smsthss
12-18 05:59 PM
I also got 2 soft LUD'S on both mine and my wife's 485. First LUD on 12/15 and second on 12/18. But the case status remains the same "This case is now pending at the office to which it was transferred". My I-140 got approved on dec 6th. Seems like some kind of update is being done on I-485's. Might be FP notices as i have not received my FP notice yet. Not sure..Anybody seen the same pattern ??
wallpaper Morrissey#39;s Just
gc4me
04-23 10:13 AM
This email is useless as nowhere in the email the alien's name is mentioned.
In USCIS website you only have the option to add a case with the receipt number. They don't verify whether this case belongs to you or not.
If your company/attorney gives you a receipt # that belongs to another person�s I-140 application, still you will get this email.
The only option you have is to request for a copy of I-140 using G-639 form under FOIA.
If you subscribe on USCIS website you will get email indicating and saying like:
The following is the latest information on your case status
Receipt Number:XXXXXX (i maksed it to hide my info)
Application Type: I140 , IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER
Current Status:
This case has been approved. On June 12, 2006, an approval notice was mailed. If 30 days have passed and you have not received this notice, you may wish to verify or update your address. To update your address, please speak to an Immigration Information Officer during business hours.
If you have questions or concerns about your application or the case status results listed above, or if you have not received a decision or advice from USCIS within the projected processing time frame*, please contact the National Customer Service Center.
National Customer Service Center (800) 375-5283.
*The projected processing time frame can be found on the receipt notice that you received from the USCIS.
*** Please do not respond to this e-mail message.
Sincerely,
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
In USCIS website you only have the option to add a case with the receipt number. They don't verify whether this case belongs to you or not.
If your company/attorney gives you a receipt # that belongs to another person�s I-140 application, still you will get this email.
The only option you have is to request for a copy of I-140 using G-639 form under FOIA.
If you subscribe on USCIS website you will get email indicating and saying like:
The following is the latest information on your case status
Receipt Number:XXXXXX (i maksed it to hide my info)
Application Type: I140 , IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER
Current Status:
This case has been approved. On June 12, 2006, an approval notice was mailed. If 30 days have passed and you have not received this notice, you may wish to verify or update your address. To update your address, please speak to an Immigration Information Officer during business hours.
If you have questions or concerns about your application or the case status results listed above, or if you have not received a decision or advice from USCIS within the projected processing time frame*, please contact the National Customer Service Center.
National Customer Service Center (800) 375-5283.
*The projected processing time frame can be found on the receipt notice that you received from the USCIS.
*** Please do not respond to this e-mail message.
Sincerely,
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
comstar8199
08-25 06:45 PM
I think someone should make a Pwnd smilie...
and by the way Templarian Kalamazoo isn't too far away, I live there.
and by the way Templarian Kalamazoo isn't too far away, I live there.
2011 The Smiths Home
sanjay
09-18 11:37 AM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
H.R. 3200: Sec 246 — NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS. Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.
Agreed. But, that is only until CIR is not passed. Once CIR is approved ( IF ) next year, then all the undocumented people will come under the shield and will enjoy all the health benefit government is going to offer at the expense of Tax payers money.
H.R. 3200: Sec 246 — NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS. Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.
Agreed. But, that is only until CIR is not passed. Once CIR is approved ( IF ) next year, then all the undocumented people will come under the shield and will enjoy all the health benefit government is going to offer at the expense of Tax payers money.
more...
sc3
08-09 02:42 PM
Only 45 votes so far. EB3-I people dont have 5 seconds to vote even, how can we expect any help from Govt.
Come on give EB3ers a break. 2 things. it is weekend, and secondly a lot will not be excessively active because there is nothing in the horizon for us to look forward to.
Come on give EB3ers a break. 2 things. it is weekend, and secondly a lot will not be excessively active because there is nothing in the horizon for us to look forward to.
techskill
01-29 05:48 PM
Class of Admission: H1B
Date of intended Departure: Any future date (3 months from now or anything..)
Expected length of stay: One month
Our attorney told us that we need to provide definite answers to the travel questions, however, we can use the document to travel multiple times. We got our APs on time.
Hope that helps.
What will be the answer for the class of admission if the spouse of the person entered US on H4 and subsequently changed the status to H1?
Date of intended Departure: Any future date (3 months from now or anything..)
Expected length of stay: One month
Our attorney told us that we need to provide definite answers to the travel questions, however, we can use the document to travel multiple times. We got our APs on time.
Hope that helps.
What will be the answer for the class of admission if the spouse of the person entered US on H4 and subsequently changed the status to H1?
more...
swashbuckler
06-17 08:23 PM
Thanks to every one for considering my message and answering to the questions.
Today I have received a mail from our Immigration team saying that they are going to file my GC petition next month (July-2010) for Employment-3rd category (EB-3). But I have 17 years of education (in India, 10+2+3+2) plus 11 years of progressive experience. Am I not qualified for EB-2 category? When I asked the same to our Immigration team, they said, "You do not qualify for EB2 because you do not meet the minimum salary and educational requirements. USCIS does not accept a 3-year Bachelor + 2-year Master education combination to qualify for EB2". What does it mean? Please some one let me know what are the requirements to qualify for EB-2 category? Thank you again in advance.
Regards,
swashbuckler
Today I have received a mail from our Immigration team saying that they are going to file my GC petition next month (July-2010) for Employment-3rd category (EB-3). But I have 17 years of education (in India, 10+2+3+2) plus 11 years of progressive experience. Am I not qualified for EB-2 category? When I asked the same to our Immigration team, they said, "You do not qualify for EB2 because you do not meet the minimum salary and educational requirements. USCIS does not accept a 3-year Bachelor + 2-year Master education combination to qualify for EB2". What does it mean? Please some one let me know what are the requirements to qualify for EB-2 category? Thank you again in advance.
Regards,
swashbuckler
2010 Steven Morrissey of The Smiths
gapala
07-06 05:54 PM
Did you mean to say new H1B from a different sponsor? If it is the same sponsor and new H1B, what difference would that make? Since they have not provided any reason, MTR is the best option and this could be a genuine mistake from CIS.
more...
dce.deepak
09-18 05:44 PM
its not 800,000 its around 190,000 for all EB1,2,3
look at here May 2010 data
USCIS - Previous Pending Employment-Based I-485 Inventory (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=16551543455e5210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCR D&vgnextchannel=16551543455e5210VgnVCM100000082ca60a RCRD)
Family based is also heavily backlogged. How can there be flow of thousands of unused visas in Family Based for flow to Employment Based? Even in Family based there are categories 1, 2A, 2B, 3 and 4. The visas will first flow from top to bottom in Family Based. Wouldn't all the categories have to be current before any visas flow to Employment based? I read somewhere that the employment based backlog size is 800,000 applications. :confused: Let's say even if there is a small number of visa flow from Family Based to Employment Based, how can a small number of visa flow from Family Based to employment based backlog be sufficient to approve 800,000 applications?
look at here May 2010 data
USCIS - Previous Pending Employment-Based I-485 Inventory (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=16551543455e5210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCR D&vgnextchannel=16551543455e5210VgnVCM100000082ca60a RCRD)
Family based is also heavily backlogged. How can there be flow of thousands of unused visas in Family Based for flow to Employment Based? Even in Family based there are categories 1, 2A, 2B, 3 and 4. The visas will first flow from top to bottom in Family Based. Wouldn't all the categories have to be current before any visas flow to Employment based? I read somewhere that the employment based backlog size is 800,000 applications. :confused: Let's say even if there is a small number of visa flow from Family Based to Employment Based, how can a small number of visa flow from Family Based to employment based backlog be sufficient to approve 800,000 applications?
hair morrissey smiths. obsessed
mast_mastmunda
11-10 04:13 PM
Hi,
Thanks for the reply and sorry for creating multiple threads.
- First H1B Employer "A"
-----------------------------
Approved: Oct 2006
Stamped: December 2006
Visa stamp valid till : Oct' 2009
H1B transferred to Employer "B" : June 2007
Traveling to India: November ' 2008
On Dec12, 2007, i saw an update on I-797 from Employer "A" even though
I have moved to Employer "B" by that time.
The Status of I-797 for Employer "A" on USCIS website got changed
to "Cable sent to American Consulate or port of entry notifying them of approval.".
My concern is that whether the above status means that first Employer "A" has revoked the H1B visa?
If yes, doesn't that means that I will NOT be able to use that H1B
visa stamping and *new* I-797 from Employer "B" at port of entry?
Thanks again..look forward to your response
Thanks for the reply and sorry for creating multiple threads.
- First H1B Employer "A"
-----------------------------
Approved: Oct 2006
Stamped: December 2006
Visa stamp valid till : Oct' 2009
H1B transferred to Employer "B" : June 2007
Traveling to India: November ' 2008
On Dec12, 2007, i saw an update on I-797 from Employer "A" even though
I have moved to Employer "B" by that time.
The Status of I-797 for Employer "A" on USCIS website got changed
to "Cable sent to American Consulate or port of entry notifying them of approval.".
My concern is that whether the above status means that first Employer "A" has revoked the H1B visa?
If yes, doesn't that means that I will NOT be able to use that H1B
visa stamping and *new* I-797 from Employer "B" at port of entry?
Thanks again..look forward to your response
more...
shana04
01-31 01:21 AM
Friends,
Need help and suggestion.
To my surprise, today I got a electricity bill from Nov11 2008 to Jan23 2009 a total of :mad::mad::mad:$979.00 :mad::mad::mad:
I leave in a single bed room ground floor 785 Sq ft.
I have called the customer service for dispute and investigation.:mad::mad::mad:
Has any one encountered this kind of problems with electricity department. please enlighten !!!
:confused::confused::confused:
Need help and suggestion.
To my surprise, today I got a electricity bill from Nov11 2008 to Jan23 2009 a total of :mad::mad::mad:$979.00 :mad::mad::mad:
I leave in a single bed room ground floor 785 Sq ft.
I have called the customer service for dispute and investigation.:mad::mad::mad:
Has any one encountered this kind of problems with electricity department. please enlighten !!!
:confused::confused::confused:
hot The Smiths are reuniting
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.
more...
house Morrissey with Smiths but
lsuk
07-21 10:24 PM
GCKarma,
You can extend your H-1B up to three years, but if you use your EAD card at some point, your H-1B is void. However, you can always recaputure your H-1B time later if needed (and if counted within the last 6 years unless left the U.S. for one year) and will be eligible for your extensions later.
You can extend your H-1B up to three years, but if you use your EAD card at some point, your H-1B is void. However, you can always recaputure your H-1B time later if needed (and if counted within the last 6 years unless left the U.S. for one year) and will be eligible for your extensions later.
tattoo The Smiths and Morrissey
adobe howm
07-23 12:10 PM
ya , in ur words agents
as many have replied to you, again I underline this -in the first place you wouldn't have applied two h-1b's - ended some*one*s dream of coming here & work like you.
don't take me wrong. this is your *homework* dude...something you have to do from your part - I would do some little research, check with dudes who are working on either firms, look back their little history. it is important for you just do that. or this is not the place to discuss who is best employer and best place to live. there are numerous forums do exists - you can google it.
All the best.
as many have replied to you, again I underline this -in the first place you wouldn't have applied two h-1b's - ended some*one*s dream of coming here & work like you.
don't take me wrong. this is your *homework* dude...something you have to do from your part - I would do some little research, check with dudes who are working on either firms, look back their little history. it is important for you just do that. or this is not the place to discuss who is best employer and best place to live. there are numerous forums do exists - you can google it.
All the best.
more...
pictures morrissey smiths quiff hair.
ronhira
04-26 07:44 PM
this is how cir will end..... with a procedural vote -
Financial regulation plan fails first Senate test - U.S. business- msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36770907/ns/business-us_business/)
bet $100?
Financial regulation plan fails first Senate test - U.S. business- msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36770907/ns/business-us_business/)
bet $100?
dresses An early picture of Morrissey.
sodh
07-24 10:17 PM
Thanks for the responses.
I have the affidavits and the birth certificate with me. The problem is with the misspelled names on those when compared to my passport.
Get an affidavit signed by a magistrate from your country which has the corrected names, the Lawyers will have the format for that.
I have the affidavits and the birth certificate with me. The problem is with the misspelled names on those when compared to my passport.
Get an affidavit signed by a magistrate from your country which has the corrected names, the Lawyers will have the format for that.
more...
makeup he liked The Smiths (read
alpa
02-24 04:36 PM
I have few questions regarding the visa and green card process.
1. Which documents are required to convert H1 to H4 while being in USA?
2. As per my understanding if I convert to H4, I can use my H1 at a later point of time. Is it true? What are the preconditions for this?
3. What happens to my green card process if I convert to H4? I have my I-140 approved.
4. Assuming that my understanding in point-2 is correct what is the process to convert back to H1?
Thanks and Regards,
Alpa
1. Which documents are required to convert H1 to H4 while being in USA?
2. As per my understanding if I convert to H4, I can use my H1 at a later point of time. Is it true? What are the preconditions for this?
3. What happens to my green card process if I convert to H4? I have my I-140 approved.
4. Assuming that my understanding in point-2 is correct what is the process to convert back to H1?
Thanks and Regards,
Alpa
girlfriend Morrissey) of the Smiths
jotv
11-19 12:32 PM
i am going for the h1 stamping first time . in form 156 how long do you intend to stay in usa ? for that i wrote 3 years . is it ok ? and my sister is also in usa .so for one question i wrote the same thing because we should be honest thats why.
here what my question is will the interview people think that i wont come back to home coutry because of 3years and sister ?
should i take any guarantee supporting letter from my parents if yes how is the format ? please answer with your experiences? i appriciate your help .
here what my question is will the interview people think that i wont come back to home coutry because of 3years and sister ?
should i take any guarantee supporting letter from my parents if yes how is the format ? please answer with your experiences? i appriciate your help .
hairstyles I Love The Smiths!
sanju_dba
09-15 09:48 AM
This is a great idea. I would suggest that rather than saying we will collect $200K every month and distribute $100K as prize money. We can just distribute 50% total collection as prize money.
Yes, that works even better when the tickets sold is + or - to the target mark.
Yes, that works even better when the tickets sold is + or - to the target mark.
immi_enthu
09-28 04:51 PM
Q : Is USCIS prioritizing certain application(s) during the receipting process?
Yes. The Application to Adjust Status (I-485) will have first priority because USCIS needs to ensure that these applications are receipted in a timeframe that would allow processing of an application for an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) within 90 days of filing as mandated by law [8 CFR 247a.13(d)]. Our second priority will be to receipt the Application for Naturalization (N-400) so that we can minimize any delays in obtaining citizenship.
I am sure USCIS will break this law on numerous counts on Oct 1st as all the July 2nd filers will have past 90 days on that day.
Yes. The Application to Adjust Status (I-485) will have first priority because USCIS needs to ensure that these applications are receipted in a timeframe that would allow processing of an application for an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) within 90 days of filing as mandated by law [8 CFR 247a.13(d)]. Our second priority will be to receipt the Application for Naturalization (N-400) so that we can minimize any delays in obtaining citizenship.
I am sure USCIS will break this law on numerous counts on Oct 1st as all the July 2nd filers will have past 90 days on that day.
485Mbe4001
08-14 12:46 PM
I dont think that is the case, i am a direct employee and i have experienced tremendous delays, infact every application from my company (which is a large multinational) has been delayed, so i am guessing its more to do with the lawyers(large, high cost firm) or just good old luck. Infact all of my friends/batch mates who were consultants have their green cards and some have their citizenships too. My theory was that if a company is sponsoring(paying all the money) you are relaxed and initially dont worry about the delays, if its coming out of your pocket you doublecheck everything and are proactive...just a thought
This is just my theory. When you don't have much information, you get to think of many theories and here is mine. I believe USCIS is approving direct employees of an organization. For example, they may be giving preference to Microsoft employee, rather than an employee of Patel and Patel INC. I know I may be wrong, but I am just pondering. How can someone explain a person with PD 05/03/2006 with RD 08/01/2007 has much preference over a person with PD 05/03/2006 with RD 07/20/2007? Am I missing something here? :confused::confused:
People may post their answers, proving that I am wrong.
This is just my theory. When you don't have much information, you get to think of many theories and here is mine. I believe USCIS is approving direct employees of an organization. For example, they may be giving preference to Microsoft employee, rather than an employee of Patel and Patel INC. I know I may be wrong, but I am just pondering. How can someone explain a person with PD 05/03/2006 with RD 08/01/2007 has much preference over a person with PD 05/03/2006 with RD 07/20/2007? Am I missing something here? :confused::confused:
People may post their answers, proving that I am wrong.