gc_bulgaria
11-25 02:07 PM
You do not need any permission from your employer. As long as you put in 40 hours per week, i dont think anyone cares for what you do with the rest of your time (as long as you dont hold another job).
And as far as going to school full time is concerned, i use the same logic. I was full time in Fall 2006 while being on H1b (and my GC was being processed). i am currently enrolled part time but will be enrolling full time next spring. I am currently working with the same employer. Dont think it will be an issue and dont plan on taking any permissions.
I am doing the same - full time H1B, part time school. Can use EAD for assistantship and full time school next year (if GC does not come through). If GC is approved(hopefully) since NC is already cleared and PD is current, I will continue about 6 months more full time with employer and do part time school.
And as far as going to school full time is concerned, i use the same logic. I was full time in Fall 2006 while being on H1b (and my GC was being processed). i am currently enrolled part time but will be enrolling full time next spring. I am currently working with the same employer. Dont think it will be an issue and dont plan on taking any permissions.
I am doing the same - full time H1B, part time school. Can use EAD for assistantship and full time school next year (if GC does not come through). If GC is approved(hopefully) since NC is already cleared and PD is current, I will continue about 6 months more full time with employer and do part time school.
wallpaper Pink amp; Purple Flowers
snathan
01-22 07:36 PM
I hate the word Donate but somehow I donated blood which will be sent to Haiti. I did some in monies. Life is life no matter who it is.
Can you provide more details...?
Can you provide more details...?
lostinbeta
10-28 10:21 PM
Yeah, usually people look for credentials when finding a web designer.
You know what you could try to do?
Possibly create so mock sites to add to your portfolio to show people who are looking.
Like they don't have to be for a real company, make something up, build a site and use that to show people.
You know what you could try to do?
Possibly create so mock sites to add to your portfolio to show people who are looking.
Like they don't have to be for a real company, make something up, build a site and use that to show people.
2011 Purple Flower Wallpaper
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...
sk2006
08-19 12:29 PM
OK.
I got the magic mail today welcoming the new permanent resident.
It talks about ADIT processing(see below).
What does this mean?
I haven't received "CARD PRODUCTION ORDERED" email.
It is normal?
Application Type: I485, APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
Current Status: Notice mailed welcoming the new permanent resident.
On August 18, 2008, we mailed you a notice that we had registered this customer's new permanent resident status. Please follow any instructions on the notice. Your new permanent resident card should be mailed within 60 days following this registration or after you complete any ADIT processing referred to in the welcome notice, whichever is later. If you move before you get your new card call customer service. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the link below to register.
(PD sep 2004, Nebraska, USCIS receipt date: 7/27/2007, notice date : Aug 20, 2007.)
I got the magic mail today welcoming the new permanent resident.
It talks about ADIT processing(see below).
What does this mean?
I haven't received "CARD PRODUCTION ORDERED" email.
It is normal?
Application Type: I485, APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
Current Status: Notice mailed welcoming the new permanent resident.
On August 18, 2008, we mailed you a notice that we had registered this customer's new permanent resident status. Please follow any instructions on the notice. Your new permanent resident card should be mailed within 60 days following this registration or after you complete any ADIT processing referred to in the welcome notice, whichever is later. If you move before you get your new card call customer service. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the link below to register.
(PD sep 2004, Nebraska, USCIS receipt date: 7/27/2007, notice date : Aug 20, 2007.)
roseball
06-22 08:49 PM
I got mine done at Samsclub.....$4.99 for 2 pics and 0.40 cents each for extra prints.
more...
geve
09-22 11:58 AM
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/sep2008/tc20080915_270731.htm
There's no place like the U.S. when it comes to creating a thriving tech sector. Or is there? The U.S. still has the world's most competitive information technology industry, but its lead is slipping, according to a new study conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) for the Business Software Alliance (BSA).
The study, released Sept. 16, ranks 66 countries in six areas, including the availability of skilled labor, the "innovation friendliness" of a nation's culture, and the strength of its legal protections for intellectual property. The U.S. scored highest overall, but its rating fell from last year, and it was No. 1 in only three of the categories. "America should be proud that it's No. 1, but Americans should also be aware that it can no longer take its leadership for granted," says Robert Holleyman, president and CEO of the BSA, a Washington (D.C.)-based organization that promotes the interests of the software industry.
The EIU's analysis also weighed the quality of a nation's technology infrastructure, measuring the number of PCs per 100 people, market spending on IT hardware per 100 people, the availability of secure Internet servers per 100,000 people, and the percentage of the population with high-speed Internet access. Switzerland, ranked 11th overall, outscored the U.S. on IT infrastructure, which accounted for 20% of a country's score. The study also assessed the openness of a country's economy and the quality of government leadership on technology issues.
No. 5 in R&D Support
In a finding that's likely to vex would-be entrepreneurs, the U.S. scores even further down the list�No. 5�in support for R&D. Taiwan led the category, followed by South Korea, Japan, and Sweden. Here, the EIU scored countries based on the number of new IT-related patents, receipts from royalty payments and licensing fees, and public and private spending on R&D. Holleyman says the BSA plans to share its findings with both major Presidential campaigns and with members of Congress.
The U.S. also lags countries including Canada, Singapore, Britain, and Norway in support for IT development, which accounted for 15% of the overall score. This category covers such things as e-government initiatives, government spending on IT hardware, and access to financing.
The findings of the study will likely renew calls among both IT industry executives and politicians for the country to develop a national innovation strategy as countries such as Finland have done. "America needs a wake-up call," says John Kao, a former professor at Harvard Business School and author of Innovation Nation, a book arguing that the U.S. is losing its edge. "We don't really have a national strategy," he says. "And while I'm not a fan of top-down technocratic approach, I think that at this point in our history, having no strategy is not satisfactory."
Sounding the Alarm
As concerned as he is about U.S. competitiveness, Kao is not a favor of indexes that compare competitiveness among nations, saying they can misrepresent a country's true climate. "They're really abstractions of reality, and they often paint too rosy a picture," he says.
Kao isn't alone in calling the country's competitiveness into question. Judy Estrin, a former Cisco Systems (CSCO) executive, is sounding the alarm as well in a new book, Closing the Innovation Gap, published by BusinessWeek's parent, The McGraw-Hill Cos. (MHP). Estrin says that the lead America enjoys now is the result of work done decades ago, and that the same commitment to innovation and research that existed before has evaporated. "Innovation builds on innovation. We're reaping the benefits now of seeds planted 10, 20, and 30 years ago, and the problem is that we're not planting any more seeds," she says.
The study shows the U.S. still leads the world in the "human capital" category, which measures the number of students attending universities, a country's capacity to train scientists and engineers, and employment in the tech sector as a percentage of the overall workforce. Here too, though, the U.S. lead is threatened. While students from other countries still flock to U.S. universities to get their MBAs and PhDs, tight immigration policies are causing more of those students to go home after graduation. "Our own education system is not producing the innovators we need," Estrin says. "And we're not opening our doors to the best people, and our immigration policy is such that we have been making it harder for them to stay, and so they are going home and innovating elsewhere."
By highlighting vulnerabilities, the study doesn't just trumpet U.S. weaknesses; it points to areas where improvements can be made. "A strong tech industry is crucial to America's ability to address almost every economic and social challenge," Holleyman says in a statement. "Despite our current economic difficulties, the tech sector remains one of the primary engines of the U.S. economy. This index provides a guide to how we can keep that engine moving forward to ensure competitiveness in the future."
There's no place like the U.S. when it comes to creating a thriving tech sector. Or is there? The U.S. still has the world's most competitive information technology industry, but its lead is slipping, according to a new study conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) for the Business Software Alliance (BSA).
The study, released Sept. 16, ranks 66 countries in six areas, including the availability of skilled labor, the "innovation friendliness" of a nation's culture, and the strength of its legal protections for intellectual property. The U.S. scored highest overall, but its rating fell from last year, and it was No. 1 in only three of the categories. "America should be proud that it's No. 1, but Americans should also be aware that it can no longer take its leadership for granted," says Robert Holleyman, president and CEO of the BSA, a Washington (D.C.)-based organization that promotes the interests of the software industry.
The EIU's analysis also weighed the quality of a nation's technology infrastructure, measuring the number of PCs per 100 people, market spending on IT hardware per 100 people, the availability of secure Internet servers per 100,000 people, and the percentage of the population with high-speed Internet access. Switzerland, ranked 11th overall, outscored the U.S. on IT infrastructure, which accounted for 20% of a country's score. The study also assessed the openness of a country's economy and the quality of government leadership on technology issues.
No. 5 in R&D Support
In a finding that's likely to vex would-be entrepreneurs, the U.S. scores even further down the list�No. 5�in support for R&D. Taiwan led the category, followed by South Korea, Japan, and Sweden. Here, the EIU scored countries based on the number of new IT-related patents, receipts from royalty payments and licensing fees, and public and private spending on R&D. Holleyman says the BSA plans to share its findings with both major Presidential campaigns and with members of Congress.
The U.S. also lags countries including Canada, Singapore, Britain, and Norway in support for IT development, which accounted for 15% of the overall score. This category covers such things as e-government initiatives, government spending on IT hardware, and access to financing.
The findings of the study will likely renew calls among both IT industry executives and politicians for the country to develop a national innovation strategy as countries such as Finland have done. "America needs a wake-up call," says John Kao, a former professor at Harvard Business School and author of Innovation Nation, a book arguing that the U.S. is losing its edge. "We don't really have a national strategy," he says. "And while I'm not a fan of top-down technocratic approach, I think that at this point in our history, having no strategy is not satisfactory."
Sounding the Alarm
As concerned as he is about U.S. competitiveness, Kao is not a favor of indexes that compare competitiveness among nations, saying they can misrepresent a country's true climate. "They're really abstractions of reality, and they often paint too rosy a picture," he says.
Kao isn't alone in calling the country's competitiveness into question. Judy Estrin, a former Cisco Systems (CSCO) executive, is sounding the alarm as well in a new book, Closing the Innovation Gap, published by BusinessWeek's parent, The McGraw-Hill Cos. (MHP). Estrin says that the lead America enjoys now is the result of work done decades ago, and that the same commitment to innovation and research that existed before has evaporated. "Innovation builds on innovation. We're reaping the benefits now of seeds planted 10, 20, and 30 years ago, and the problem is that we're not planting any more seeds," she says.
The study shows the U.S. still leads the world in the "human capital" category, which measures the number of students attending universities, a country's capacity to train scientists and engineers, and employment in the tech sector as a percentage of the overall workforce. Here too, though, the U.S. lead is threatened. While students from other countries still flock to U.S. universities to get their MBAs and PhDs, tight immigration policies are causing more of those students to go home after graduation. "Our own education system is not producing the innovators we need," Estrin says. "And we're not opening our doors to the best people, and our immigration policy is such that we have been making it harder for them to stay, and so they are going home and innovating elsewhere."
By highlighting vulnerabilities, the study doesn't just trumpet U.S. weaknesses; it points to areas where improvements can be made. "A strong tech industry is crucial to America's ability to address almost every economic and social challenge," Holleyman says in a statement. "Despite our current economic difficulties, the tech sector remains one of the primary engines of the U.S. economy. This index provides a guide to how we can keep that engine moving forward to ensure competitiveness in the future."
2010 Moda Purple Flowers on Black
duncanidaho
02-17 10:51 PM
Stuk,
You'll be stuck forever if your 140 gets denied after you use AC21. If the 140 gets denied, your 485 will be denied automatically and your EAD becomes invalid. At this point, you have the option of filing a motion to reopen the 140 case and/or applying for an H1(that is not subject to quota), provided you have not spent more than 180 days in the US after your 140/485 are denied.
In all likelihood your H1 will be approved, but you need to go to your home country to get the visa stamped and reenter to start work. When you go for stamping to your home country there a a good chance that your stamping might be denied because you have shown 'intent to immigrate' by applying for 140/485 earlier. Granted, H1B in and of itself is a dual intent visa but you will be at the mercy of the visa officer at the consulate and the odds are stacked up against you.
So, be very very careful if you exercise AC21 prior to your 140 approval.
The best alternative is to ask your new employer to file for premium H1b transfer.
You'll be stuck forever if your 140 gets denied after you use AC21. If the 140 gets denied, your 485 will be denied automatically and your EAD becomes invalid. At this point, you have the option of filing a motion to reopen the 140 case and/or applying for an H1(that is not subject to quota), provided you have not spent more than 180 days in the US after your 140/485 are denied.
In all likelihood your H1 will be approved, but you need to go to your home country to get the visa stamped and reenter to start work. When you go for stamping to your home country there a a good chance that your stamping might be denied because you have shown 'intent to immigrate' by applying for 140/485 earlier. Granted, H1B in and of itself is a dual intent visa but you will be at the mercy of the visa officer at the consulate and the odds are stacked up against you.
So, be very very careful if you exercise AC21 prior to your 140 approval.
The best alternative is to ask your new employer to file for premium H1b transfer.
more...
pd_recapturing
08-14 05:51 PM
Hi, I recently filed my I-485 using my pre-approved Eb3 I-140 (PD:May 2004). Around a month back, I applied a new EB2 I140 and that got approved today so I have ported my PDs to this new EB2 I-140. Now, I am planning to file an amendment to replace the EB3 I-140 with EB2 I-140 attached with my I-485. Some people call this process as interfiling too. Can somebody please let me know if he/she has done it before and how long does it take to get affected?
hair Hope Bubbles Purple Flower
green_card
07-20 01:58 PM
stop the guessing game. give some concrete info if you know it or let someone else that knows answer.
what you believe doesnt amount to a hill of beans. no offense.
I do not believe they really have time to sort out by priority date if sep'30 is the date they need to get 40K approvals through.
what you believe doesnt amount to a hill of beans. no offense.
I do not believe they really have time to sort out by priority date if sep'30 is the date they need to get 40K approvals through.
more...
thamizhan
07-17 10:32 PM
http://www..com/
hot wallpaper purple flower.
AmericanInSpain
04-08 11:46 AM
I have a similar situation and I want to hear more about working remotely using a non-work resident visa...
- I am a US citizen preparing to telecommute for 18 months from Spain. I'm employed by a US company, and will continue receiving US dollars in my US bank account.
- I am moving to Spain using a Multiple-Entry Long-term Student Family Visa. My husband will attend business school there in Spain, and I will be granted the visa as his dependent. We will obtain Student Residence Permits once we arrive in Spain this August.
- My US company has no offices in Spain, nor does it pay any Spanish taxes. The work I would be doing would be for the US, on a US internet domain, and I would be paid in US dollars.
My company's legal counsel is saying I must obtain a work permit to legally work remotely from Spain. But my company has no existing entity there!
I saw "Frostrated"s thread below and was hoping someone could provide more on the topic. Thanks!
Spain has two types of resident visas. One that allows you to work, and the other that is purely for residence only. If you have a residence visa that allows you to work, you have to find employment with a Spain company within 30 days of your visa being approved or your entry into Spain, which ever is later.
About you working from Spain on a non-work resident visa, it is possible, as long as the work that you perform is for a company that is outside of Spain, has no offices in Spain and does not file business taxes in Spain. It is equal to you working for yourself without pay or benefits. Whatever you earn, you are earning in a foreign country where Spain does not have jurisdiction.
- I am a US citizen preparing to telecommute for 18 months from Spain. I'm employed by a US company, and will continue receiving US dollars in my US bank account.
- I am moving to Spain using a Multiple-Entry Long-term Student Family Visa. My husband will attend business school there in Spain, and I will be granted the visa as his dependent. We will obtain Student Residence Permits once we arrive in Spain this August.
- My US company has no offices in Spain, nor does it pay any Spanish taxes. The work I would be doing would be for the US, on a US internet domain, and I would be paid in US dollars.
My company's legal counsel is saying I must obtain a work permit to legally work remotely from Spain. But my company has no existing entity there!
I saw "Frostrated"s thread below and was hoping someone could provide more on the topic. Thanks!
Spain has two types of resident visas. One that allows you to work, and the other that is purely for residence only. If you have a residence visa that allows you to work, you have to find employment with a Spain company within 30 days of your visa being approved or your entry into Spain, which ever is later.
About you working from Spain on a non-work resident visa, it is possible, as long as the work that you perform is for a company that is outside of Spain, has no offices in Spain and does not file business taxes in Spain. It is equal to you working for yourself without pay or benefits. Whatever you earn, you are earning in a foreign country where Spain does not have jurisdiction.
more...
house Purple Flower Wallpaper
kams
06-18 01:21 PM
My colleague was in similar situation. He went to Canada for H1 Visa stamping and while returning, the oficer at the border said I94 on the 797 is sufficient. Our lawer (Fragomen) adviced him to enter border crossing as last port of entry.
tattoo Purple Flower - 800x600
nraja
03-09 04:26 PM
My 2 cents.
If you employer accepts or lawyer accepts the porting the date then your friend can apply the EB2 priority date to EB3 date.
Means he/she can get EB2 with 2002. As per my knowledge it is possible. But please dont ask me the document. Check with google or some website for document.
Thanks.
If you employer accepts or lawyer accepts the porting the date then your friend can apply the EB2 priority date to EB3 date.
Means he/she can get EB2 with 2002. As per my knowledge it is possible. But please dont ask me the document. Check with google or some website for document.
Thanks.
more...
pictures Purple Flowers wallpaper
amsgc
07-07 09:50 PM
Very good, shabaash!!
Because of A. Holes like you, H1B visa holders get a bad name. And look at your gall, you are publicly announcing an intent to commit deciet.
IV Core and company: Please remove this thread - we do not want to provide more fodder to anti-immigrants.
And as for you moron, yes, you will get into trouble if you think you can dick around with govt. agencies.
Grow up!!!!!!!!
Hi,
I will be applying for LC in a few days. So, I want to clarify something.
My ad says MS + 1 yr of experience.
Question 1: My 1 yr will be prior to my MS so can i use this experience ?
Question 2: If so Can I show that experience worked back in my country from my very close freind who runs a small software company ?
He is willing to give me any kind of experince letter and if USCSI calls ready to answer them.
But just wondering what will be the consequences of doing this. Obviously I can't show any paystubs or W2 forms for that 1 yr.
What are the other evidences that I may require for this other than employer verification letters ?Please reply, emergency !
In which stage in GC will they look sriously (does in conitnue till i-485 stage ?)
Because of A. Holes like you, H1B visa holders get a bad name. And look at your gall, you are publicly announcing an intent to commit deciet.
IV Core and company: Please remove this thread - we do not want to provide more fodder to anti-immigrants.
And as for you moron, yes, you will get into trouble if you think you can dick around with govt. agencies.
Grow up!!!!!!!!
Hi,
I will be applying for LC in a few days. So, I want to clarify something.
My ad says MS + 1 yr of experience.
Question 1: My 1 yr will be prior to my MS so can i use this experience ?
Question 2: If so Can I show that experience worked back in my country from my very close freind who runs a small software company ?
He is willing to give me any kind of experince letter and if USCSI calls ready to answer them.
But just wondering what will be the consequences of doing this. Obviously I can't show any paystubs or W2 forms for that 1 yr.
What are the other evidences that I may require for this other than employer verification letters ?Please reply, emergency !
In which stage in GC will they look sriously (does in conitnue till i-485 stage ?)
dresses Purple Flower Wallpaper
atlfp
04-08 03:17 PM
The raw majority definitely counts. The reson S.1932 failed was because it was an extremely republican bill -- it went through without a single democrat vote. A small fraction of republican was able to black mail the visa numbers stuff because of republican can not afford to lose any single republican vote. They needed all of them to get it trhough. In another words, those anti-immigration guys did not build a coalition against legal immigration, as they still can not today, they simply black mailed it.
The situation for PACE act is definitely different. PACE enjoys broad support from both side. It will be very difficult for any of those anti-immigration guy to play the same kind of trick again. It simply won't work.
Your belief in raw majority votes in the conference is touching. ;-) But all it takes is one person -- one Sensenbrenner, or equivalent to build a coalition within the conference, and one house leader to pick and choose the members of the conference.
To reiterate -- 20% of the house is in the House (Anti) Immigration Caucus. The house bill was voted in by a clear majority. Chew on that.
The situation for PACE act is definitely different. PACE enjoys broad support from both side. It will be very difficult for any of those anti-immigration guy to play the same kind of trick again. It simply won't work.
Your belief in raw majority votes in the conference is touching. ;-) But all it takes is one person -- one Sensenbrenner, or equivalent to build a coalition within the conference, and one house leader to pick and choose the members of the conference.
To reiterate -- 20% of the house is in the House (Anti) Immigration Caucus. The house bill was voted in by a clear majority. Chew on that.
more...
makeup Beautiful Purple Flowers (13)
siddar
09-15 11:12 AM
USCIS is posting the processing times on the same date as they mentioned on the document......unbelievable, Hope its not a USCIS mistake.
girlfriend happy spring purple flowers
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.
hairstyles Purple Flower Wallpaper
senk1s
02-24 03:04 PM
I have e-filed along with spouse new SSN#..no issues...
When we sent cancel letter for ITIN,got a reply confirmation from IRS saying you can now use ssn# for tax filing purposes....
HTH,
webm: After how long (approx) did you receive the confirmation letter - we sent it out about 2 months ago
When we sent cancel letter for ITIN,got a reply confirmation from IRS saying you can now use ssn# for tax filing purposes....
HTH,
webm: After how long (approx) did you receive the confirmation letter - we sent it out about 2 months ago
nlssubbu
05-19 01:08 PM
In the similar boat.. I received sms/email on 13th that 485 has been approved but have not received any welcome/approval letter till date. I am on H1b. It has expired and I don't have Advance Parole also. I need to travel urgently in first week of June 2011. I was thinking of getting my H1b stamped during the trip, but since that's not possible what are my options???
I called my lawyers office but really didn't get any sound reply... seems like that lost interest once I told them I am not filing EAD/AP and GC is approved
Why don't you take an Info-Pass and check with an immigration officer? In case of GC approved but yet to be received at your end, there is a possibility that they can stamp your passport with temporary GC (I-551 i think) for urgent travel.
Try your luck!
Regards
I called my lawyers office but really didn't get any sound reply... seems like that lost interest once I told them I am not filing EAD/AP and GC is approved
Why don't you take an Info-Pass and check with an immigration officer? In case of GC approved but yet to be received at your end, there is a possibility that they can stamp your passport with temporary GC (I-551 i think) for urgent travel.
Try your luck!
Regards
gdhiren
05-08 10:24 AM
There is nothing to be afraid of. I don't think they will even ask where you work. Just talk about Employment based GC retrogression problem and Immigration Voice. They are not interested in hunting down you or your company.
No comments:
Post a Comment