nixstor
08-23 11:56 AM
I wish it was like that, but it amazes me how many times I have to give the exact same information to all government agencies. They have no clue or contact between each other unfortunately.
For example, why do I have to give all my information on all forms, even within USCIS? And why do I have redo my fingerprints every year? My fingers don't change.
And why can people get a new drivers license or hide in another state from where the drivers license was issued?
The only thing that should be needed to apply for a i485 should be your social #. The rest of the information they should already KNOW... Why should you give it? Then they will have to check that you gave the right information on the paper, not focusing on if the information is correct... It is just opening up for fraud.
So until they get their information straight, don't underestimate how much data you have to give them over and over again... and how slow the process will be because of that.
Swede,
While I agree with most of your comments (Ex: DL process is a mess), it does not work like that. We are talking about inter agency communication. To quote an example of how USCIS systems themselves are designed I asked " How come USCIS do not know how many people will be eligible for filing 485 ? All that they have to do is get a number of approved and pending 140's and come with a PD date that will effectively use visa numbers" short answer is there are different systems in USCIS to which some officers have access to and some officers don't.
Essentially, the data is already out there but the data is in different data islands and they are not connected. While it would be good to connect all these islands, there can be issues with overwhelming information or making info available with out knowing whats needed. There needs to be an access control based approach or even biometrics. Every access should be substantiated with a reason. In the current situation it might be easy for agencies to ask the applicant for proof rather than trying to go through other agency's bureaucracy. I could be wrong.
I love the idea of giving SSN, GC application and have it processed.
Thanks for updating your profile and will see you in DC
For example, why do I have to give all my information on all forms, even within USCIS? And why do I have redo my fingerprints every year? My fingers don't change.
And why can people get a new drivers license or hide in another state from where the drivers license was issued?
The only thing that should be needed to apply for a i485 should be your social #. The rest of the information they should already KNOW... Why should you give it? Then they will have to check that you gave the right information on the paper, not focusing on if the information is correct... It is just opening up for fraud.
So until they get their information straight, don't underestimate how much data you have to give them over and over again... and how slow the process will be because of that.
Swede,
While I agree with most of your comments (Ex: DL process is a mess), it does not work like that. We are talking about inter agency communication. To quote an example of how USCIS systems themselves are designed I asked " How come USCIS do not know how many people will be eligible for filing 485 ? All that they have to do is get a number of approved and pending 140's and come with a PD date that will effectively use visa numbers" short answer is there are different systems in USCIS to which some officers have access to and some officers don't.
Essentially, the data is already out there but the data is in different data islands and they are not connected. While it would be good to connect all these islands, there can be issues with overwhelming information or making info available with out knowing whats needed. There needs to be an access control based approach or even biometrics. Every access should be substantiated with a reason. In the current situation it might be easy for agencies to ask the applicant for proof rather than trying to go through other agency's bureaucracy. I could be wrong.
I love the idea of giving SSN, GC application and have it processed.
Thanks for updating your profile and will see you in DC
wallpaper A tiger lily flower isolated
rkotamurthy
09-30 08:10 PM
bump ^^^^
teddy the dog
02-07 08:59 PM
Advance Parole. You are not alone. :)
2011 Sculptural White Tiger Lilies
maheshf
07-30 05:07 PM
I am in the same boat. I received " Card Order� notification today for my case..but wife's case is still pending. I think there is a trend.
Primary applicant's first.. dependents later.
Any one got approval for their dependents yet?
Primary applicant's first.. dependents later.
Any one got approval for their dependents yet?
more...
v2neha
02-17 07:23 PM
Very true - unfortunately my case that was received at SFO regional office in July'04 got transferred to PBEC in Oct'04. It is still rotting there! I read somewhere that BECs were supposed to follow adjudication process of CA SWAs and Regional offices due to their proven efficiency compared to other states. Wish they did - clearly they didn't
genscn
01-29 11:58 AM
Although website mention 15 days for the PIO card, how long does it actually takes to process and receive PIO card?
more...
felix31
06-05 10:48 AM
no, no....it does not make me feel any better...
I am so sorry to hear about your never ending wait....
:( :(
unfortunately, we cannot go back to our home country, as unemployment rate is insanely high, we would be both without jobs, no place to live, another civil war may break any day now and we do not want to go through all that all over again...
As each day pass, Canada looks even better as our new motherland ...or at least we hope
:rolleyes:
I am so sorry to hear about your never ending wait....
:( :(
unfortunately, we cannot go back to our home country, as unemployment rate is insanely high, we would be both without jobs, no place to live, another civil war may break any day now and we do not want to go through all that all over again...
As each day pass, Canada looks even better as our new motherland ...or at least we hope
:rolleyes:
2010 stock photo : red tiger lily
Soltan
11-16 05:08 PM
Oh wow, I have a similar situation like yours. Who is your employer, send me a pm. I am in the process of converting it to Premium.
I have talked to an immigration attorney and confirmed that it surely can be converted to PP. Good luck to you. If you go to other forums, I have seen a similar discussion, check it out there as well.
I have talked to an immigration attorney and confirmed that it surely can be converted to PP. Good luck to you. If you go to other forums, I have seen a similar discussion, check it out there as well.
more...
whereismygclost
06-17 05:42 PM
Hi sk.aggarwal,
How did you calculate that he has to leave the country for four months? I think it should for a year,correct me if I am wrong.Or is your calculation based on based on the assumption that the labor will be approved within 4 months and then he can file for H1 extension? I am in the same boat,could you please clarify?
How did you calculate that he has to leave the country for four months? I think it should for a year,correct me if I am wrong.Or is your calculation based on based on the assumption that the labor will be approved within 4 months and then he can file for H1 extension? I am in the same boat,could you please clarify?
hair White Tiger Lilies by Zuigetsu
pappu
08-22 08:06 PM
I don't think the core is even bothered to take up on issues like this where USCIS operations is concerned..
why wait for all these bills to get passed to recapture visas and stuff like that when the ideal solution would be to make USCIS more efficient...
Let's say Hr5882 passes in 2009... and recaptures all the lost visas ..but what will happen in 2012 ?? I assume another recapture bill would have to be passed to recapture the recaptured visas... this is all a joke....
Why cant USCIS be more efficient and transparent from the beginning but I guess the core doesn't think its important enough right now.
Wrong.
We have had meetings with USCIS, DOS in the past. In fact there was a meeting with USCIS director too in the recent past.
Wish the problems were very simple to solve. Please do not underestimate the effort of the core team just because we do not post everything we do on the public forum. You can get information from your state chapter if you have any doubts. We are also like you and are trying our best within limited resources and time. The least this community can do is not criticize the core team and take out their frustration on us. We really need everyone to support us and contribute so that we can invest more in lobbying efforts if we need to try and get some relief. Fixing a system is not easy. Our programmer friends on the forum know this how difficult it is to fix a program that is too slow and buggy!!
why wait for all these bills to get passed to recapture visas and stuff like that when the ideal solution would be to make USCIS more efficient...
Let's say Hr5882 passes in 2009... and recaptures all the lost visas ..but what will happen in 2012 ?? I assume another recapture bill would have to be passed to recapture the recaptured visas... this is all a joke....
Why cant USCIS be more efficient and transparent from the beginning but I guess the core doesn't think its important enough right now.
Wrong.
We have had meetings with USCIS, DOS in the past. In fact there was a meeting with USCIS director too in the recent past.
Wish the problems were very simple to solve. Please do not underestimate the effort of the core team just because we do not post everything we do on the public forum. You can get information from your state chapter if you have any doubts. We are also like you and are trying our best within limited resources and time. The least this community can do is not criticize the core team and take out their frustration on us. We really need everyone to support us and contribute so that we can invest more in lobbying efforts if we need to try and get some relief. Fixing a system is not easy. Our programmer friends on the forum know this how difficult it is to fix a program that is too slow and buggy!!
more...
goel_ar
11-18 02:21 PM
Hi All,
My wife's H1B petition was approved in June 2008 with H1B valid from Oct 01, 2008. She applied for SSN on October Ist - But till date, Nov 18, 2008, SSN office is saying they are not able to pull her information from INS.
SSN office is keep saying come back after Dec 31st(12 weeks from October Ist). On the other hand, employer wants her to start working asap; she can't start until she gets a SSN.
Any suggestions, if there is anyway to follow up or expedite the process to get SSN?
Thanks in advance,
AG
My wife's H1B petition was approved in June 2008 with H1B valid from Oct 01, 2008. She applied for SSN on October Ist - But till date, Nov 18, 2008, SSN office is saying they are not able to pull her information from INS.
SSN office is keep saying come back after Dec 31st(12 weeks from October Ist). On the other hand, employer wants her to start working asap; she can't start until she gets a SSN.
Any suggestions, if there is anyway to follow up or expedite the process to get SSN?
Thanks in advance,
AG
hot white tiger tattoos
sroyc
11-09 01:53 AM
I'm interested in being part of this group. I realized last weekend that I'm not so great at handing out flyers and reaching out to random people.
I would rather spend my time on things that I'm good at. I can help with writing, analysis, drawing, etc.
I would rather spend my time on things that I'm good at. I can help with writing, analysis, drawing, etc.
more...
house Pink and white tiger lily
jcrajput
06-18 03:35 PM
What is the best way to send the documents to the emabassy? I asked because I live in Ahmedabad and I am planning to go for stamping the very next day I arrive in India.
Thanks for your help.
jignesh
Thanks for your help.
jignesh
tattoo Real Touch Tiger Lily Spray
insbaby
07-22 07:10 AM
Now I understand why June 12 VB says "Current". If everyone (atleast 300K) files in July and close the gate, all are stuck in the old fee system, which in future is constant revenue for USCIS.
300,000 X $600 = $180,000,000 / Year
can anyone miss this?
300,000 X $600 = $180,000,000 / Year
can anyone miss this?
more...
pictures Elegant Tiger Lily
onemorecame
06-07 10:28 AM
Contributed $50...
Transaction ID: 0376-4645-8164-2141
Transaction ID: 0376-4645-8164-2141
dresses tags: tiger lily flowers by
masterji
08-21 01:24 PM
Thanks for the reply. If someone uses AP does he need to use EAD? Can anyone just apply for AP and not EAD?
You can enter on H1 on "deferred inspection" status. Google for deferred inspection for more details.
You can enter on H1 on "deferred inspection" status. Google for deferred inspection for more details.
more...
makeup Tiger Lily Wedding Cake
polapragada
10-23 05:56 PM
This seems pretty amazing. I wonder how it will play out in action.
"On October 20, the Senate followed the House of Representatives in voting to protect surviving family members when either the petitioner or the principal beneficiary of a petition dies. President Obama is expected to sign this legislation shortly.
Presently, the law provides that when the petitioner or the principal beneficiary dies, so does the petition. Typically, if the beneficiaries are present in the U.S., their applications for adjustment of status are denied and they are placed in removal proceedings.
* WHO WILL BENEFIT FROM THE NEW LAW?
Not only does the new law eliminate the infamous "widow penalty", it does so much more!
When either the petitioner or the principal beneficiary dies in a wide variety of instances, the law acts to protect the surviving family members:
There are few options for surviving relatives:
For example, there is a section of the law which provides that a surviving spouse of a U.S. citizen can self-petition for permanent residence, but only if the marriage occurred at least two years before the petitioner's death.
There is also a regulation which provides that where the petitioner of a family-based petition dies before the beneficiaries of the petition became permanent residents, the beneficiaries may request that the USCIS reinstate the petition for "humanitarian" reasons.
1) Parents, spouses and children of a U.S. citizen with pending or approved petitions;
2) Beneficiaries, principal or derivative, of pending or approved family-based petitions;
3) Beneficiaries, principals or derivative, of pending or approved employment-based petitions;
4) Beneficiaries, principal or derivative, of pending or approved asylee/refugee relative petitions;
5) Nonimmigrants entitled to "T" (trafficking victims) or "U" (crime victims) status.
Since the waiting times for family-based and employment-based preference can range up to between five and 22 years, often petitioners and principal beneficiaries die before the beneficiaries of the petition can obtain permanent residence.
........
* EXAMPLE #4 - Employment-Based Petition
Dr. Kumar is a physician born in India. His wife and daughter reside with him in the U.S. He is in H-1B status. His wife and daughter are in H-4 status. Dr. Kumar completed his medical residency in the U.S. on a J-1 visa. Then, for three years, he worked in a medically-underserved area in H-1B status. In 2006, his employer submitted a PERM application on his behalf. It was approved in the Spring of 2007. In July 2007, when all the employment-based numbers became current, Dr. Kumar's employer submitted an EB-2 visa petition on his behalf. Simultaneously, Dr. Kumar, his wife and daughter all applied for adjustment of status. Then his priority date retrogressed. In 2009, Dr. Kumar was killed by a drunk driver. Under present law, the visa petition would be revoked. Under the new law, Dr. Kumar's wife and daughter would be permitted to continue with their applications to adjust status. The visa petition could only be revoked if the USCIS determined that its continued approval would not be "in the public interest".
* CONCLUSION
The new law will provide immigration benefits to "survivors" in various types of immigration cases where either the petitioner or the principal beneficiary dies before the other family members are able to become permanent residents.
However, the law is complex, and the extent of its benefits will not be known until after the USCIS and the State Department promulgate regulations, or issue memos, explaining how they plan to implement the new law."
http://shusterman.typepad.com/nation...y-members.html
It is very good law...Thanks for sharing..
"On October 20, the Senate followed the House of Representatives in voting to protect surviving family members when either the petitioner or the principal beneficiary of a petition dies. President Obama is expected to sign this legislation shortly.
Presently, the law provides that when the petitioner or the principal beneficiary dies, so does the petition. Typically, if the beneficiaries are present in the U.S., their applications for adjustment of status are denied and they are placed in removal proceedings.
* WHO WILL BENEFIT FROM THE NEW LAW?
Not only does the new law eliminate the infamous "widow penalty", it does so much more!
When either the petitioner or the principal beneficiary dies in a wide variety of instances, the law acts to protect the surviving family members:
There are few options for surviving relatives:
For example, there is a section of the law which provides that a surviving spouse of a U.S. citizen can self-petition for permanent residence, but only if the marriage occurred at least two years before the petitioner's death.
There is also a regulation which provides that where the petitioner of a family-based petition dies before the beneficiaries of the petition became permanent residents, the beneficiaries may request that the USCIS reinstate the petition for "humanitarian" reasons.
1) Parents, spouses and children of a U.S. citizen with pending or approved petitions;
2) Beneficiaries, principal or derivative, of pending or approved family-based petitions;
3) Beneficiaries, principals or derivative, of pending or approved employment-based petitions;
4) Beneficiaries, principal or derivative, of pending or approved asylee/refugee relative petitions;
5) Nonimmigrants entitled to "T" (trafficking victims) or "U" (crime victims) status.
Since the waiting times for family-based and employment-based preference can range up to between five and 22 years, often petitioners and principal beneficiaries die before the beneficiaries of the petition can obtain permanent residence.
........
* EXAMPLE #4 - Employment-Based Petition
Dr. Kumar is a physician born in India. His wife and daughter reside with him in the U.S. He is in H-1B status. His wife and daughter are in H-4 status. Dr. Kumar completed his medical residency in the U.S. on a J-1 visa. Then, for three years, he worked in a medically-underserved area in H-1B status. In 2006, his employer submitted a PERM application on his behalf. It was approved in the Spring of 2007. In July 2007, when all the employment-based numbers became current, Dr. Kumar's employer submitted an EB-2 visa petition on his behalf. Simultaneously, Dr. Kumar, his wife and daughter all applied for adjustment of status. Then his priority date retrogressed. In 2009, Dr. Kumar was killed by a drunk driver. Under present law, the visa petition would be revoked. Under the new law, Dr. Kumar's wife and daughter would be permitted to continue with their applications to adjust status. The visa petition could only be revoked if the USCIS determined that its continued approval would not be "in the public interest".
* CONCLUSION
The new law will provide immigration benefits to "survivors" in various types of immigration cases where either the petitioner or the principal beneficiary dies before the other family members are able to become permanent residents.
However, the law is complex, and the extent of its benefits will not be known until after the USCIS and the State Department promulgate regulations, or issue memos, explaining how they plan to implement the new law."
http://shusterman.typepad.com/nation...y-members.html
It is very good law...Thanks for sharing..
girlfriend Day lilies,white tiger
coolest_me
01-14 04:50 PM
I used this charity to donate. It accepts only paypal.
Hope for Haiti, (http://www.hopeforhaiti.com/)
Hope for Haiti, (http://www.hopeforhaiti.com/)
hairstyles Red+tiger+lily+drawing
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.
anilsal
01-14 08:39 AM
once the file has been assigned to an officer and the dates are current? I am just curious.
Just the file being assigned to an officer does not mean adjudication soon.:)
Just the file being assigned to an officer does not mean adjudication soon.:)
SGP
03-25 03:48 PM
Once your I-140 is approved and even if the employer files to revoke the I-140 it will not affect your status. It is at the discretion of the USCIS to revoke the approved I-140. USCIS will revoke the approved I-140 if it detects that it was fraudulently obtained.
Now to answer your question : Even if company A files to revoke I-140 before the individual files for H1 transfer, it does not make a difference to the individual.
________________________________
Deadline = April 30th, 2011
Goal = 5000 votes on survey (see I-485 filing w/o current PD thread) and momentum to continue with this campaign.The survey is a platform to gather and push for launching action items. Based on response by 04/30/2011 - IV will decide whether to even proceed with initiative or not.
Actions - 1) Vote on survey.
2)Email ivcoordinator@gmail.com with PD, ph#,email & subject "I485 filing impacted�,
3)Print/Circulate Fliers and spread FB, wiki link (see "support thread")
You said you didn't get a chance to file for I 485 with company A , means you did transfer H1b. Did company A withdraw before you transfered H1b ? Did you do transfer with in initial 6 year of H1b ?
Now to answer your question : Even if company A files to revoke I-140 before the individual files for H1 transfer, it does not make a difference to the individual.
________________________________
Deadline = April 30th, 2011
Goal = 5000 votes on survey (see I-485 filing w/o current PD thread) and momentum to continue with this campaign.The survey is a platform to gather and push for launching action items. Based on response by 04/30/2011 - IV will decide whether to even proceed with initiative or not.
Actions - 1) Vote on survey.
2)Email ivcoordinator@gmail.com with PD, ph#,email & subject "I485 filing impacted�,
3)Print/Circulate Fliers and spread FB, wiki link (see "support thread")
You said you didn't get a chance to file for I 485 with company A , means you did transfer H1b. Did company A withdraw before you transfered H1b ? Did you do transfer with in initial 6 year of H1b ?
No comments:
Post a Comment