WaldenPond
06-30 05:45 PM
Hello baleraosreedhar,
FOIA application takes not more than 10-15 days in few states. Anybody could easily get a copy of labor certification from the Department of Labor of the state in which it was filed. The process is generally very simple and is free. I would suggest most people should file for FOIA and get a complete copy of their labor certification documents even if it is approved. You never know when you may need it.
For I-140 also one could file FOIA. But it is best for you to file FOIA with USCIS through an attorney. You only need a copy of the approval notice of
I-140. If you know the tracking number, it would be very easy to file FOIA. But as I said, it would be best to ask an immigration attorney when filing FOIA application with USCIS. Or you may use the services of private company like www.foia.com to have a professional file and handle your application for pretty cheap (around $100).
There is no benefit of going into the argument with your employer about the right or ownership to Labor certification, I-140 or I-485 documents. If you have a copy of your ETA-750 (know the description in ETA-750 form) and copy of approval notice of I-140, you could easily change jobs after six months of filing I-485. And that seems to be the fear of your current employer.
If you may consider changing employer after filing 485, then no need to argue with the employer. It will just spoil the environment for the time you are there. Simply file FOIA and do what is best for you and your family.
Just my 2 cents. Hope this is useful.
WaldenPond
Hi Gurus,
I have a question regarding the Labour and I 140, I have joined company A with a promise of approved labour.
My company has filed for my I140 and it got approved.
I have asked for a copy of my Labour and I 140, the company representative says, these documents are Employer Centric, so they cannot give me those documents.
I am really shocked to hear this, As these documents are related to my GC, I thought they should be with me,or alteast a copy of it, but that i snto the case.
I would like to know if any of you guys had faced this problem, or is the reason given by the representative a genuine one.
Thanks
FOIA application takes not more than 10-15 days in few states. Anybody could easily get a copy of labor certification from the Department of Labor of the state in which it was filed. The process is generally very simple and is free. I would suggest most people should file for FOIA and get a complete copy of their labor certification documents even if it is approved. You never know when you may need it.
For I-140 also one could file FOIA. But it is best for you to file FOIA with USCIS through an attorney. You only need a copy of the approval notice of
I-140. If you know the tracking number, it would be very easy to file FOIA. But as I said, it would be best to ask an immigration attorney when filing FOIA application with USCIS. Or you may use the services of private company like www.foia.com to have a professional file and handle your application for pretty cheap (around $100).
There is no benefit of going into the argument with your employer about the right or ownership to Labor certification, I-140 or I-485 documents. If you have a copy of your ETA-750 (know the description in ETA-750 form) and copy of approval notice of I-140, you could easily change jobs after six months of filing I-485. And that seems to be the fear of your current employer.
If you may consider changing employer after filing 485, then no need to argue with the employer. It will just spoil the environment for the time you are there. Simply file FOIA and do what is best for you and your family.
Just my 2 cents. Hope this is useful.
WaldenPond
Hi Gurus,
I have a question regarding the Labour and I 140, I have joined company A with a promise of approved labour.
My company has filed for my I140 and it got approved.
I have asked for a copy of my Labour and I 140, the company representative says, these documents are Employer Centric, so they cannot give me those documents.
I am really shocked to hear this, As these documents are related to my GC, I thought they should be with me,or alteast a copy of it, but that i snto the case.
I would like to know if any of you guys had faced this problem, or is the reason given by the representative a genuine one.
Thanks
wallpaper quot;Celebrity Apprentice 3quot; exec
India_USA
01-31 09:18 AM
By jumping ahead with high-skilled immigrants of course! =D
Great press release IV, great to see IV getting out there. Now it's time to knock on some doors in our local districts.
Couldn't agree more!
Great press release IV, great to see IV getting out there. Now it's time to knock on some doors in our local districts.
Couldn't agree more!
raju_abc
07-22 11:45 AM
Hi Thanks for your inputs.
But both the employers are consultant.
One is in Fremont CA and other in Pittsburg. Both are offering almost same salary.
So which should be an better option, if they have a similar better client list?
But both the employers are consultant.
One is in Fremont CA and other in Pittsburg. Both are offering almost same salary.
So which should be an better option, if they have a similar better client list?
2011 Curtis Stone, Bill Goldberg, Darryl Strawberry, Summer Sanders, Seli.
insbaby
07-17 08:02 AM
Hello freinds :
I would appreciate if anyone can guide me through the situation I am in. I have been working for a company for past 4yrs. After the July bulletin was released on June 15, my employer has stopped responding to my emails, voicemails and registered mails by normal post. When I try to reach him on the telephone his voicemail message says that he is travelling and not to leave any voicemail messages but to email him and he will respond when he gets a chance. When I email him I get an out of office response. There are two other people working in the same company. I sent emails to these people and also left voicemail messages but they are also not responding.
This has put me in a very difficult situation as I dont know what is the status of my H1B application which expired recently. They were supposed to extend it. They are also not telling me the status of I140 application. My labor PD is June 2004. I would like to file the I485 application if USCIS reverses their decision.
Has anyone been throught the same or similar situation ?
This is my third employer and third GC attempt in the 11yrs I have been in this country.
Buddy, I am sorry for your situatiuon. It looks like you thought everything is employer's responsibility. They don't move even a small piece for you unless you follow up in time.
You said, your H1B expired recently (!!!!). You must have known that the H1B petition can be filed for extension 180 days before. Also, you must have read that how much time each procession center takes for this extension of H1B (min 6 months). In such case, did you ask the employer to extend the H1B in FEBRUARY? If they have applied, then they should have got an "Recepit Notice", which makes your stay VALID. If they have received something else, they should have let you know, because "IT CREATES BIG PROBLEM FOR THEM TO KEEP SOMEONE with H1B EXPIRED". So, it looks like, your petition went ok and your are now SAFE.
If you have given pressure to your employer the day before the H1B expires, (sorry to say this) it is your problem, not theirs. Their job is not looking at your expiration of H1B, it is your. This often happens in small companies, big companies usually have HRD, who takes care of this issues in time.
On I-140 approval: If I assume your company is fairly small, then you can not avoid interacting with the lawer while filing such things. (Usually there is not anyone doing this job, but you do, sending documents, confirmations to lawer). In such case, CALL THE LAWER for the status or your petition reference number to check online.
It is very uncommon a lawer is instructed by the company not to provide information, it makes the small companies life easy if you deal directly with the lawer.
So there are ways to solve the problem in time without bugging the Employer with no ears. Move fast and file your 485 before end of july !!!!! :cool:
I would appreciate if anyone can guide me through the situation I am in. I have been working for a company for past 4yrs. After the July bulletin was released on June 15, my employer has stopped responding to my emails, voicemails and registered mails by normal post. When I try to reach him on the telephone his voicemail message says that he is travelling and not to leave any voicemail messages but to email him and he will respond when he gets a chance. When I email him I get an out of office response. There are two other people working in the same company. I sent emails to these people and also left voicemail messages but they are also not responding.
This has put me in a very difficult situation as I dont know what is the status of my H1B application which expired recently. They were supposed to extend it. They are also not telling me the status of I140 application. My labor PD is June 2004. I would like to file the I485 application if USCIS reverses their decision.
Has anyone been throught the same or similar situation ?
This is my third employer and third GC attempt in the 11yrs I have been in this country.
Buddy, I am sorry for your situatiuon. It looks like you thought everything is employer's responsibility. They don't move even a small piece for you unless you follow up in time.
You said, your H1B expired recently (!!!!). You must have known that the H1B petition can be filed for extension 180 days before. Also, you must have read that how much time each procession center takes for this extension of H1B (min 6 months). In such case, did you ask the employer to extend the H1B in FEBRUARY? If they have applied, then they should have got an "Recepit Notice", which makes your stay VALID. If they have received something else, they should have let you know, because "IT CREATES BIG PROBLEM FOR THEM TO KEEP SOMEONE with H1B EXPIRED". So, it looks like, your petition went ok and your are now SAFE.
If you have given pressure to your employer the day before the H1B expires, (sorry to say this) it is your problem, not theirs. Their job is not looking at your expiration of H1B, it is your. This often happens in small companies, big companies usually have HRD, who takes care of this issues in time.
On I-140 approval: If I assume your company is fairly small, then you can not avoid interacting with the lawer while filing such things. (Usually there is not anyone doing this job, but you do, sending documents, confirmations to lawer). In such case, CALL THE LAWER for the status or your petition reference number to check online.
It is very uncommon a lawer is instructed by the company not to provide information, it makes the small companies life easy if you deal directly with the lawer.
So there are ways to solve the problem in time without bugging the Employer with no ears. Move fast and file your 485 before end of july !!!!! :cool:
more...
rahul98
07-17 07:07 PM
Great job IV..I am proud to be a part of IV.
Contributed $100...
Order Details - Jul 17, 2007 16:16 GMT-07:00
Google Order #10xxxxxxxxxxx3
Contributed $100...
Order Details - Jul 17, 2007 16:16 GMT-07:00
Google Order #10xxxxxxxxxxx3
lee.cook
January 30th, 2008, 01:03 PM
Hello,
What type of camera are you looking for?
Point-and-shoot or a dSLR (Digital Single Lens Reflex).
The Sony Cybershoot is just your average P&S camera, small, light and compact.
A dSLR for example, like the Nikon D40 or the Canon EOS 350D are dSLR type and are much bigger in size but deliver alot higher quality images.
Nikon D40 http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40/images/d40-right-950.jpg
Canon EOS 350D http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon350D/images/Canon350D_main.jpg
What is your price budget too?
What type of camera are you looking for?
Point-and-shoot or a dSLR (Digital Single Lens Reflex).
The Sony Cybershoot is just your average P&S camera, small, light and compact.
A dSLR for example, like the Nikon D40 or the Canon EOS 350D are dSLR type and are much bigger in size but deliver alot higher quality images.
Nikon D40 http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40/images/d40-right-950.jpg
Canon EOS 350D http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon350D/images/Canon350D_main.jpg
What is your price budget too?
more...
sri1309
06-16 08:22 AM
HI,
I recently went for stamping in Canada and they did ask me recent paystubs.
I woudl work for the new company , have some paystubs and then go to neighboring country to get the stamping done. But if the current visa on passport is valid for some more time, I dont think its really needed to get visa from latest company. To my knowledge u can always use old stamp to travel, as long as you have the latest aproval petition and you carry with you,I may be wrong if somehting changed recently,
Thanks,
Sri.
Hi Shelar,
Thanks for your response.
I dont want to go to my home country for stamping. I'm residing in california so i want to go nearby country which is Tijauna, Mexico.
currently, my pay stubbs are still generated with old company (X). Now i've got I-797 approved from New company on June 6th,2006. Is it a must that i have to have at least couple of pay stubbs generated with new company before going for visa stamping
pls advise.
I recently went for stamping in Canada and they did ask me recent paystubs.
I woudl work for the new company , have some paystubs and then go to neighboring country to get the stamping done. But if the current visa on passport is valid for some more time, I dont think its really needed to get visa from latest company. To my knowledge u can always use old stamp to travel, as long as you have the latest aproval petition and you carry with you,I may be wrong if somehting changed recently,
Thanks,
Sri.
Hi Shelar,
Thanks for your response.
I dont want to go to my home country for stamping. I'm residing in california so i want to go nearby country which is Tijauna, Mexico.
currently, my pay stubbs are still generated with old company (X). Now i've got I-797 approved from New company on June 6th,2006. Is it a must that i have to have at least couple of pay stubbs generated with new company before going for visa stamping
pls advise.
2010 chef Curtis Stone (who#39;s
krishna_brc
07-11 05:47 PM
Thanks a lot for your valuable input.
But I beleive all the input you mentioned, would be applicable for all kind of employer (Bigger or smaller) and get the RFE for ability to pay. I would like to know if you join the real small emplyer (about 35 employee) would it necessarly cause any other postential issue and/or must be a chance of getting the RFE as joining the such a small employer?
Please let me know.
Thanks for all your input in advance.
I believe as long as you are getting paid a salary which is greater or equal to what was mentioned in Labor/140 you should be fine.
There will not be question of Ability to Pay as you will getting paid at the time of RFE and size of the company doesn't matter.
But I beleive all the input you mentioned, would be applicable for all kind of employer (Bigger or smaller) and get the RFE for ability to pay. I would like to know if you join the real small emplyer (about 35 employee) would it necessarly cause any other postential issue and/or must be a chance of getting the RFE as joining the such a small employer?
Please let me know.
Thanks for all your input in advance.
I believe as long as you are getting paid a salary which is greater or equal to what was mentioned in Labor/140 you should be fine.
There will not be question of Ability to Pay as you will getting paid at the time of RFE and size of the company doesn't matter.
more...
vin13
02-09 07:34 AM
Immigration Visa Attorney Blog Has Just Posted the Following:
As immigration attorneys with very strong roots in the immigrant communities of Los Angeles, the lawyers at Fong & Chun stay current on legislative developments that could affect our clients and their families. On 15 December 2009, over ninety House Democrats unveiled a comprehensive immigration reform bill. The bill is called the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security and Prosperity Act of 2009 (CIR-ASAP).
President Obama has said there should be comprehensive immigration reform. The bill includes an "earned" legalization program. The program as currently proposed would allow undocumented people in the USA as of 15 December 2009 to apply for legalization. There would be special, more lenient rules for young persons. Many people want to call this an "amnesty," but it is important to see all the details about the program before getting too excited.
There are other provisions for "visa recapture" to reduce waiting times and backlogs. This bill would also put a new employment-eligibility-verification system into place. There would be harsh penalties for hiring unauthorized workers.
These proposed changes are very exciting; however, we must remember that this bill is only a PROPOSAL. It will have many reincarnations before a final bill passes, if a bill passes at all. The President has said he wants CIR on his desk by the end of 2010, but there are obviously many other things occupying the attention of Congress at this time. Stay tuned. --jcf
More... (http://www.immigrationvisaattorneyblog.com/2010/02/immigration-reform-bill-introd.html)
If you click the link attached, the article is dated February 11, 2010 and was posted yesterday (February 08, 2010):confused:
Old news........ Dated for future....:D
As immigration attorneys with very strong roots in the immigrant communities of Los Angeles, the lawyers at Fong & Chun stay current on legislative developments that could affect our clients and their families. On 15 December 2009, over ninety House Democrats unveiled a comprehensive immigration reform bill. The bill is called the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security and Prosperity Act of 2009 (CIR-ASAP).
President Obama has said there should be comprehensive immigration reform. The bill includes an "earned" legalization program. The program as currently proposed would allow undocumented people in the USA as of 15 December 2009 to apply for legalization. There would be special, more lenient rules for young persons. Many people want to call this an "amnesty," but it is important to see all the details about the program before getting too excited.
There are other provisions for "visa recapture" to reduce waiting times and backlogs. This bill would also put a new employment-eligibility-verification system into place. There would be harsh penalties for hiring unauthorized workers.
These proposed changes are very exciting; however, we must remember that this bill is only a PROPOSAL. It will have many reincarnations before a final bill passes, if a bill passes at all. The President has said he wants CIR on his desk by the end of 2010, but there are obviously many other things occupying the attention of Congress at this time. Stay tuned. --jcf
More... (http://www.immigrationvisaattorneyblog.com/2010/02/immigration-reform-bill-introd.html)
If you click the link attached, the article is dated February 11, 2010 and was posted yesterday (February 08, 2010):confused:
Old news........ Dated for future....:D
hair chef Curtis Stone.
aamchimumbai
07-23 12:05 AM
All,
I feel that those who concurrently filed I-140/485 in July 2007 are very lucky!
Here is my situation -
Previous Employer -
EB3,PD-Jan'04,I-140 cleared. Switched in June 2007 and wasn't able to file I-485 in July 2007
New Employer -
EB2, PD-Dec'-07, I-140 (Feb'08 - pending)
Question -
Based on Jun'08 Visa bulletin the dates for EB2-India were at Apr'04. Filed for I-140/485 based on my old priority date for EB3 labor (Jan'04). Explaining USCIS for PD transfer.
Well, folks at NSC did not understand the PD transfer concept and send my application back. Unclear as to what do now. I guess need to wait until the dates for EB2-India reach Dec'07 such that I can file.
Any "Creative" thoughts on how to approach USCIS moving forward.
Thanks in advance for your replies.
Aamchimumbai
I feel that those who concurrently filed I-140/485 in July 2007 are very lucky!
Here is my situation -
Previous Employer -
EB3,PD-Jan'04,I-140 cleared. Switched in June 2007 and wasn't able to file I-485 in July 2007
New Employer -
EB2, PD-Dec'-07, I-140 (Feb'08 - pending)
Question -
Based on Jun'08 Visa bulletin the dates for EB2-India were at Apr'04. Filed for I-140/485 based on my old priority date for EB3 labor (Jan'04). Explaining USCIS for PD transfer.
Well, folks at NSC did not understand the PD transfer concept and send my application back. Unclear as to what do now. I guess need to wait until the dates for EB2-India reach Dec'07 such that I can file.
Any "Creative" thoughts on how to approach USCIS moving forward.
Thanks in advance for your replies.
Aamchimumbai
more...
Anil777
04-06 10:54 AM
Any help??
Hello Braindrain...(sorry i dont know your original name)
I am also in the same situation as u mentioned in ur post....my wifes passport and D.O.B has her mother's name - short name instead of Full name.
would appreciate what you did in ur case and if u r able to provide the sample content of the affidivit that u prepared for ur parents....pls reply me back at the earliest at - anil.mattupalli@gmail.com as they have visa appointment in another 2 weeks...many thanks
Hello Braindrain...(sorry i dont know your original name)
I am also in the same situation as u mentioned in ur post....my wifes passport and D.O.B has her mother's name - short name instead of Full name.
would appreciate what you did in ur case and if u r able to provide the sample content of the affidivit that u prepared for ur parents....pls reply me back at the earliest at - anil.mattupalli@gmail.com as they have visa appointment in another 2 weeks...many thanks
hot curtis stone apprentice.
sapota
10-15 02:19 PM
I am actually amazingly surprised by the phone customer service that USCIS is offering now (I remember having to dial INS phone customer numbers only to get constant engaged tones). Talking to a customer service rep will give you up to date status of your case (online status is not most updated).
more...
house 2010 curtis stone apprentice.
shreekhand
08-03 03:51 PM
Wow! one usually gets an RFE for these, never heard of a NOID for a TB test not taken. I would suggest take a TB test and if it is positive submit the X-ray as well. I guess you should get your approval soon after.
TB test are mandatory now for medicals and these are pretty common RFE to get (again never saw an NOID tho!)
TB test are mandatory now for medicals and these are pretty common RFE to get (again never saw an NOID tho!)
tattoo contestant, Curtis Stone.
yabadaba
08-21 03:29 PM
sunny how much money have you saved up? whats your networth?
more...
pictures Celebrity Chef Curtis Stone,
calif
10-29 03:59 PM
which service center?
Give a try if they can update it.
Give a try if they can update it.
dresses to win is Curtis Stone,
ravi2patel
07-24 08:41 AM
If the new company has a "succession of interest" clause in its take over, basically where it "succeeds to the interests and conditions of the previous company", including it's immigration interests such as your employment based immigrant visa application, you should be able to continue with your application. I guess you would have to include a "succession of interest" document with your application.
I had to do the same thing with my company when it was taken over. However, this happened during labor certification stage so I dont know if it would be different for I-485. Please c nsult with an attorney though, maybe even three or four different ones and give them the exact details of the takeover.
Hi..what is "succession of interest" document...is it the actual 'merger' contract ?
Other problem i have is getting hold of an attorny as all are busy with the aug.17th deadliners...let me know any good ones in central,NJ area. Thanks
I had to do the same thing with my company when it was taken over. However, this happened during labor certification stage so I dont know if it would be different for I-485. Please c nsult with an attorney though, maybe even three or four different ones and give them the exact details of the takeover.
Hi..what is "succession of interest" document...is it the actual 'merger' contract ?
Other problem i have is getting hold of an attorny as all are busy with the aug.17th deadliners...let me know any good ones in central,NJ area. Thanks
more...
makeup Rod brought back Curtis Stone
seekerofpeace
09-09 10:16 AM
Gimmegreen,
I received same email as you did....just "Approval notice sent" and that too for me nothing so far for my wife....
I was wondering that the difference between..."approval notice sent" and "welcome/CPO email" is that the former is still far from getting the card and needs some actions and more stress test done before the actual cards and the latter is all clear...
Also my case was "Texas original" though it moved to CSC and back....I think different centers are sending different emails...." a WAC case...
Will keep my finger crossed...just worried that my wife may miss the boat this time too...she was a dependent and our files must have moved together....Her status is still the old one "Case transfered to the center which has jurisdiction"
SoP
I received same email as you did....just "Approval notice sent" and that too for me nothing so far for my wife....
I was wondering that the difference between..."approval notice sent" and "welcome/CPO email" is that the former is still far from getting the card and needs some actions and more stress test done before the actual cards and the latter is all clear...
Also my case was "Texas original" though it moved to CSC and back....I think different centers are sending different emails...." a WAC case...
Will keep my finger crossed...just worried that my wife may miss the boat this time too...she was a dependent and our files must have moved together....Her status is still the old one "Case transfered to the center which has jurisdiction"
SoP
girlfriend Curtis Stone,
kirupa
01-02 06:38 PM
glos - that is fine :) Feel free to submit it then!
hairstyles images curtis stone
coolest_me
05-06 11:33 PM
Hi,
We just got the RFE on our application regarding the Medical. We did completed all the vaccination that were required. I am not sure what USCIS is asking us to complete. Does anyone has any experience about this kind of RFE..
We just got the RFE on our application regarding the Medical. We did completed all the vaccination that were required. I am not sure what USCIS is asking us to complete. Does anyone has any experience about this kind of RFE..
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.
sanju
06-30 02:36 PM
Thanks babloo!!
I BELIEVE that we will all be fine. Just hang-in there, and do the best that we all can and must.
Guys and Gals,
It's all speculation... Wait and see... we will all be fine... if you have your papers ready then file it.......
I'am staying positive..... Want y'all to do it too....
All the best....
I BELIEVE that we will all be fine. Just hang-in there, and do the best that we all can and must.
Guys and Gals,
It's all speculation... Wait and see... we will all be fine... if you have your papers ready then file it.......
I'am staying positive..... Want y'all to do it too....
All the best....
No comments:
Post a Comment