
more...
pictures Jennifer Lopez Love Album
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.
dresses lopez love album cover
gcformeornot
12-31 01:46 PM
logged in this time. Can you do few more clicks and vote...... please....
more...
makeup jennifer lopez love album
desi3933
09-17 09:09 AM
.....
4. Second I-140 Filed - 01/2008 based on my original PERM LC.
5. Second I-140 - Approved - 02/2008
........
Your lawyer is right. Since you have an active and approved I-140, your I-485 can NOT be denied. Even if it is denied by mistake, it can be re-opened by MTR.
You should relax, in other words.
That is the advantage of having multiple immigrant petitions (one or more combination of I-140 and I-130).
Good Luck to you.
*** Not a legal advise ***
4. Second I-140 Filed - 01/2008 based on my original PERM LC.
5. Second I-140 - Approved - 02/2008
........
Your lawyer is right. Since you have an active and approved I-140, your I-485 can NOT be denied. Even if it is denied by mistake, it can be re-opened by MTR.
You should relax, in other words.
That is the advantage of having multiple immigrant petitions (one or more combination of I-140 and I-130).
Good Luck to you.
*** Not a legal advise ***
girlfriend Artist: Jennifer Lopez
leonqiu
06-14 09:06 PM
What do you mean by AP and EAD delayed? Once you have applied for your 485 and all things considered OK, you should get your AP and EAD. If dates retrogress again, you will have to keep renewing your AP and EAD till you get your GC. How long it will take to get AP and EAD? Right now, I believe it will take a lot longer, maybe upto 6 months given the load of apps. they will receive.
looks like the sooner you submit the package, the better !!! even if I don't harbor any hope to get my GC before mid-2008.
Status:
PD: May 2006
I-140 approved.
EB-2
looks like the sooner you submit the package, the better !!! even if I don't harbor any hope to get my GC before mid-2008.
Status:
PD: May 2006
I-140 approved.
EB-2
hairstyles Jennifer Lopez#39;s “Love?” Cover
RSM1444
08-06 12:54 PM
looks interesting.
BornConfused
07-03 09:47 AM
Ha, congratulations to you, I'm happy for you!!
sudhirvallam
10-24 06:39 PM
The below memo from USCIS clearly states that your H1B will be valid if you use EAD for secondary job.
2. If an H-1 or L-1 nonimmigrant or H-4 or L-2 dependent family member obtains an EAD based on their application for adjustment of status but does not use it to obtain employment, is the alien still maintaining his/her nonimmigrant status?
Yes. The fact that an H or L nonimmigrant is granted an EAD does not cause the alien to violate his/her nonimmigrant status. There may be legitimate reasons for an H or L nonimmigrant to apply for an EAD on the basis of a pending application for adjustment of status. However, an H-I or L-1 nonimmigrant will violate his/her nonimmigrant status if s/he uses the EAD to leave the employer listed on the approved 1-129 petition and engage in employment for a separate employer.
Amended INS Memo on H/Ls Traveling on Advance Parole, U.S. Immigration, Law Offices of Carl Shusterman (http://shusterman.com/handlvisas-travelingonadvanceparole.html)
2. If an H-1 or L-1 nonimmigrant or H-4 or L-2 dependent family member obtains an EAD based on their application for adjustment of status but does not use it to obtain employment, is the alien still maintaining his/her nonimmigrant status?
Yes. The fact that an H or L nonimmigrant is granted an EAD does not cause the alien to violate his/her nonimmigrant status. There may be legitimate reasons for an H or L nonimmigrant to apply for an EAD on the basis of a pending application for adjustment of status. However, an H-I or L-1 nonimmigrant will violate his/her nonimmigrant status if s/he uses the EAD to leave the employer listed on the approved 1-129 petition and engage in employment for a separate employer.
Amended INS Memo on H/Ls Traveling on Advance Parole, U.S. Immigration, Law Offices of Carl Shusterman (http://shusterman.com/handlvisas-travelingonadvanceparole.html)
No comments:
Post a Comment