little_willy
08-08 06:07 PM
Did you try getting this info from IV tracker?
wallpaper Terminator 2: Judgment Day
wandmaker
03-26 01:19 AM
My employer had mentioned a salary of 87,000$ in my labor.
Other folks have given the answers to your question. Just to summarize, as long as your current salary is >= H1B LCA you are fine and GC LCA rate applies only after you get GC. Till then chill out and BTW - Lighter note, If you are moving to similar or same job with another employer and invoking AC21, make sure you are getting paid greater than or equal to 87K/Year. Thats my two cents.
Other folks have given the answers to your question. Just to summarize, as long as your current salary is >= H1B LCA you are fine and GC LCA rate applies only after you get GC. Till then chill out and BTW - Lighter note, If you are moving to similar or same job with another employer and invoking AC21, make sure you are getting paid greater than or equal to 87K/Year. Thats my two cents.
eucalyptus.mp
02-17 08:46 PM
Do I need recent salary slips for transfer ?
2011 Terminator 2: Judgment Day
.jpeg "Terminator 2: Judgment Day")
bestofall
07-28 04:28 PM
How to Participate
To participate in these calls, please RSVP to cisombudsman.publicaffairs@dhs.gov specifying which call you would like to join. Participants will receive a return email with the call-in information.
New procedures:
To ensure your participation, we encourage you to RSVP 48 hours before the call.
Please send us your questions and issues related to the teleconference topics ahead of the call.
If you are unable to participate in these calls, please visit our website at www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman for upcoming teleconference dates. Also, if you have a topic of interest for a future call, please send it to cisombudsman.publicaffairs@dhs.gov.
To participate in these calls, please RSVP to cisombudsman.publicaffairs@dhs.gov specifying which call you would like to join. Participants will receive a return email with the call-in information.
New procedures:
To ensure your participation, we encourage you to RSVP 48 hours before the call.
Please send us your questions and issues related to the teleconference topics ahead of the call.
If you are unable to participate in these calls, please visit our website at www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman for upcoming teleconference dates. Also, if you have a topic of interest for a future call, please send it to cisombudsman.publicaffairs@dhs.gov.
more...
Blog Feeds
04-28 08:40 AM
Utah, a state that already has tough immigration laws, is considering following Arizona off the cliff.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/04/utah-considering-arizonastyle-immigration-law.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/04/utah-considering-arizonastyle-immigration-law.html)
locomotive36
11-16 11:01 AM
^^^bump^^^
more...
a_yaja
07-25 01:41 PM
dont confuse dated dob cert with the registration date...as long as the dob cert has the registraation date within 3 years or less, i believe, then u r ok...
It should be one year or less. That is what my lawyer told me. If the registration date is more than one year after birth, then an affidavit is required.
It should be one year or less. That is what my lawyer told me. If the registration date is more than one year after birth, then an affidavit is required.
2010 Terminator 2 Judgment Day 1991
.jpg "Terminator 2: Judgment Day")
singhsa3
09-05 07:31 PM
Come on people, we are less than 2 weeks away from our destiny.
All you have to do is to rise from your daily chores, just for one day and help make this event successful.
All you have to do is to rise from your daily chores, just for one day and help make this event successful.
more...
aamchimumbai
08-05 10:03 PM
it was pending..pls check the PM I sent you.
Thanks for your PM. Is it possible for you to provide additional details so that I can analyze your situation vs. mine.
I sent my I-485 application thrice to NSC and they returned my package. Although, the response rejecting my application was received from TSC, how funny!!
Anyways. I am hoping for dates to move forward in both category in Sep08 bulletin.
Thanks for your PM. Is it possible for you to provide additional details so that I can analyze your situation vs. mine.
I sent my I-485 application thrice to NSC and they returned my package. Although, the response rejecting my application was received from TSC, how funny!!
Anyways. I am hoping for dates to move forward in both category in Sep08 bulletin.
hair Terminator 2: Judgment Day
gc_kaavaali
06-28 05:05 PM
Read carefully. It says 'However, there is an exception for people in H, L, K or V'. You are not on H1 right. That condition won't applicable for you.
Read the link Immigration: EAD and AP (http://immigrationroad.com/green-card/ead-ap.php), especially the advance parole section.
"However, there is an exception for people in H, L, K or V status: you may return to the US using either an AP or a valid visa (H1, H4, L1 or L2), and it won't jeopardize your AOS application."
Read the link Immigration: EAD and AP (http://immigrationroad.com/green-card/ead-ap.php), especially the advance parole section.
"However, there is an exception for people in H, L, K or V status: you may return to the US using either an AP or a valid visa (H1, H4, L1 or L2), and it won't jeopardize your AOS application."
more...
gcpadmavyuh
09-23 12:24 PM
An H1/ H4 was in their list. But my Wife used her EAD and is no mor eon H4. They advised her to apply for F-1, which I dont think is an option (the F-1 application will be rejected anyways, because of the already demonstrated immigration intent).
Did you ask them what are those acceptable documents?
Did you ask them what are those acceptable documents?
hot Terminator 2: Judgment Day
pragir
12-11 01:57 PM
Mohit, when you invoke AC21 your job profile needs to be same as that listed on the job description on your LC. As long as your new company is willing to declare that your new job profile matches the one on your LC, you should be ok.
I am not a lawyer, please consult one.
I am not a lawyer, please consult one.
more...
house Terminator 2 Judgment Day
ImmiLosers
09-25 05:25 PM
That is not true. Unless the second I-140 was filed(the EB2) requesting to use the earlier priority date, I dont think they will accept the Eb2 application with the Eb3 priority date
They did for me...
They did for me...
tattoo The Terminator 2 : Judgment
pragir
06-09 01:08 PM
His PD is sep 2003 which became current in April.. so it took him just over 2 months to get final approval.
Congratulations. How long did it take since your PD became current till you got the card production ordered email?.
Congratulations. How long did it take since your PD became current till you got the card production ordered email?.
more...
pictures Terminator 2: Judgment Day
cjain
07-23 04:03 PM
^^^^
dresses Terminator 2: Judgment Day
sweet_jungle
10-09 03:54 AM
So does CA....
situation is quite different from CA. True, for first time driver's license, you have to show legal status proof. But, you are issued license for 4 years, irrespective of when your current status expires.
For DL renewal in CA, it happens by mail. You once again get 4 year license. No status proof required.
There is definitely no concept of different form of DL in CA where an officer will be able to receogize from the DL, whether is PR or not, as has become the law in Texas.
CA is quite cool with respect to DL renewals.
situation is quite different from CA. True, for first time driver's license, you have to show legal status proof. But, you are issued license for 4 years, irrespective of when your current status expires.
For DL renewal in CA, it happens by mail. You once again get 4 year license. No status proof required.
There is definitely no concept of different form of DL in CA where an officer will be able to receogize from the DL, whether is PR or not, as has become the law in Texas.
CA is quite cool with respect to DL renewals.
more...
makeup Buy Terminator 2: Judgment Day
nj_03_2004
07-26 02:36 PM
I think if it is voted then it will pass. It also has Senator Chuck Schumer�s (D-NY) amendment (2448) provision.
It should get more Democrat votes this time.
It should get more Democrat votes this time.
girlfriend Terminator 2: Judgment Day
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS 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.
hairstyles OST Terminator 2: Judgment Day
cin45220
01-26 04:45 PM
u are a rasam drinking gulty, right?
:eek:
check your facts again. racism is considered sexy these days ;)
If you think that racism is sexy, then it's just because you are a racist bigot. Start loving in 21st century...
With a comment like the above one, it shows that all your parent's investment (and yours) for your education has been a total waste. Hope that you are not teaching you kids that 'racism is sexy'..
-CinBoy
:eek:
check your facts again. racism is considered sexy these days ;)
If you think that racism is sexy, then it's just because you are a racist bigot. Start loving in 21st century...
With a comment like the above one, it shows that all your parent's investment (and yours) for your education has been a total waste. Hope that you are not teaching you kids that 'racism is sexy'..
-CinBoy
arunmohan
08-08 06:20 PM
Group:
Please vote this poll. I am ready to any kind of support. We have to do something for EB3.
Please vote this poll. I am ready to any kind of support. We have to do something for EB3.
overseas
09-10 03:44 PM
Thanks for sharing this info.
Tomorrow I've Infopass at the same Lawrence office. Yes even I've to drive around 50 miles to that sh...town.
Will post my experience tomorrow afternoon.
Tomorrow I've Infopass at the same Lawrence office. Yes even I've to drive around 50 miles to that sh...town.
Will post my experience tomorrow afternoon.
No comments:
Post a Comment