raysaikat
07-10 07:06 PM
... I will only go for stamping AFTER my PIMS Verification is done in TIjuana, Mexico.
...
They can always decide to have a security clearance/check (most disciplines are listed in TAL). So always assume that you will be stuck for 2-3 months wherever you go for H1-B stamping. That means, go somewhere where you have a place to stay for free and hopefully can work on your job remotely.
...
They can always decide to have a security clearance/check (most disciplines are listed in TAL). So always assume that you will be stuck for 2-3 months wherever you go for H1-B stamping. That means, go somewhere where you have a place to stay for free and hopefully can work on your job remotely.
wallpaper Funny Facebook Comment,
leoindiano
08-28 02:56 PM
apume,
I am just asking why i lost my Donor Access? Not begging.
They opened a thread, "Good News on preadjudication"...I just wanted to take a look at it.
If you count how many people contributed more than me, you will not find more than 100 members. If top 100 contributers dont have access, who will have accesss to Donor Forums.... What is the freaking use? Why even have Donor Threads?
No Accountability results in No Credibility.
I am not against donating (have done it myself) but do you guys really think they are giving out GCs to the donors?
Or is someone giving out the secret to a quicker GC in the donor forum?
Or is there the address of the shop selling GCs?
Whatever appears in RED color - supposedly for donors - to me seems to be a marketing trick to attract more donation (sadly, they had to resort to this) - but remember that if there is a big news that is relevant to us - it will be flashed everywhere, even in Indian newspapers!
Don't go begging access to the donor forum or start salivating at the thought of accessing it... just seems kinda childish to me.
Don't gimme reds for this, it was only worth 0.02 - not enough for donation!
Chill, Peace!
I am just asking why i lost my Donor Access? Not begging.
They opened a thread, "Good News on preadjudication"...I just wanted to take a look at it.
If you count how many people contributed more than me, you will not find more than 100 members. If top 100 contributers dont have access, who will have accesss to Donor Forums.... What is the freaking use? Why even have Donor Threads?
No Accountability results in No Credibility.
I am not against donating (have done it myself) but do you guys really think they are giving out GCs to the donors?
Or is someone giving out the secret to a quicker GC in the donor forum?
Or is there the address of the shop selling GCs?
Whatever appears in RED color - supposedly for donors - to me seems to be a marketing trick to attract more donation (sadly, they had to resort to this) - but remember that if there is a big news that is relevant to us - it will be flashed everywhere, even in Indian newspapers!
Don't go begging access to the donor forum or start salivating at the thought of accessing it... just seems kinda childish to me.
Don't gimme reds for this, it was only worth 0.02 - not enough for donation!
Chill, Peace!
cbpds
10-05 10:07 PM
I am asked to show my I 797 form by the Indian officer once I land in India from USA, not just once every single time :)
2011 funny facebook status ideas
leoindiano
08-28 04:36 PM
You contributed 600:confused: for what?
For different initiatives. Did you see my join date? I joined in the first month when it is founded. Not a big deal...I am not even sure why i have to prove and tell these stories....last post....
For different initiatives. Did you see my join date? I joined in the first month when it is founded. Not a big deal...I am not even sure why i have to prove and tell these stories....last post....
more...
saketkapur
07-06 12:40 PM
Yes, I did the same.....even though I had a valid H1B stamped in my passport the POE made me use the AP to enter.....
TwinkleM
06-24 12:14 AM
My H1 filed & approved thorugh company A from October 2004.
H1 then transferred to company B & approved from Nov 2005.
My GC process (EB3 Category) started & labor filed through company C for future job in Feb 2006. Labor approved & I-140 filed in June 2006. RFE received in April 2007 & documents received by INS in May 2007. SINCE THEN I-140 is pending... I-485 & EAD filed in July fiasco. EAD approved and renewed once. Valid until september 2010.
My H1 extension through company B denied in Jan 2009 (H1 expired in september 2008). MTR filed in Feb 2009, still pending. This made my EAD active as I have continued working for company B.
Another H1 filed through company C (GC sponsoring company) in April 2009 and RFE notice dated 23rd June, 2009 yet to be received.
In the process of filing 2nd labor through Comapny C ( same company), but this time under EB2 category.
At this point, my questions are:
1) Since my new H1 is through my GC sponsoring company, will RFE for H1 impact old GC process & new GC process?
2) Is my old pending I-140 eligible for premium processing since it is stuck for almost 3 years now? If yes, is it worth doing it?
The reason I want to get my old I-140 to be approved so that I can retain my old priority date.
Experts please share some knwoledge and suggest the steps best for my situation....Am really stressed out...
Thank You in advance...
H1 then transferred to company B & approved from Nov 2005.
My GC process (EB3 Category) started & labor filed through company C for future job in Feb 2006. Labor approved & I-140 filed in June 2006. RFE received in April 2007 & documents received by INS in May 2007. SINCE THEN I-140 is pending... I-485 & EAD filed in July fiasco. EAD approved and renewed once. Valid until september 2010.
My H1 extension through company B denied in Jan 2009 (H1 expired in september 2008). MTR filed in Feb 2009, still pending. This made my EAD active as I have continued working for company B.
Another H1 filed through company C (GC sponsoring company) in April 2009 and RFE notice dated 23rd June, 2009 yet to be received.
In the process of filing 2nd labor through Comapny C ( same company), but this time under EB2 category.
At this point, my questions are:
1) Since my new H1 is through my GC sponsoring company, will RFE for H1 impact old GC process & new GC process?
2) Is my old pending I-140 eligible for premium processing since it is stuck for almost 3 years now? If yes, is it worth doing it?
The reason I want to get my old I-140 to be approved so that I can retain my old priority date.
Experts please share some knwoledge and suggest the steps best for my situation....Am really stressed out...
Thank You in advance...
more...
deecha
08-06 11:15 AM
My i-140 premium processing application was filed on the 22nd of June,2007 as indicated in the information below. The package & check were returned in the first week of July. A letter indicating the reason for remittance and return was that the labor cert. attached was a photocopy and not the original.
Now what does not make sense here is that the original labor was sent along with the original i140 application filed last year(in june 2006).
I called the USCIS info line and the rep. suggested that i could resend it with an explanation.
What concerns me is if i do resend it, would it be considered only after suspension of i140 premium is lifted or would it be considered as a case from last month and processed under premium.
I think you should resend the packet in with proof of prior mailing.
Now what does not make sense here is that the original labor was sent along with the original i140 application filed last year(in june 2006).
I called the USCIS info line and the rep. suggested that i could resend it with an explanation.
What concerns me is if i do resend it, would it be considered only after suspension of i140 premium is lifted or would it be considered as a case from last month and processed under premium.
I think you should resend the packet in with proof of prior mailing.
2010 Cool Funny Quotes
Munna Bhai
11-09 08:45 AM
Hello,
My labour is certified but we have to yet to file I-140 and my H1b is getting over my May 2007. Even If I file I-140, it will not be more than 365 days.
Will I get I year extensions?
-Thanks,
M
My labour is certified but we have to yet to file I-140 and my H1b is getting over my May 2007. Even If I file I-140, it will not be more than 365 days.
Will I get I year extensions?
-Thanks,
M
more...
pappu
05-11 01:16 PM
thanks, it worked.
hair funny facebook status quotes.
sparky_jones
10-27 03:58 PM
Folks - everyday I go to sleep I wish that tomorrow the sun will rise in the west. When I wake up I see that nothing has changed.
Change is hard - but change definitely brings new hope and prosperity.
With bad economy, Green Card issues, visa retrogression, layoffs, bad stocks, housing crisis and with growing inflation - all we do is hope and strive towards betterment.
Diwali is a celebration of the victory of good over evil and I wish this Diwali will bring victory to the well deserved.
Lets all be together in turbulent times and work towards the change that we always want to see.
IV has helped us all and continue to help us. IV is nothing but all of us together. Lets all pledge our support to IV on this thread.
A very nice message! Happy Diwali to you too!
Change is hard - but change definitely brings new hope and prosperity.
With bad economy, Green Card issues, visa retrogression, layoffs, bad stocks, housing crisis and with growing inflation - all we do is hope and strive towards betterment.
Diwali is a celebration of the victory of good over evil and I wish this Diwali will bring victory to the well deserved.
Lets all be together in turbulent times and work towards the change that we always want to see.
IV has helped us all and continue to help us. IV is nothing but all of us together. Lets all pledge our support to IV on this thread.
A very nice message! Happy Diwali to you too!
more...
softcrowd
04-23 09:35 AM
Yes, that means your I-140 is "filed" under EB2...But note that USCIS can always comeback & say it "can" or "can not" be approved under Eb2 based on the job description in Labor.
In rare scenarios, USCIS comes back with a "NO" to Eb2, especially if the JOB description in Labor does not suit an Eb2 requirement. But in 99% of the cases, its fine (because, attorneys normally don't file it under Eb2 if its not one).
All the best!!
In rare scenarios, USCIS comes back with a "NO" to Eb2, especially if the JOB description in Labor does not suit an Eb2 requirement. But in 99% of the cases, its fine (because, attorneys normally don't file it under Eb2 if its not one).
All the best!!
hot in his Facebook status,
bsbawa10
05-10 09:08 AM
since there are so many threads discussing what we can and should do ..I thought that I would open this thread ..my red dots should send a signal that this is a serious issue. if USCIS were to act like this next year too ..then EB3 will become unavailable in march 2010 and EB2 will retrogress in june 2010 ..in other words HISTORY WILL REPEAT ITSELF ..so lets do something now (in addtion to helping IV) !!!
I think the only language that US understands is lawsuit otherwise everything is unfair. You can see that is why there is a lawsuit culture here. Every agency govt and non govt tries to cheat you be it car rental agency, be it movers be it USCIS. By default everything is taken moral in US unless proven by lawsuit or dictated by law.
Even if we loose lawsuit, it will make impact in the sense that the issue will get a lot of publicity. I am willing to donate to IV but not for nothing, not for flowers, not protests not for this forum either, I am willing to donate if there is some rigid action to be taken like a lawsuit.
I think the only language that US understands is lawsuit otherwise everything is unfair. You can see that is why there is a lawsuit culture here. Every agency govt and non govt tries to cheat you be it car rental agency, be it movers be it USCIS. By default everything is taken moral in US unless proven by lawsuit or dictated by law.
Even if we loose lawsuit, it will make impact in the sense that the issue will get a lot of publicity. I am willing to donate to IV but not for nothing, not for flowers, not protests not for this forum either, I am willing to donate if there is some rigid action to be taken like a lawsuit.
more...
house facebook funny status messages
anilsal
01-07 08:42 AM
When someone lashes out, suddenly these guys think their original decision was misunderstood. Who are u trying to fool?
Glad the lawyers made an issue out of this.
Glad the lawyers made an issue out of this.
tattoo funny facebook quotes. funny
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...
pictures funny quotes on facebook.
ita
05-16 03:50 PM
Hi all, I need your advice and opinions about my situation.
H1b – Started on Oct 07
PERM is approved and my PD is April 6, 2006 (PERM)
i140 and i485 July 2007 (Received by USCIS Texas Center September 10, 2007)
AP and EAD received September 2007
My company lawyer just emails me to ask about renewing my EAD/AP. My company paid for my first EAD/AP and I paid for my wife EAD/AP. Now, I will have to pay both of them since I think they know that it is not main process for my GC sponsorship. They only pay for the green card process.
I do not plan to change my job and do not plan to travel outside US (unless there is a family emergency). My wife and children are all in the US. My wife does not plan to work/travel. So do I need to renew my EAD/AP?
It is nice to have AP since I can travel if I have to travel outside US for Family emergency but for EAD, I do not think that I won’t need it.
Is there any benefit to have EAD in my situation?
If I do not renew my EAD and AP, will I affect my GC / any immigration process in the future, such as renewing my H1b?
For example, if I do not renew this year, can I apply again next year?
Thank you
Read Somewhere on IV before that renewal is better than letting them expire ..
H1b – Started on Oct 07
PERM is approved and my PD is April 6, 2006 (PERM)
i140 and i485 July 2007 (Received by USCIS Texas Center September 10, 2007)
AP and EAD received September 2007
My company lawyer just emails me to ask about renewing my EAD/AP. My company paid for my first EAD/AP and I paid for my wife EAD/AP. Now, I will have to pay both of them since I think they know that it is not main process for my GC sponsorship. They only pay for the green card process.
I do not plan to change my job and do not plan to travel outside US (unless there is a family emergency). My wife and children are all in the US. My wife does not plan to work/travel. So do I need to renew my EAD/AP?
It is nice to have AP since I can travel if I have to travel outside US for Family emergency but for EAD, I do not think that I won’t need it.
Is there any benefit to have EAD in my situation?
If I do not renew my EAD and AP, will I affect my GC / any immigration process in the future, such as renewing my H1b?
For example, if I do not renew this year, can I apply again next year?
Thank you
Read Somewhere on IV before that renewal is better than letting them expire ..
dresses funny facebook quotes. funny
thescadaman
09-28 04:42 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.
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.
more...
makeup very funny quotes for facebook
drona
07-12 02:49 PM
But won't we have right to contribute once we get our green cards. The sooner the better then?
girlfriend funny facebook quotes
shirish
09-15 11:43 AM
It still says Aug 15th. I don't think they will release it yet.
USCIS is posting the processing times on the same date as they mentioned on the document......unbelievable, Hope its not a USCIS mistake.
USCIS is posting the processing times on the same date as they mentioned on the document......unbelievable, Hope its not a USCIS mistake.
hairstyles Funny Facebook status two
abhisam
07-09 11:59 AM
How are you saying you will not get it before september 10? I am not sure is it really taking beyond 2 months nowadays to get the EAD?
As per the processing dates, they are processing the applications recieved on March 17th,2008 at Nebraska.
I am hoping that I will recieve my approval before September 10th, but incase i dont..what are my options?
I know they approved many applications last month before the 30th june deadline but i guess they will go back to their slow procedures now.
As per the processing dates, they are processing the applications recieved on March 17th,2008 at Nebraska.
I am hoping that I will recieve my approval before September 10th, but incase i dont..what are my options?
I know they approved many applications last month before the 30th june deadline but i guess they will go back to their slow procedures now.
frostrated
09-03 01:59 PM
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.
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.
ashkam
12-03 04:12 PM
Does anyone knows if Person eligible for AC21 porting is eligible for unemployment benefit?
Refer to this post (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=234403&postcount=24) for a good answer.
Refer to this post (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=234403&postcount=24) for a good answer.
No comments:
Post a Comment