looivy
03-23 02:39 AM
Can a legal expert provide advice as to whether I can use EAD/AP to get in?
Bump again
Bump again
wallpaper Call of Duty: Black Ops:
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.
pd_recapturing
11-27 03:55 PM
Your 180 days will be completed on 9th Feb 2008. I guess, if you can make sure that your company does not revoke your I-140 till Feb, you should be good. In the mean time, you can join another compny on EAD. I read somewhere in the forums that in case of layoffs (<180 days), one should get a letter from the company that states that they are laying you off NOT that you are resigning. This letter sometimes helps if USCIS issues RFE. This is my opinion and I am not a lawyer.
2011 cod black ops emblems ideas.
xbohdpukc
09-25 02:45 PM
If this is derivative, then how come H1 obtained should be counted towards H4. H1 is standalone and should not be counted.
Again, my wife is on H4 for 6 years and I did not get into 485 stage. Now she wants to go to India and come back after a one year break. If she comes back after a year on new H1, it would be fine for her. If she come back on H4, can she get a H1 after one year?
Any idea, whether this is possible?
Ur missing the point.
The number after the letter, which stands for the classification category is pretty much irrelevant for the purpose of determining the maximum period of stay. You might notice that in many publications USCIS addresses visitors to the US as being in B, H or L status, omitting the #.
As long as your wife maintains her H4 status properly (providing you maintain your H1 status) and as long as she possess necessary travel documents she is free to enter and exit the country.
As far as I understand she will not have any legal problem obtaining an H1 visa after staying out of the country for a year, as long as the visa # is available, she has a job offer etc.
But I do not believe that her H status clock will reset if she leaves the country for a year, then enter in H4 status (which is still a derivative and tied to your principal H status clock). Therefore she will not be able to change her status to that of H1.
Again, it's a pretty complicated matter and you might want to consult an experienced lawyer.
Again, my wife is on H4 for 6 years and I did not get into 485 stage. Now she wants to go to India and come back after a one year break. If she comes back after a year on new H1, it would be fine for her. If she come back on H4, can she get a H1 after one year?
Any idea, whether this is possible?
Ur missing the point.
The number after the letter, which stands for the classification category is pretty much irrelevant for the purpose of determining the maximum period of stay. You might notice that in many publications USCIS addresses visitors to the US as being in B, H or L status, omitting the #.
As long as your wife maintains her H4 status properly (providing you maintain your H1 status) and as long as she possess necessary travel documents she is free to enter and exit the country.
As far as I understand she will not have any legal problem obtaining an H1 visa after staying out of the country for a year, as long as the visa # is available, she has a job offer etc.
But I do not believe that her H status clock will reset if she leaves the country for a year, then enter in H4 status (which is still a derivative and tied to your principal H status clock). Therefore she will not be able to change her status to that of H1.
Again, it's a pretty complicated matter and you might want to consult an experienced lawyer.
more...
indygc
12-18 11:41 PM
Hi All,
One of my friend is in a bad situation, I am posting on behalf of him,
He is having H1B from Company A, company even filed labor, he got a project all was going well , his project with client got over on September 15th 2009. He was on bench since then, his recruiting guys tried hard marketing him and atlast after 3 mnths found a project and when the time has come for paper work, today,HR from client called and told him that his company A's HR responded them saying his H1 was cancelled on September 15th as soon as his project got over with his previous client. My friend was not intimated about this not even the recruiter and was in assumption that company is still supporting him ..He is in shock and helpless..
Now the question is its more than 90 days since Sept 15th, what is the current situation what can he do? (has 2 offers in hand and no h1)..wat are the options he left with? Anything can be done? Can he stay and apply a new H1 or transfer? Pleas advise, Gurus appreciate your quick response.
Thanks in Advance
AJ
One of my friend is in a bad situation, I am posting on behalf of him,
He is having H1B from Company A, company even filed labor, he got a project all was going well , his project with client got over on September 15th 2009. He was on bench since then, his recruiting guys tried hard marketing him and atlast after 3 mnths found a project and when the time has come for paper work, today,HR from client called and told him that his company A's HR responded them saying his H1 was cancelled on September 15th as soon as his project got over with his previous client. My friend was not intimated about this not even the recruiter and was in assumption that company is still supporting him ..He is in shock and helpless..
Now the question is its more than 90 days since Sept 15th, what is the current situation what can he do? (has 2 offers in hand and no h1)..wat are the options he left with? Anything can be done? Can he stay and apply a new H1 or transfer? Pleas advise, Gurus appreciate your quick response.
Thanks in Advance
AJ
MatsP
November 9th, 2004, 09:41 AM
Sorry to hear about your problem with the D70...
I don't know anything in detail about D70, as I'm a Canon man myself...
But some general thoughts and ideas:
1. From the behaviour, I would think that something has gone wrong with either the RAM or the ROM(flash) in the camera. This would cause a similar thing to a "Blue Screen of Death" that you get on a PC sometimes when something has gone wrong somewher. In a machine like a digital camera, the most sensible thing to do to try to recover is to "reboot", or put another way, reset the camera.
2. It is possible that it's just a "transient problem". Have you tried removing the battery for a longer period of time (at least half an hour), and also, if there is a small battery for keeping the time when changing batteries etc. (don't know if the D70 has one, the Canon ones does), you may want to remove that too to be sure that the camera is "properly powered off". This may of course reset some of your personal settings and definitely should reset the time/date in the camera, but I'm sure you can live with that.
3. It may be possible to "reprogram the flash" using the standard procedure for updating the firmware in the camera. *** I would only do this as a "last ditch attempt" ***. I don't know how this is done, but I'm pretty sure there is a way to load a new set of firmware onto the camera some way. But if it's the RAM that is broken, this may cause the firmware update to fail and that may cause even worse scenario than what you've got, so I would only do that if you think that "Things can't get much worse". This is akin to a PC being re-installed from scratch. Like the PC case, it doesn't actually help much if the actual cause of the problem isn't the software/firmware itself. Don't blame ME if this doesn't help, and it makes things worse!
I hope some of this is of help, if nothing else, to understand what the problem is.
If it really is the RAM that is busted, it's probably going to be fairly expensive, as I don't expect the repairer will replace the individual parts, but rather just swap the whole PCB, which means "all the guts of the camera".
If, on the other hand, it's just the flash that's gone crazy, then it's most likely just a question of "factory programming it", which would be a relatively trivial operation, and shouldn't cost much to fix.
--
Mats
I don't know anything in detail about D70, as I'm a Canon man myself...
But some general thoughts and ideas:
1. From the behaviour, I would think that something has gone wrong with either the RAM or the ROM(flash) in the camera. This would cause a similar thing to a "Blue Screen of Death" that you get on a PC sometimes when something has gone wrong somewher. In a machine like a digital camera, the most sensible thing to do to try to recover is to "reboot", or put another way, reset the camera.
2. It is possible that it's just a "transient problem". Have you tried removing the battery for a longer period of time (at least half an hour), and also, if there is a small battery for keeping the time when changing batteries etc. (don't know if the D70 has one, the Canon ones does), you may want to remove that too to be sure that the camera is "properly powered off". This may of course reset some of your personal settings and definitely should reset the time/date in the camera, but I'm sure you can live with that.
3. It may be possible to "reprogram the flash" using the standard procedure for updating the firmware in the camera. *** I would only do this as a "last ditch attempt" ***. I don't know how this is done, but I'm pretty sure there is a way to load a new set of firmware onto the camera some way. But if it's the RAM that is broken, this may cause the firmware update to fail and that may cause even worse scenario than what you've got, so I would only do that if you think that "Things can't get much worse". This is akin to a PC being re-installed from scratch. Like the PC case, it doesn't actually help much if the actual cause of the problem isn't the software/firmware itself. Don't blame ME if this doesn't help, and it makes things worse!
I hope some of this is of help, if nothing else, to understand what the problem is.
If it really is the RAM that is busted, it's probably going to be fairly expensive, as I don't expect the repairer will replace the individual parts, but rather just swap the whole PCB, which means "all the guts of the camera".
If, on the other hand, it's just the flash that's gone crazy, then it's most likely just a question of "factory programming it", which would be a relatively trivial operation, and shouldn't cost much to fix.
--
Mats
more...
shree772000
08-21 05:41 PM
Usually lawyers refrain from setting these king of dates....I am talking abt resonablely fair ones.
I feel its ur stupid act to know what other people think...You should have asked instead of "Lawyer Says...".
Noone can say when ur perticular case will be adjudicated, and I mean Noone.
I feel its ur stupid act to know what other people think...You should have asked instead of "Lawyer Says...".
Noone can say when ur perticular case will be adjudicated, and I mean Noone.
2010 cod black ops emblems funny.
mrane1
06-07 08:58 PM
Hi Dhundhun,
Sorry for my late response. After thinking long and hard, I have actually taken ARRA for my health insurance. I have decided not to go for Unemplyment. I read about a specific case somewhere online where an applicant got a RFE on his 485 after applying for unemployement. I am not sure if RFE was because of unemployement, but on that forum a lot of people suspected that applying for umpl could be one of the reasons.
For me, I was really running out of options, without ARRA, health insurance would have costed me over $1500 so I went for it.
Thanks
A friend of mine was laid off few months back and he applied for unemployement benefits. USCIS called his company to check his employement situation before making a decision on his case (he was current at the time). The company said he was laid off and so his 485 was rejected. he has filed a MTR. I dont think the unemployement had anything to do with it. But its better not to apply for any government aid if possible. There are many people who have applied for unemployement. It would be interesting to find out if they had issues during the 485 approval
Sorry for my late response. After thinking long and hard, I have actually taken ARRA for my health insurance. I have decided not to go for Unemplyment. I read about a specific case somewhere online where an applicant got a RFE on his 485 after applying for unemployement. I am not sure if RFE was because of unemployement, but on that forum a lot of people suspected that applying for umpl could be one of the reasons.
For me, I was really running out of options, without ARRA, health insurance would have costed me over $1500 so I went for it.
Thanks
A friend of mine was laid off few months back and he applied for unemployement benefits. USCIS called his company to check his employement situation before making a decision on his case (he was current at the time). The company said he was laid off and so his 485 was rejected. he has filed a MTR. I dont think the unemployement had anything to do with it. But its better not to apply for any government aid if possible. There are many people who have applied for unemployement. It would be interesting to find out if they had issues during the 485 approval
more...
vikki76
08-28 11:52 AM
Even I don't have donor access so far.
hair cool lack ops emblems ideas.
jonty_11
07-23 11:55 AM
CA is expensive...I am sure more than PA...but the decision is yours man...However, I do not think this is the right forum for such questions. If you have issues with GC retrogression then fire away.
more...
.jpg "cod black ops emblems ideas.")
vandanaverdia
09-10 02:59 PM
Thanks drona for your support!
Fellow Washingtonians & Oregonians, please join in & support the cause....
Fellow Washingtonians & Oregonians, please join in & support the cause....
hot cod black ops emblem ideas.
deecha
08-06 11:17 AM
I filed my EB3 LC Substitution I-140 with the copy of the labor. It has been pending since June 2006.
Mine is not labor substitution though. My lawyer never received the original hardcopy of the labor certification.
Mine is not labor substitution though. My lawyer never received the original hardcopy of the labor certification.
more...
house pictures Emblem-CoD:Black Ops
Lasantha
10-05 12:57 PM
On the flip side, I know people who have gotten selected in DV the very first time. Like you said, that's why it's called a lottery. Anything can happen.
Does anyone know if it makes any difference if you file early or late? I know it's supposed be completely random but does anyone have any theory on how you might have a better chance? My take is that if you file too early (first few days) and if (with a big if) there is a bug in system then your application might get lost. So let the bugs be fixed in first few days and then file.
Well, considering that the new online system has been in operation for the last 2 years, I would hope that all the bugs are already caught and fixed. But they do advise to fille early so that you will avoid the last minute rush.
Does anyone know if it makes any difference if you file early or late? I know it's supposed be completely random but does anyone have any theory on how you might have a better chance? My take is that if you file too early (first few days) and if (with a big if) there is a bug in system then your application might get lost. So let the bugs be fixed in first few days and then file.
Well, considering that the new online system has been in operation for the last 2 years, I would hope that all the bugs are already caught and fixed. But they do advise to fille early so that you will avoid the last minute rush.
tattoo cod black ops emblems ideas.
paskal
09-17 01:45 PM
would not do to change names like that
but many organizations use a decscritor line to define themselves
eg:
American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists
The voice of clinical endocrinology
you will find many others like that...why not something like
Immigration Voice
Working for reform in legal immigration
or
A voice for legal immigrants
but many organizations use a decscritor line to define themselves
eg:
American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists
The voice of clinical endocrinology
you will find many others like that...why not something like
Immigration Voice
Working for reform in legal immigration
or
A voice for legal immigrants
more...
pictures cod black ops emblems ideas.
micofrost
07-17 10:46 PM
Let us boycott CNN to protest the unjust presentation of immigrants in their news. I can't comprehend why a big and reputable network would support a show like Lou Dobbs. Lou dobbs and his minions has been spreading lies and hate about legal immigration. The sad part is that the ordinary American would believe them since they are part of a big network, CNN -- supposedly a moral and ethical news company driven to tell the truth and expose injustice. Everyday we try hard to be a good citizen, build a good reputation, and work hard for the betterment of this country but everyday too, Lou Dobbs and his panel of experts ruins everything that we have gained. We cannot ignore this negative publicity anymore. I used to watched CNN ASIA and truly believe that they were the best international network -- they were fair and unbiased in their reporting. But CNN US seems to be a different animal, their seems to be an underlying current of hate hiding and pretending to be patriotic. So, I would like to ask IV core to add this to IV's strategy. Let us spread the word that CNN/Lou Dobbs is anti-immigrant and should not be patronized. Tell your friends and family and let them spread the word. We should also boycott all CNN-related companies i.e Time, CNN ASIA, etc. since they are part of the same animal. We should start being vigilant and fight back on things that are hurtful to us but in a peaceful way.
Thats why I degraded my cable service so that CNN will be blocked.
Thats why I degraded my cable service so that CNN will be blocked.
dresses cod black ops emblems ideas.
h1bnogc
08-30 06:51 AM
The officer can only look at the current I-797, cannot give an i-94 as per the future I-797. The other posters were correct last action rule does apply, however in my interpretation of the last action rule since your I-797 is not effective until November 2009 and your entry was before that, your last action in this case will be the latest I-797 and it will therefore be valid. In my opinion the Officer was correct in informing you that their is no problem for you to use your latest I-797 once the old one expires. Make sure you don't have a gap in the dates between the expiry of the old I-797 and start date of the new one.
Thanks for taking time in responding to our queries.I understand this is old thread, still questions are same It looks like in this travel scenario, extension of stay makes thing more complicated than h1b transfer because of start and end date of extension and travel date.
It appears that if POE officers gives new I94 based on future I797 or old I797, as far as there is no gap, it is ok.
How about there is overlap? let say new I94 issued by POE officer expires Oct 10 (current H1B expires sep 30 + courtesy= 10), one attached with extension of stay approval start Oct 1. Is this a problem (last action rule or anything else)?
thanks for your response...
Thanks for taking time in responding to our queries.I understand this is old thread, still questions are same It looks like in this travel scenario, extension of stay makes thing more complicated than h1b transfer because of start and end date of extension and travel date.
It appears that if POE officers gives new I94 based on future I797 or old I797, as far as there is no gap, it is ok.
How about there is overlap? let say new I94 issued by POE officer expires Oct 10 (current H1B expires sep 30 + courtesy= 10), one attached with extension of stay approval start Oct 1. Is this a problem (last action rule or anything else)?
thanks for your response...
more...
makeup cod black ops emblems ideas.
singhsa3
10-22 09:05 AM
But I've got two A#s and so as my spouse...
I do not think so, even though you have two application , there will be only 1 A# for each applicant.
We got only 1 FP notice for each of us. Our case is slightly different. I filed for myself and my wife. My wife filed for herself.
We did not apply for EAD and AP, through my wife. I applied from my side for both of us.
I do not think so, even though you have two application , there will be only 1 A# for each applicant.
We got only 1 FP notice for each of us. Our case is slightly different. I filed for myself and my wife. My wife filed for herself.
We did not apply for EAD and AP, through my wife. I applied from my side for both of us.
girlfriend makeup Best Cod Black Ops
sreenivas11
06-15 04:04 PM
USCIS Proc Times Update 06/15/09
NSC I-485 Sept 1st 2007
TSC I-485 Aug 17th 2007
NSC I-485 Sept 1st 2007
TSC I-485 Aug 17th 2007
hairstyles cod black ops emblems ideas.
gccube
04-08 12:01 PM
and they gave a consistent reply all the three times that my NC is cleared. But I agree that there are no guarantees.
As per them the NC was initiated on Aug1st 2007. So probably the 180 day rule should cover me.
As per them the NC was initiated on Aug1st 2007. So probably the 180 day rule should cover me.
raysaikat
02-18 01:37 AM
All, Help me understand this.
If I look at this link below on # of immigrant visa's approved every year for for each country it shows the total for India (all category EB 1-5) as
06 -10.7k
05 -46K
04 - 39k
03 - 20k
02 - 41k
01 - 41k
Am I reading this right because this certainly is more than the country limit. Also the total # of visa's given seem to be more than the annual limit. I thought there were some 250k visas that were lost, were the limits higher during these years?
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/statistics/statistics_1476.html
Under each link look for - Immigrant Visas Issued (by Foreign State Chargeability or Area of Birth): Fiscal Year 2006 (preliminary data)
Any unused visas are allocated to retrogressed countries in the last quarter of each year. That's why a country may get more than $10K visas.
If I look at this link below on # of immigrant visa's approved every year for for each country it shows the total for India (all category EB 1-5) as
06 -10.7k
05 -46K
04 - 39k
03 - 20k
02 - 41k
01 - 41k
Am I reading this right because this certainly is more than the country limit. Also the total # of visa's given seem to be more than the annual limit. I thought there were some 250k visas that were lost, were the limits higher during these years?
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/statistics/statistics_1476.html
Under each link look for - Immigrant Visas Issued (by Foreign State Chargeability or Area of Birth): Fiscal Year 2006 (preliminary data)
Any unused visas are allocated to retrogressed countries in the last quarter of each year. That's why a country may get more than $10K visas.
eb3retro
04-15 08:38 AM
All,
I know as you all have reached 485 stage so you might be experts who can help answering few of my questions...
1) I work with a company who applied for my labor last year, its approved and now they are filling 140
2) Am applied in EB3 so not sure how many years it will take to get 485 dates to priority dates of 2008 ... am thinking abt 5-8 yrs
3) My wife works in a company who wont apply for her Green Card they dont have a policy
4) Her visa expires after 2 yrs ...
5) If I ask one of the consulting companies X to apply for her green card for future employment and pay all the cost for the green card.
6) Assuming she gets 140 in next 2 yrs before her visa is expired.
Questions .....
a) Can she renew her visa for 3 yrs with her current employer based on 485 filling pending with company X ?
b) How much would it cost to apply a green card upto phase 1 and phase 2 ...I might not actually require 485 stage. I just need her processing upto 140 stage so that she can keep renewing the visa until I get my 485 cleared ...in case I leave my job then we might think for her to apply 485 but chances are less.
Experts please guide me if this plan would work and if yes how much would it cost me ...
Thanks in advance ..
Lalit
also update ur profile..
I know as you all have reached 485 stage so you might be experts who can help answering few of my questions...
1) I work with a company who applied for my labor last year, its approved and now they are filling 140
2) Am applied in EB3 so not sure how many years it will take to get 485 dates to priority dates of 2008 ... am thinking abt 5-8 yrs
3) My wife works in a company who wont apply for her Green Card they dont have a policy
4) Her visa expires after 2 yrs ...
5) If I ask one of the consulting companies X to apply for her green card for future employment and pay all the cost for the green card.
6) Assuming she gets 140 in next 2 yrs before her visa is expired.
Questions .....
a) Can she renew her visa for 3 yrs with her current employer based on 485 filling pending with company X ?
b) How much would it cost to apply a green card upto phase 1 and phase 2 ...I might not actually require 485 stage. I just need her processing upto 140 stage so that she can keep renewing the visa until I get my 485 cleared ...in case I leave my job then we might think for her to apply 485 but chances are less.
Experts please guide me if this plan would work and if yes how much would it cost me ...
Thanks in advance ..
Lalit
also update ur profile..
No comments:
Post a Comment