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.
factories during industrial revolution. The Industrial Revolution
transpass
09-28 12:48 PM
This is the new thread to mention your rejection reasons.
Please mention following:
Rejection date: 09/21/07
Reason: Other reasons (Not mentioned in data base system - More info with rejection letter and package)
Package received date: Waiting
Did u hear anything my friend? I am getting tensed now and crossing fingers......
Please mention following:
Rejection date: 09/21/07
Reason: Other reasons (Not mentioned in data base system - More info with rejection letter and package)
Package received date: Waiting
Did u hear anything my friend? I am getting tensed now and crossing fingers......
factories during industrial revolution. the factory system in the
prom2
11-26 10:30 AM
I saw in four Jun filers approvals at TSC dated 11/24.
Good luck
Good luck
factories during industrial revolution. of Industrial Revolution
anyluck?
06-08 01:53 PM
I could not attend.Thanks for the contribution you are providing to us.
Contributed $100.
receipt no : 4703-1115-6249-7039
Contributed $100.
receipt no : 4703-1115-6249-7039
more...
factories during industrial revolution. The Industrial Revolution is a
gk_2000
07-30 07:39 PM
Yeh safar bahut hei kathin magar
na udhaas ho mere humsafar
YouTube - 1942- A Love Story - Yeh Safar Bahut Hai - AKB (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T8gprzXqd8)
na udhaas ho mere humsafar
YouTube - 1942- A Love Story - Yeh Safar Bahut Hai - AKB (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T8gprzXqd8)
factories during industrial revolution. Iraq during the 1980s.
dextro_a
02-05 02:24 PM
you have to give the H1 qualifying exam (I think Step 3), then you have to apply for Residency in universities. They all call you for personal interview, and the results are announced in mid march. Once you are selected, they'll process H1 for you. If you do not have step 3 cleared, then they'll process J1 visa for you. Most of these universities come under non-profit so, H1 quota is not a issue for them.
more...
factories during industrial revolution. factories during industrial
villamonte6100
06-27 11:05 AM
Why are you trusting your lawyer if they cannot even remember where the A# came from? Makes me wonder how they justify their existence if this the level of their competence. If I was that bad at my job I would have been on a plane out of the US within a week or arriving.
She's a good lawyer and I trust her and she has made a lot of successful H's, I140, Labor and GC cases. Very honest as well. So far in my case, we never had any problems and everything went smooth particularly when we were filing my PERM (which was very new during that time), she was really very cautious about it.
Regarding the A# which I pointed out to her, I actually confused her with my question. With the number of cases she's preparing right now, I think she just forgot where you could find the A#.
She's a good lawyer and I trust her and she has made a lot of successful H's, I140, Labor and GC cases. Very honest as well. So far in my case, we never had any problems and everything went smooth particularly when we were filing my PERM (which was very new during that time), she was really very cautious about it.
Regarding the A# which I pointed out to her, I actually confused her with my question. With the number of cases she's preparing right now, I think she just forgot where you could find the A#.
factories during industrial revolution. factories during industrial
VenuK
06-15 04:45 PM
Hi Meridiani,
Thank you for your response.
I did talk to Immigration Officer and my lawyer about it.
Immigration Officer said I-94 will be mailed to my employer and/or lawyer. even before that i talk to my lawyer about it. he said, I-94 will be the SAME number that i had company X.
I have to check with my lawyer for the your question what did you specify as your old employer? company X or the company whose H1 was denied and is now under appeal?
added to it .
my passport expiration date is March 2009. so i have to 6+ months validity for visa stamping so i have to go some time in July or August 2008.
how should i approach the situation, I'm confused...
who would be the right people i need to talk to. what would be my best bet....
Please advise.
Thank you for your response.
I did talk to Immigration Officer and my lawyer about it.
Immigration Officer said I-94 will be mailed to my employer and/or lawyer. even before that i talk to my lawyer about it. he said, I-94 will be the SAME number that i had company X.
I have to check with my lawyer for the your question what did you specify as your old employer? company X or the company whose H1 was denied and is now under appeal?
added to it .
my passport expiration date is March 2009. so i have to 6+ months validity for visa stamping so i have to go some time in July or August 2008.
how should i approach the situation, I'm confused...
who would be the right people i need to talk to. what would be my best bet....
Please advise.
more...
factories during industrial revolution. Children working in the mines
bluekayal
10-23 12:34 PM
comments?
^^^^^^^ bump ^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^ bump ^^^^^^^^
factories during industrial revolution. factories during industrial
vnsriv
09-28 09:41 AM
1. My EAD application status at USCIS website got changed to,
Current Status: Approval notice sent.
this morning. My heartfelt thanks to ImmigrationVoice activists for this.
My spouse's EAD application status still shows as,
Current Status: Case received and pending.
In my case, my spouse's application is the derivative application of mine. Any incidence of spouse's EAD case getting stuck while the primary's application going through?
2. Also, Is EAD approval anyway related/tied to I-485 Application? In that case, it is understandable for my spouse not to see her status changed. Because, her I-485 Applications status is shown as,
Current Status: Fingerprint fee rejected and notice mailed; case in suspense.
though we both have already finished our finger printing. Our attorney says, its USCIS's mistake and he has already sent $70(once again) towards her fingerprinting fees to be on the safer side.
Any information would be helpful.
Thanks,
You asked a question
1)
Any incidence of spouse's EAD case getting stuck while the primary's application going through?
So it means the people who visited don't have an answer for this or they are not aware of any such incident. Eventually someone will respond to your query
2) You send this query yesterday only 7 pm EST. So be patient
All the best !
Current Status: Approval notice sent.
this morning. My heartfelt thanks to ImmigrationVoice activists for this.
My spouse's EAD application status still shows as,
Current Status: Case received and pending.
In my case, my spouse's application is the derivative application of mine. Any incidence of spouse's EAD case getting stuck while the primary's application going through?
2. Also, Is EAD approval anyway related/tied to I-485 Application? In that case, it is understandable for my spouse not to see her status changed. Because, her I-485 Applications status is shown as,
Current Status: Fingerprint fee rejected and notice mailed; case in suspense.
though we both have already finished our finger printing. Our attorney says, its USCIS's mistake and he has already sent $70(once again) towards her fingerprinting fees to be on the safer side.
Any information would be helpful.
Thanks,
You asked a question
1)
Any incidence of spouse's EAD case getting stuck while the primary's application going through?
So it means the people who visited don't have an answer for this or they are not aware of any such incident. Eventually someone will respond to your query
2) You send this query yesterday only 7 pm EST. So be patient
All the best !
more...
factories during industrial revolution. The Industrial Revolution
WeShallOvercome
12-26 12:10 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
Filing I-485 makes you an 'adjustee' (Under Adjustment of Status).
But you continue to be a non-resident alien under AOS if you keep working on H1. If you switch to EAD/AP, you are just an Adjustee waiting for your status to be adjusted to that of a permanent resident.
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
Filing I-485 makes you an 'adjustee' (Under Adjustment of Status).
But you continue to be a non-resident alien under AOS if you keep working on H1. If you switch to EAD/AP, you are just an Adjustee waiting for your status to be adjusted to that of a permanent resident.
factories during industrial revolution. the factory is prevalent
GreenCord
07-17 02:19 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.
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.
more...
factories during industrial revolution. in the factories during
go_getter007
01-26 10:35 AM
In terms of processing dates, which date is relevant?
USCIS Received Date: E.g., July 25, 2007
OR
USCIS Notice Date: E.g., Sept 12, 2007?
Thanks.
GG_007
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
Set your Temp. Internet File setting to "automatic" to check for newer version.
USCIS Received Date: E.g., July 25, 2007
OR
USCIS Notice Date: E.g., Sept 12, 2007?
Thanks.
GG_007
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
Set your Temp. Internet File setting to "automatic" to check for newer version.
factories during industrial revolution. the industrial revolution.
zCool
04-01 05:27 PM
"Bought" the labor?
So you broke the LAW..
And now you want to know how to break it further??
You are ignorant, and CRIMINAL!
Not to mention stupid!
Get the heck outta here..
So you broke the LAW..
And now you want to know how to break it further??
You are ignorant, and CRIMINAL!
Not to mention stupid!
Get the heck outta here..
more...
factories during industrial revolution. Society changed a lot during
royus77
05-10 09:45 PM
I took an appointment on friday and its working fine. May be because of the week end some issues with the website. try with IE . by the way VFS/USICS visa procedure is far better than extending your passport . ...
factories during industrial revolution. chemicals in factories
satishku_2000
08-15 03:32 PM
I got an RFE for the latest employment letter. After I sent the required documents, in about 8 days I got approved. I'm hoping yours should be close
Did you use AC21? how long ago you applied for 485?
Did you use AC21? how long ago you applied for 485?
more...
factories during industrial revolution. the Industrial Revolution.
coopheal
05-06 12:39 PM
Transaction ID: 15509419M155420
You sent a payment of $100.00 USD to Immigration Voice (donations@immigrationvoice.org)
It may take a few moments for this transaction to appear in your account.
Thanks
You sent a payment of $100.00 USD to Immigration Voice (donations@immigrationvoice.org)
It may take a few moments for this transaction to appear in your account.
Thanks
factories during industrial revolution. During the Industrial
jthomas
12-11 08:45 PM
I paid 3500 dollars to the attorney for H1B transfer before 3 years. I don't know the USCIS fees
Thanks. These are the fees for a new H1B. Is procedure/fees same for transfer of H1B from one employer to another? How long does it take? I know USCIS posts processing times, but a first-hand information on employer transfer will be helpful.
Thanks. These are the fees for a new H1B. Is procedure/fees same for transfer of H1B from one employer to another? How long does it take? I know USCIS posts processing times, but a first-hand information on employer transfer will be helpful.
factories during industrial revolution. the Industrial Revolution,
willigetgc?
01-26 01:56 PM
CIR (aka mass amnesty) was not doable in the past, and is not now and wont be in future. They could not do it even when democratic party was in power in congress (high tide of democratic party). It is impossible now with GOP in control.
It si pure lip seervice by Sen Reid
If this bill was introduced, we need to meet with lawmaker offices and put pressure on them. Our responsibility is to do our part and leave the outcome to prayers, But not even trying should not be an option. What are we going to loose?
It si pure lip seervice by Sen Reid
If this bill was introduced, we need to meet with lawmaker offices and put pressure on them. Our responsibility is to do our part and leave the outcome to prayers, But not even trying should not be an option. What are we going to loose?
sad_angel
05-18 02:09 PM
any answers please?
kshitijnt
06-28 05:57 PM
I have an expired H1 VISA stamp, but an approved h1 i797 form approved till 2013, but I am using my EAD to work.
Assuming that, are you saying that I can go to a consulate, get a h1 stamp and reenter on h1 ? and by doing so I WILL NOT jeopardize my AOS?
Sorry to be a pain.
I am just trying to understand this properly.
I do not intend trouble.
Any replies that you guys are giving is very much appreciated.
Hi - I was in a similar situation as you:
In 2009: I entered using H1 and my wife entered using AP. No hassles. It was a smooth process. My wife has derivative status on my 485.
In 2010: We both entered using AP. I am using H1 for work & my wife is using EAD for work. My H1 was renewed at the end of 2009 but I thought that going to Mumbai was wasting time and 2 days of my precious vacation so I did not get the stamp but entered using AP. I can still use my H1 for work authorization which I am doing right now.
No worries, keep your H1 as a backup if you need. Enter using AP. Dont waste time and money paying a visit to the consulate, you are just gifting away $140, you can do that later if the need comes.
Assuming that, are you saying that I can go to a consulate, get a h1 stamp and reenter on h1 ? and by doing so I WILL NOT jeopardize my AOS?
Sorry to be a pain.
I am just trying to understand this properly.
I do not intend trouble.
Any replies that you guys are giving is very much appreciated.
Hi - I was in a similar situation as you:
In 2009: I entered using H1 and my wife entered using AP. No hassles. It was a smooth process. My wife has derivative status on my 485.
In 2010: We both entered using AP. I am using H1 for work & my wife is using EAD for work. My H1 was renewed at the end of 2009 but I thought that going to Mumbai was wasting time and 2 days of my precious vacation so I did not get the stamp but entered using AP. I can still use my H1 for work authorization which I am doing right now.
No worries, keep your H1 as a backup if you need. Enter using AP. Dont waste time and money paying a visit to the consulate, you are just gifting away $140, you can do that later if the need comes.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar