akhilmahajan
05-01 07:32 PM
Thanks for the information..............
i always thought that it meant, that they are processing that day applications.
i always thought that it meant, that they are processing that day applications.
wallpaper osama bin laden dead proof.
ramesh10
06-15 07:20 PM
Franklin,
I had OPT in 2003 , so should i be using that A# and should i mention YES for question, have you ever applied for employment authorization with USCIS
in G325A,
should i need to mention my part time jobs i worked while on F1 visa (i did not mention anything during 140)
I had OPT in 2003 , so should i be using that A# and should i mention YES for question, have you ever applied for employment authorization with USCIS
in G325A,
should i need to mention my part time jobs i worked while on F1 visa (i did not mention anything during 140)
insbaby
11-21 11:07 PM
Similar Question:
I have not left the USA for the last 5 years. I have since extended my H1- thrice. So I have 3 new I-94's and the old one that is stapled in the passport. I-94 is taken at the airport when you depart, to record your departure and also to see if you were residing legally on a valid stay. Question: They always take the one stapled in your pasport. (That in my case shows an expired stay.) so should I give them the latest I-94 when I depart?.
You should take a copy of the I-797's and detach the portion of it and staple with the existing I-94. If you read the I-797 carefully, they mentioned it to put it in your passport, means, all I-94s must be handed over before you leave. Sometimes, you may have different I-94 numbers, so it is better to give all I-94's.
You can not do anything by retaining those I-94s after you leave, just take a copy and give them back.
BUT, make sure that it is in valid period. If you have got a new I-797, where the period has not started, DO NOT GIVE IT BACK, take it with you to the consulate. Give I-94's only up to the period you are leaving.
I have not left the USA for the last 5 years. I have since extended my H1- thrice. So I have 3 new I-94's and the old one that is stapled in the passport. I-94 is taken at the airport when you depart, to record your departure and also to see if you were residing legally on a valid stay. Question: They always take the one stapled in your pasport. (That in my case shows an expired stay.) so should I give them the latest I-94 when I depart?.
You should take a copy of the I-797's and detach the portion of it and staple with the existing I-94. If you read the I-797 carefully, they mentioned it to put it in your passport, means, all I-94s must be handed over before you leave. Sometimes, you may have different I-94 numbers, so it is better to give all I-94's.
You can not do anything by retaining those I-94s after you leave, just take a copy and give them back.
BUT, make sure that it is in valid period. If you have got a new I-797, where the period has not started, DO NOT GIVE IT BACK, take it with you to the consulate. Give I-94's only up to the period you are leaving.
2011 Bin Laden death proof – in
frostrated
09-23 01:28 PM
tell them she is in legal status, like that of a H4. also, you might say that she is not going to study as a full time student and therefore does not need a student visa. how many courses she takes up after getting admission is totally different.
more...
aniltatikonda
02-08 04:39 PM
This yr for H1B's whoever applies from more than one employer then his application will not be considered in the random pick.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=16188
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=16188
calaway42
10-04 01:18 AM
roger that :)
more...
chanduv23
07-30 09:36 AM
Pappu - it is defnitely pathetic that people have not been able to make best use of Ombudsman's calls.
But we have to accept reality. In general, from what I understand, Ombudsman calls are for common man and people who participate may not necessarily be an IV member or come to IV forums regularly or think in the way we think. Even if an IV member is on the call and is a regular visitor to forums and is wanting to do something collectively, he/she may want to deal with their case.
If IV is organizing the Ombudsman call and requests IV active members to utilize the opportunity in the best possible way - it is a different thing but that may also not help.
I do share your feelings but I guess it takes a lot lot lot of time to organize people to stand up for collective issues and collective resolutions rather than their oown individuial needs.
But we have to accept reality. In general, from what I understand, Ombudsman calls are for common man and people who participate may not necessarily be an IV member or come to IV forums regularly or think in the way we think. Even if an IV member is on the call and is a regular visitor to forums and is wanting to do something collectively, he/she may want to deal with their case.
If IV is organizing the Ombudsman call and requests IV active members to utilize the opportunity in the best possible way - it is a different thing but that may also not help.
I do share your feelings but I guess it takes a lot lot lot of time to organize people to stand up for collective issues and collective resolutions rather than their oown individuial needs.
2010 osama bin laden dead proof.
dwhuser
09-14 05:11 PM
Curious to see if there is any luck for spouse approvals in the September 2009 PD movement ?
more...
ghost
08-11 09:33 AM
Folks,
In our legal immigrant community, we have the following Groups (G) of people:
G1) Handful of leaders - folks who clearly understand that only legislative fixes and administrative fixes can provide realistic help
G2) Dozens of volunteers - who are willing to take that extra step and contribute time and effort for the sake of others
G3) Hundreds of donors, both regular or one-time - who trust IV leadership and commit to the cause without any qualms whatsoever
G4) Thousands of members - who try to understand the issues we are facing but do not have a realistic assessment of how bad things are
G5) Many more - who either are not bothered by this wait or who simply gave up on this process and became dormant of some sorts of their career
While the predictions thread provided some clarity and entertainment for EB2 folks, this September 2010 bulletin is a blessing in disguise for all of us.
Current state of our Members (M):
M1) We have recently greened EB2 folks (2005-2006 EB2 folks), who have a fresh memory of the painful wait
M2) We have folks who relied on predictions (May 2006 - Jul 2007 EB2 folks), who must be frustrated and disappointed with today's bulletin
M3) We have folks who were looking forward to Jul-Sep 2011 (Aug 2007 - Dec 2008 EB2 folks), who now realize that their wait is even longer than assumed
M4) We have EB-3 folks waiting forever and feeling that they are being neglected in IV advocacy efforts
Folks who are in M2/M3/M4 state above should take some time and contemplate the options they have between now and Sep 2011.
I can see three Options (O):
O1) "Wait and Watch" option:
This applies to folks who are either close to the PD being current or folks who are on EADs or folks who are happy with their current career state
O2) "You are on your own" option:
EB-3 folks - can try find a job where the employer is ready to start their EB-2 GC process within the next 6 months (make sure your current GC application has an approved 140)
EB-2 folks - can try find a job where the employer is ready to start their EB-1 GC process
O3) "We are in this together" option
All EB-2 and EB-3 folks sign up for a concerted effort where IV leadership is in the driver's seat.
Each one of us should be able to relate to one combination of Group/Member/Option (GMOs) from the above list. Personally I'm G3M3O3 and look forward to IV direction.
People who understand America realize that money talks and lobbying works in Washington. We are ready for lobbying in our own ways (emails, phone calls, advocacy days, etc.). Besides this personal lobbying, we need to crack through official channels of lobbyists using money.
This would require each of us to sign up for a 25 USD per month recurring donation for 1 year (read this as 1 dinner per month for couples and 2 dinners per month for singles). BTW, don't wait for others to eat their dinners before you eat yours. It is your money and it is your dinner, eat it for your own good!
You are entitled to the sense of ownership in formulating and executing IV Advocacy - lot's of good ideas out there - some of them can be achieved administratively!
You can cancel your recurring donations, if you succeed in Option 1 or if Congress passes CIR between now and Sep 2011 and that benefits you. Make sure you recruit another IV member before you leave or cancel IV membership. Trust me, this is not going to end any time soon!
Good luck to all of us!
In our legal immigrant community, we have the following Groups (G) of people:
G1) Handful of leaders - folks who clearly understand that only legislative fixes and administrative fixes can provide realistic help
G2) Dozens of volunteers - who are willing to take that extra step and contribute time and effort for the sake of others
G3) Hundreds of donors, both regular or one-time - who trust IV leadership and commit to the cause without any qualms whatsoever
G4) Thousands of members - who try to understand the issues we are facing but do not have a realistic assessment of how bad things are
G5) Many more - who either are not bothered by this wait or who simply gave up on this process and became dormant of some sorts of their career
While the predictions thread provided some clarity and entertainment for EB2 folks, this September 2010 bulletin is a blessing in disguise for all of us.
Current state of our Members (M):
M1) We have recently greened EB2 folks (2005-2006 EB2 folks), who have a fresh memory of the painful wait
M2) We have folks who relied on predictions (May 2006 - Jul 2007 EB2 folks), who must be frustrated and disappointed with today's bulletin
M3) We have folks who were looking forward to Jul-Sep 2011 (Aug 2007 - Dec 2008 EB2 folks), who now realize that their wait is even longer than assumed
M4) We have EB-3 folks waiting forever and feeling that they are being neglected in IV advocacy efforts
Folks who are in M2/M3/M4 state above should take some time and contemplate the options they have between now and Sep 2011.
I can see three Options (O):
O1) "Wait and Watch" option:
This applies to folks who are either close to the PD being current or folks who are on EADs or folks who are happy with their current career state
O2) "You are on your own" option:
EB-3 folks - can try find a job where the employer is ready to start their EB-2 GC process within the next 6 months (make sure your current GC application has an approved 140)
EB-2 folks - can try find a job where the employer is ready to start their EB-1 GC process
O3) "We are in this together" option
All EB-2 and EB-3 folks sign up for a concerted effort where IV leadership is in the driver's seat.
Each one of us should be able to relate to one combination of Group/Member/Option (GMOs) from the above list. Personally I'm G3M3O3 and look forward to IV direction.
People who understand America realize that money talks and lobbying works in Washington. We are ready for lobbying in our own ways (emails, phone calls, advocacy days, etc.). Besides this personal lobbying, we need to crack through official channels of lobbyists using money.
This would require each of us to sign up for a 25 USD per month recurring donation for 1 year (read this as 1 dinner per month for couples and 2 dinners per month for singles). BTW, don't wait for others to eat their dinners before you eat yours. It is your money and it is your dinner, eat it for your own good!
You are entitled to the sense of ownership in formulating and executing IV Advocacy - lot's of good ideas out there - some of them can be achieved administratively!
You can cancel your recurring donations, if you succeed in Option 1 or if Congress passes CIR between now and Sep 2011 and that benefits you. Make sure you recruit another IV member before you leave or cancel IV membership. Trust me, this is not going to end any time soon!
Good luck to all of us!
hair dead-2Osama-in-Laden-dead
ujjvalkoul
07-17 06:45 PM
contribute please.....
Those that are tearing up..u can call IV on the numbers mentioned..I just dd and congratulated the, on a job well done and pledged my contiuing support until all our oissues are resolved
Those that are tearing up..u can call IV on the numbers mentioned..I just dd and congratulated the, on a job well done and pledged my contiuing support until all our oissues are resolved
more...
vwu3
06-17 11:54 AM
I am an international student on an F1 student visa. Am I allowed to sell iPhone apps on the Apple app store (the US one)?
Thanks.
Thanks.
hot osama bin laden dead proof.
gcpool
08-30 09:16 AM
Advance parol was not taken and can we still use parole as a status.
Unknown is good but I was wondering if it would raise any red flags
Unknown is good but I was wondering if it would raise any red flags
more...
house Osama Bin Laden is dead proof
bkshres
10-07 03:47 PM
Actually, I took all my documents and initially I was issued Maryland driver's license then he saw this note and called his supervisor and his supervisor cancelled Maryland Driver's license and gave me back Ohio driver's license. May be its matter of whether someone looks your ohio driver's license carefully or not. but bottomline now, I am not able to get Maryland driver's license.
Should I goto different DMA? is it illegal if someone gave me Maryland license even though there is "non renewable/non transferable" written?
Should I goto different DMA? is it illegal if someone gave me Maryland license even though there is "non renewable/non transferable" written?
tattoo osama bin laden dead proof.
fcres
08-10 05:24 PM
There is an Indian guy who applied on June 1st and got approved.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=143709&postcount=2169
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=144063&postcount=2195
But the OP's approval doesn't make sense
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=143709&postcount=2169
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=144063&postcount=2195
But the OP's approval doesn't make sense
more...
pictures osama bin laden dead proof.
Dhundhun
11-21 05:27 PM
While I was travelling from India to USA, I was waiting at one of the airports in USA for my connection. An airlines staff asked for my passport and by mistake pulled away my
I-94 from from it.
The I-94 returns are automated. You may be out of US in records. Another reason to contact USCIS.
I-94 from from it.
The I-94 returns are automated. You may be out of US in records. Another reason to contact USCIS.
dresses Six killed Osama bin Laden
thomachan72
06-04 11:38 AM
Senate is planning to vote on THIS friday and I don't see any urgency or any heat(debate) on this topic. today they will strat debating at 2:30????
No, they said may be this Friday / next week.
No, they said may be this Friday / next week.
more...
makeup killed Osama bin Laden and
gapala
07-09 12:26 PM
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.
I am sure your employer knows about the rules around eligibility to work and will not allow any unauthorized to work even for a day past expiry date.
Hope you will get the Renewed EAD soon before expiry of old one.
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.
I am sure your employer knows about the rules around eligibility to work and will not allow any unauthorized to work even for a day past expiry date.
Hope you will get the Renewed EAD soon before expiry of old one.
girlfriend Osama bin Laden is dead.
pd052009
09-13 02:29 PM
1.Once the I-140 is approved, the PD is associated with you. If your new employer files new PERM and I-140, you can port your PD(no matter what your employer does with ur I-140).
2. If you port PD to same EB category, you won't save any time. Time saving mostly depend on EB category.
Hi,
I am on Eb-2+PERM and get my PERM and wait for I-140 to be approved (by premium processing). I have 2 questions:
1-If I my I-140 is approved but even though the PD (or visa number) is not available. If I left to a new employer can I port my PD when they then become available or if my employer revoke my I-140 I will also lose the chance or porting the PD to my new GC application (PERM + I-140) with the new employer?
2- How much time I could save by porting my PD? does it depend on country of origin?
Thanks.
2. If you port PD to same EB category, you won't save any time. Time saving mostly depend on EB category.
Hi,
I am on Eb-2+PERM and get my PERM and wait for I-140 to be approved (by premium processing). I have 2 questions:
1-If I my I-140 is approved but even though the PD (or visa number) is not available. If I left to a new employer can I port my PD when they then become available or if my employer revoke my I-140 I will also lose the chance or porting the PD to my new GC application (PERM + I-140) with the new employer?
2- How much time I could save by porting my PD? does it depend on country of origin?
Thanks.
hairstyles Photo Proves Bin Laden Is Dead
gjoe
08-20 07:01 PM
I am opening this thread to bring focus to the real issues at hand and how to channel our energy (frustation) effectively for seeing postive results
Primary Issue - In my opinion most of us are frustated not because our GC is being delayed. But we are frustated because we have no concrete information/data/stastics to reliably predict when our pending case will be up for review.
How are we trying to resolve the issue?
Currently we come here express our ideas on how to get bills passed, discuss solutions to fix the problems, organize campaigns, rallies, send flowers, etc,.
Why we don't see much success with our current approach?
Organzing a huge rally is not easy, making 25000 people send letters is not easy, organising 200 people to send flowers is not easy. We are unable to get our message across to the correct authoratives.
So what can we do?
As we all know most of call USCIS for status. And also we know USCIS has a limited number of customer service agents.
I would suggest that we all call USCIS every month 3rd week from mon -friday and just ask for our case status and other things what generally our members ask. We should do this every month 3rd week. The goal is to increase the call volume.
We can all call DOS starting 10th of every month to check about the visa bulletin until it is published. We can ask them for projections, predictions and all that you can think of with respect to visa bulletin. - The goal is to increase the call volume
We should be polite during all our phone conversation with the agents.
What do we get by increasing the call volume?
All customer support call centers gather information on the type of support calls they receive. They use this information to address issues to reduce the call volume.
To address the issue USCIS and DOS should try to give out more relevant information in their visa bulletins and also give more information in the case status online.
What can we do with more information from USCIS and DOS?
We can plan for our future better, since we have better information.
IV can focus on real issues when we have the accurate information.
We will have better information while we ask for reforms in the EB GC system.
We will have less frustation because we have a clearer idea when to expect our pending case to become active
Please feel free to comment also participate in the poll
Primary Issue - In my opinion most of us are frustated not because our GC is being delayed. But we are frustated because we have no concrete information/data/stastics to reliably predict when our pending case will be up for review.
How are we trying to resolve the issue?
Currently we come here express our ideas on how to get bills passed, discuss solutions to fix the problems, organize campaigns, rallies, send flowers, etc,.
Why we don't see much success with our current approach?
Organzing a huge rally is not easy, making 25000 people send letters is not easy, organising 200 people to send flowers is not easy. We are unable to get our message across to the correct authoratives.
So what can we do?
As we all know most of call USCIS for status. And also we know USCIS has a limited number of customer service agents.
I would suggest that we all call USCIS every month 3rd week from mon -friday and just ask for our case status and other things what generally our members ask. We should do this every month 3rd week. The goal is to increase the call volume.
We can all call DOS starting 10th of every month to check about the visa bulletin until it is published. We can ask them for projections, predictions and all that you can think of with respect to visa bulletin. - The goal is to increase the call volume
We should be polite during all our phone conversation with the agents.
What do we get by increasing the call volume?
All customer support call centers gather information on the type of support calls they receive. They use this information to address issues to reduce the call volume.
To address the issue USCIS and DOS should try to give out more relevant information in their visa bulletins and also give more information in the case status online.
What can we do with more information from USCIS and DOS?
We can plan for our future better, since we have better information.
IV can focus on real issues when we have the accurate information.
We will have better information while we ask for reforms in the EB GC system.
We will have less frustation because we have a clearer idea when to expect our pending case to become active
Please feel free to comment also participate in the poll
venram
12-26 12:17 PM
Hello all,
not sure if this topic has been touched before; if we have a i-485 application filed; do we qualify as:
1) non-permanent resident aliens
OR
2) non-resident aliens?
thanks
I suppose you are living in USA.
On the second option "non-resident alien", if you are residing in USA, then you are not considered as non-resident. So I would eliminate this option.
On the first option "non-permanent resident alien", if you are residing in USA, I would choose this as the right option. Since holding an H1B means that you are a temporary (non-permanent) resident alien. Holding an EAD does not allow you to stay here permanently. It is only a temporary authorization to allow you to work without H1B. Remember that it requires renewal every year.
To answer your question, you are a non-permanent resident alien.
not sure if this topic has been touched before; if we have a i-485 application filed; do we qualify as:
1) non-permanent resident aliens
OR
2) non-resident aliens?
thanks
I suppose you are living in USA.
On the second option "non-resident alien", if you are residing in USA, then you are not considered as non-resident. So I would eliminate this option.
On the first option "non-permanent resident alien", if you are residing in USA, I would choose this as the right option. Since holding an H1B means that you are a temporary (non-permanent) resident alien. Holding an EAD does not allow you to stay here permanently. It is only a temporary authorization to allow you to work without H1B. Remember that it requires renewal every year.
To answer your question, you are a non-permanent resident alien.
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.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire