chanduv23
07-05 07:20 AM
Senthil1 - behaves like an anti immigrant sitting in this forum. Though at times he gets things right and in perspective, most times he is always supportive of the other side - with no logic or reasoning.
Senthil - do you get paid by numbersusa etc// :D :D :D :D
Does USCIS promise u fast citizenship if you do this???:D :D :D :D
Senthil - do you get paid by numbersusa etc// :D :D :D :D
Does USCIS promise u fast citizenship if you do this???:D :D :D :D
wallpaper medium length hair styles for
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.
casinoroyale
08-20 10:28 PM
Friends, anyone going to Canada in September?
2011 quot;medium length hairstyles
roseball
04-03 02:49 PM
I have the RFE, it doesn't state the exact instead mentions 12 weeks from the date of this letter. And the date of the letter is Jan 8, 2008
Just have them reply to the RFE at the earliest...Usually, they take a few days after the deadline to re-process the case...They might consider your reply, even if its late by a few days, if they already did not take action/deny your petition....If they already denied your petition before the response reaches them, they you will have to file a MTR, which takes quite a while and also you cannot use I-485 benefits till a decision is made....Also, make sure a cover letter is sent along with the response mentioning the reason for the delay (like u said substantial changes to company financials)....Bottomline, reply at the earliest....Good luck.....
Just have them reply to the RFE at the earliest...Usually, they take a few days after the deadline to re-process the case...They might consider your reply, even if its late by a few days, if they already did not take action/deny your petition....If they already denied your petition before the response reaches them, they you will have to file a MTR, which takes quite a while and also you cannot use I-485 benefits till a decision is made....Also, make sure a cover letter is sent along with the response mentioning the reason for the delay (like u said substantial changes to company financials)....Bottomline, reply at the earliest....Good luck.....
more...
h1bmajdoor
07-08 10:14 PM
India govt will not involve in USA internal matters.Idea was floated long back by few members and core team responded to it.
this is BS.
The interests of indian citizens resident in the USA (all decent taxpayers) are not being taken care of by the US political system. There is a clear pattern of exploitation by employers and neglect by CIS, FBI and others.
In this situation, the interests of Indian citizens should be taken up by the Indian parliament. If they want to shy away from their duty, it should be taken up by the UN.
this is BS.
The interests of indian citizens resident in the USA (all decent taxpayers) are not being taken care of by the US political system. There is a clear pattern of exploitation by employers and neglect by CIS, FBI and others.
In this situation, the interests of Indian citizens should be taken up by the Indian parliament. If they want to shy away from their duty, it should be taken up by the UN.
EkAurAaya
05-24 12:42 PM
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-2072510,prtpage-1.cms
Great immigration debate has Indians steamed up
24 May, 2007 l 2200 hrs ISTlCHIDANAND RAJGHATTA/TIMES NEWS NETWORK
WASHINGTON: The fate of tens of thousands of high-skilled Indian professionals waiting to be permanent US residents is being sidelined in an immigration debate that is heavily tilted in favor of illegal workers, according to advocates of high-tech immigration and Indian activists.
Close to 450,000 Indian professionals are caught up in the H1-B-Green Card gridlock, but the immigration bill currently being debated in Congress will exacerbate their agony instead of resolving the matter, activists
for the skilled immigrants lobby say.
Despite the support of US high-tech companies such as Microsoft and Cisco, and business-industry lobbying groups, the ongoing debate centers mainly on the 12 million mostly illegal immigrants, who, under the new proposals being mooted, will jump ahead of high-skilled Indians and qualify to become US citizens.
"What's being debated here is a pro-illegal worker, anti-skilled professional bill," says Aman Kapoor, co-founder of the advocacy group Immigration Voice(www.immigrationvoice.com)
According to Kapoor and others, some of the new rules being considered will be heartbreaking for skilled Indian professionals. Not only is there a proposal to reduce skilled worker Green Cards from 140,000 to 90,000, there is also a move that would require H1B holders to renew their visas on an annual basis.
A new merit-based points system is also loaded against skilled professionals, they say. For instance, economic contribution by the undocumented is recognized by awarding points for property ownership but not for people working legally.
Even accounting for proposed hike in skilled worker Green Card allocation to individual countries from 7 per cent to ten per cent of the total quota, it will take 45 years to clear the backlog from India at the rate of around 10,000 Green Cards a year, claims Kapoor. "What this country is saying is that it prefers cherry pickers to high skilled work force, not that I have anything against cherry pickers," he said.
Vinod Agarwal's immigration saga is a typical narrative that describes the tortured lives of the nearly half million young Indians mired in the great wrangle currently roiling the United States.
Vinod came to the 'States for his masters' degree in 1997 on an F-1 student visa and changed to an H1-B visa when he was hired by a U.S tech company in 2000. In 2001, his employer started the process to help him secure a permanent resident visa, or Green Card, the first step towards eventual US citizenship.
Thanks to a gridlock arising from complicated rules and a huge backlog, this process, now five years old, could take another two to three years. Among the big hurdles: a yearly limit of 140,000 on employment-based Green Cards for skilled workers.
To further stymie things, no more than seven per cent of Green Cards � less than 10,000 -- are allowed to be allocated to immigrants (including their spouses and children) from any one country. The per-country limitation was meant to avoid monopolization by any one country, but it puts a crimp on countries such as India, China and Russia, which send far more high skilled workers to the US than others.
Because of this mess, Vinod has had to put a hold on some of the most important decisions in his life � like marriage, or making investment commitments. And because his Green Card process is tied to his employer, he cannot make career moves and has to put a lid on his entrepreneurial ambitions and options.
So, a decade after he came to the land of opportunity, Vinod is still a guest, although the contribution of his ilk to the American economy is a matter of record.
According to a recent study, 24% of all the US patents filed from the US are by foreign nationals on temporary visas. Nearly a quarter of tech companies in Silicon Valley are started by skilled professionals who came to the US on H1-B visas.
If Vinod and his type thought the new immigration bill now being debated in the US Congress could address their plight, the were mistaken. The bill, say Immigration Voice activists, has been hijacked by advocates for restricting high-skilled immigrants and those promoting vote bank politics.
"Illegal immigrants are sucking all the air in the room," adds Vikas Chowdhury, a tech professional also caught in the Green Card imbroglio. "The message from the US Senate to legal, skill based immigrants is, 'so long suckers!"
Great immigration debate has Indians steamed up
24 May, 2007 l 2200 hrs ISTlCHIDANAND RAJGHATTA/TIMES NEWS NETWORK
WASHINGTON: The fate of tens of thousands of high-skilled Indian professionals waiting to be permanent US residents is being sidelined in an immigration debate that is heavily tilted in favor of illegal workers, according to advocates of high-tech immigration and Indian activists.
Close to 450,000 Indian professionals are caught up in the H1-B-Green Card gridlock, but the immigration bill currently being debated in Congress will exacerbate their agony instead of resolving the matter, activists
for the skilled immigrants lobby say.
Despite the support of US high-tech companies such as Microsoft and Cisco, and business-industry lobbying groups, the ongoing debate centers mainly on the 12 million mostly illegal immigrants, who, under the new proposals being mooted, will jump ahead of high-skilled Indians and qualify to become US citizens.
"What's being debated here is a pro-illegal worker, anti-skilled professional bill," says Aman Kapoor, co-founder of the advocacy group Immigration Voice(www.immigrationvoice.com)
According to Kapoor and others, some of the new rules being considered will be heartbreaking for skilled Indian professionals. Not only is there a proposal to reduce skilled worker Green Cards from 140,000 to 90,000, there is also a move that would require H1B holders to renew their visas on an annual basis.
A new merit-based points system is also loaded against skilled professionals, they say. For instance, economic contribution by the undocumented is recognized by awarding points for property ownership but not for people working legally.
Even accounting for proposed hike in skilled worker Green Card allocation to individual countries from 7 per cent to ten per cent of the total quota, it will take 45 years to clear the backlog from India at the rate of around 10,000 Green Cards a year, claims Kapoor. "What this country is saying is that it prefers cherry pickers to high skilled work force, not that I have anything against cherry pickers," he said.
Vinod Agarwal's immigration saga is a typical narrative that describes the tortured lives of the nearly half million young Indians mired in the great wrangle currently roiling the United States.
Vinod came to the 'States for his masters' degree in 1997 on an F-1 student visa and changed to an H1-B visa when he was hired by a U.S tech company in 2000. In 2001, his employer started the process to help him secure a permanent resident visa, or Green Card, the first step towards eventual US citizenship.
Thanks to a gridlock arising from complicated rules and a huge backlog, this process, now five years old, could take another two to three years. Among the big hurdles: a yearly limit of 140,000 on employment-based Green Cards for skilled workers.
To further stymie things, no more than seven per cent of Green Cards � less than 10,000 -- are allowed to be allocated to immigrants (including their spouses and children) from any one country. The per-country limitation was meant to avoid monopolization by any one country, but it puts a crimp on countries such as India, China and Russia, which send far more high skilled workers to the US than others.
Because of this mess, Vinod has had to put a hold on some of the most important decisions in his life � like marriage, or making investment commitments. And because his Green Card process is tied to his employer, he cannot make career moves and has to put a lid on his entrepreneurial ambitions and options.
So, a decade after he came to the land of opportunity, Vinod is still a guest, although the contribution of his ilk to the American economy is a matter of record.
According to a recent study, 24% of all the US patents filed from the US are by foreign nationals on temporary visas. Nearly a quarter of tech companies in Silicon Valley are started by skilled professionals who came to the US on H1-B visas.
If Vinod and his type thought the new immigration bill now being debated in the US Congress could address their plight, the were mistaken. The bill, say Immigration Voice activists, has been hijacked by advocates for restricting high-skilled immigrants and those promoting vote bank politics.
"Illegal immigrants are sucking all the air in the room," adds Vikas Chowdhury, a tech professional also caught in the Green Card imbroglio. "The message from the US Senate to legal, skill based immigrants is, 'so long suckers!"
more...
yabadaba
11-19 05:08 PM
Looks like this is the system that USCIS has been saying they are working on to identify pending cases.
Now, what if your case is pending and your Attorney is not a AILA member or you do not use an Attorney?
maybe u should write to the ombudsman and let them know that its not fair for people who dont have aila attorneys.
Now, what if your case is pending and your Attorney is not a AILA member or you do not use an Attorney?
maybe u should write to the ombudsman and let them know that its not fair for people who dont have aila attorneys.
2010 medium length hair styles for
bsbawa10
11-04 09:28 AM
(Punjabi) Holi gairan nal khadee too batheree , sadee vari rang mukiya
Translation:
You played Holi with everybody else, but when my turn came , you ran out of color.
Translation:
You played Holi with everybody else, but when my turn came , you ran out of color.
more...
Hong12
12-16 01:51 AM
Thanks so much for a quick response. My cover letter, I-129, I-797 and LCA are correct. However, the petition letter from my employer to USCIS has all the wrong background. In this case, does it mean that my lawyer can just send me the new petition letter with the correct information? I can then bring the new petition letter to the consular? I also found the following info:
USCIS send information on all approved petitions requiring visa issuance to the Kentucky Consular Center (KCC). KCC then scans and enters all pertinent information including Form I-129, employer support letter (Petition Letter), and beneficiary's identification documents into PIMS. The U.S. consular will then confirm a petition in PIMS before the issuance of the visa.
Also, I just talked to my lawyer again, and he told me that I�m overreacting about the whole issue! He kept saying that this is not a big deal at all for having the wrong background on the petition letter submitted to USCIS. He said that the new petition letter, I-129 and documents do not need to be resubmitted to USCIS. My lawyer also said that he can simply solve the problem by sending me the new petition letter. Accordingly, I can then bring this new letter to the consular for the visa interview instead of going through the resubmission. He also said that there is nothing to be worry about PIMS or anything.
In this case, would it be ok? I thought that the consular can pull the copy of the petition letter from PIMS. Would it be alright if the petition letter they have on PIMS is different from the new petition letter that I will bring to the Consular? Please advise. Thank you very much.
USCIS send information on all approved petitions requiring visa issuance to the Kentucky Consular Center (KCC). KCC then scans and enters all pertinent information including Form I-129, employer support letter (Petition Letter), and beneficiary's identification documents into PIMS. The U.S. consular will then confirm a petition in PIMS before the issuance of the visa.
Also, I just talked to my lawyer again, and he told me that I�m overreacting about the whole issue! He kept saying that this is not a big deal at all for having the wrong background on the petition letter submitted to USCIS. He said that the new petition letter, I-129 and documents do not need to be resubmitted to USCIS. My lawyer also said that he can simply solve the problem by sending me the new petition letter. Accordingly, I can then bring this new letter to the consular for the visa interview instead of going through the resubmission. He also said that there is nothing to be worry about PIMS or anything.
In this case, would it be ok? I thought that the consular can pull the copy of the petition letter from PIMS. Would it be alright if the petition letter they have on PIMS is different from the new petition letter that I will bring to the Consular? Please advise. Thank you very much.
hair hairstyles medium length fine hair. cute teen hair styles
nk2006
04-17 03:36 PM
As per today I have an H1b visa, I have my I140 approved, and my 6th year ends on April 25, 2008. My actual employer have gave me a contract that says that upon I become a permanent resident i will have to work for him for 5 years, then if I quit after the 5th year or before I will not able to work on the same industry on all the united states, also mention what my salary would be but there is no mention of increase. Since I will have to wait until my residence at least 3 more years, that means that I will have to work on these conditions for 8 or 9 years.!!!!
I do not know what to do , this is almost illegal (I think !), do I have time to change employer and do again my visa, and I140, so I don't lost status ??
The contract is rather stringent � working for 5 years after getting the greencard and not able to work in same industry??? You are right it may not even legal � and may not stand in any court.
Having said that, I can say that it is very common in IT industry to make the visa candidates sign a contract. Generally these contracts ask you to work for the employer for at least 2 years �after� getting the green card; and if you leave before 2 years then you have to pay all the legal charges that employer incurred for the GC processing. Many employers require this before starting the process � but I heard many big companies don�t really enforce this. Also there are other couple workarounds: the contract (even in your case) says �after� getting the GC, so if you are eligible to apply for 485 then sign the contract and apply for 485; after six months you can use AC21 and leave the employer � technically you havn�t yet got the GC card and so the contract is not violated. I know a couple friends did this exactly in our company.
If you are not yet eligible to apply for 485 (retrogressed country) then try to collect some documents like a copy of your approved I140 and if possible a copy of approved labor (this may not be required). Then find a new job now and transfer your H1B there; during transfer ask for three years extension based on your approved I140+not able to apply for 485 status. With new employer start fresh PERM+I140. If you have copies of I140 you might be able to get you priority date too. I know there are lot of ifs and buts here but I think this is the best case scenario for you especially if you don�t like your present job (Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer).
I do not know what to do , this is almost illegal (I think !), do I have time to change employer and do again my visa, and I140, so I don't lost status ??
The contract is rather stringent � working for 5 years after getting the greencard and not able to work in same industry??? You are right it may not even legal � and may not stand in any court.
Having said that, I can say that it is very common in IT industry to make the visa candidates sign a contract. Generally these contracts ask you to work for the employer for at least 2 years �after� getting the green card; and if you leave before 2 years then you have to pay all the legal charges that employer incurred for the GC processing. Many employers require this before starting the process � but I heard many big companies don�t really enforce this. Also there are other couple workarounds: the contract (even in your case) says �after� getting the GC, so if you are eligible to apply for 485 then sign the contract and apply for 485; after six months you can use AC21 and leave the employer � technically you havn�t yet got the GC card and so the contract is not violated. I know a couple friends did this exactly in our company.
If you are not yet eligible to apply for 485 (retrogressed country) then try to collect some documents like a copy of your approved I140 and if possible a copy of approved labor (this may not be required). Then find a new job now and transfer your H1B there; during transfer ask for three years extension based on your approved I140+not able to apply for 485 status. With new employer start fresh PERM+I140. If you have copies of I140 you might be able to get you priority date too. I know there are lot of ifs and buts here but I think this is the best case scenario for you especially if you don�t like your present job (Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer).
more...
kondur_007
05-12 01:45 PM
The above statement is incorrect. You will have to re-file the LC in addition to the I-140 for a port. There is some more info on Eb3 to Eb2 here: Upgrading from EB3 to EB2 (http://www.imminfo.com/Library/green_cards/EB/upgrading_eb3_eb2.html)
While it is true that majority of the time (when job titles and descriptions are substantially different) you need to new PERM; I know at least two cases who were able to port using the SAME labor and filed new I 140 under EB2. It all depends on original job description and language of original PERM vs new job description.
Bottom line: get a consultation from a good attorney before giving it up.
Good Luck.
While it is true that majority of the time (when job titles and descriptions are substantially different) you need to new PERM; I know at least two cases who were able to port using the SAME labor and filed new I 140 under EB2. It all depends on original job description and language of original PERM vs new job description.
Bottom line: get a consultation from a good attorney before giving it up.
Good Luck.
hot Punk hair styles are usually
saran4
03-03 09:05 PM
Hi all,
consider i am working in location A and need to move to B from next month. is there any restriction in LCA?
why my company is not even applying? Due to some reasons they dont want to put me in location B and diverting to another location D.?
what may be the reason? why they are concerned about the offshore salary?
consider i am working in location A and need to move to B from next month. is there any restriction in LCA?
why my company is not even applying? Due to some reasons they dont want to put me in location B and diverting to another location D.?
what may be the reason? why they are concerned about the offshore salary?
more...
house hairstyles for fine hair 2009.
bondgoli007
08-01 12:59 PM
Now that H.R 5582 has cleared Judiciary sub - commitee and moves to Judiciary Full Commitee, I think we all need to focus our "Call/Fax" campaign and overwhelm the fence sitters with calls etc .
1. At Full judiciary commitee the list of congressman would be more than 10-15 .Probably 30-40??. Size wise it might be prohibitive.
2 No point in 1000 of us calling Steve Kings ....He will never change his mind . Spare this effort to convince fence sitters instead. No point in calling the one who we know already support either.
This leaves us with plenty of time to repeatedly call the fence sitters and force them to jump our way
Hi chmur,
Yes the Full commitee had 40 members, 23 democrats and 17 Republicans including Congressman Sensenbrenner who is a co sponsor.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/committee.xpd?id=HSJU
I got a hold of 5 of my friends at work who are in the same GC boat as I and spent 20 mins explaining the whole process and got them to make the calls. Afterwards they were all surprised to notice it took up just 15-20 mins. Now seeing the result they are further motivated to participate in forthcoming action items....maybe this is one way we can get others to participate....
All the best IV!!
1. At Full judiciary commitee the list of congressman would be more than 10-15 .Probably 30-40??. Size wise it might be prohibitive.
2 No point in 1000 of us calling Steve Kings ....He will never change his mind . Spare this effort to convince fence sitters instead. No point in calling the one who we know already support either.
This leaves us with plenty of time to repeatedly call the fence sitters and force them to jump our way
Hi chmur,
Yes the Full commitee had 40 members, 23 democrats and 17 Republicans including Congressman Sensenbrenner who is a co sponsor.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/committee.xpd?id=HSJU
I got a hold of 5 of my friends at work who are in the same GC boat as I and spent 20 mins explaining the whole process and got them to make the calls. Afterwards they were all surprised to notice it took up just 15-20 mins. Now seeing the result they are further motivated to participate in forthcoming action items....maybe this is one way we can get others to participate....
All the best IV!!
tattoo Medium length hairstyles
lostinbeta
10-28 09:54 PM
That sucks eberth :(
more...
pictures medium length hair styles
akhilmahajan
02-23 01:40 PM
I am just curious, Are you worried about your salary going down or filing AC-21.
There are always risks involved. Its your choice what you want to do. I will request you to understand how the system works, so that when folks around here suggest you something, you can evaluate the choices based on your knowledge also.
If you think you can find a good job, then i will say keep on looking for it. Meanwhile stick with your company and see if things improve. In the end its your personal choice, as you are the one who needs to set your priorities. Also, if you can let us know your PD, then i am sure people can suggest you in a much better way.
Also, i will really appreciate if you can update your information for the tracker.
Also, please be patient and lets not use abusive language, as it is not going to help anyone.
Thanks a lot.
GO IV GO. TOGETHER WE CAN.
There are always risks involved. Its your choice what you want to do. I will request you to understand how the system works, so that when folks around here suggest you something, you can evaluate the choices based on your knowledge also.
If you think you can find a good job, then i will say keep on looking for it. Meanwhile stick with your company and see if things improve. In the end its your personal choice, as you are the one who needs to set your priorities. Also, if you can let us know your PD, then i am sure people can suggest you in a much better way.
Also, i will really appreciate if you can update your information for the tracker.
Also, please be patient and lets not use abusive language, as it is not going to help anyone.
Thanks a lot.
GO IV GO. TOGETHER WE CAN.
dresses hairstyles medium length fine hair. 1940s hair styles
pappu
05-11 01:28 PM
some german lady speaking about getting citizenship.
more...
makeup mid length hair styles for
DSLStart
09-19 02:53 PM
It takes some time for VFS to receive passport from embassy. Sometimes 3/4 days.
But didn't you ask her if you were granted visa or not? If they retained your passport thats tell that visa is issued. Also keep tracking via SMS, that seems to be more accurate. Keep us posted here. Good luck.
i had interview at mumbai consulate on friday morning 9.30.
EVERYONE please take time to read and reply...
the officer was very rude... i said good morning upon entering and she did not reply.... then she said she is getting strange people since morning and no one is following her instructions....
she asked me the name of company, my job title etc..i replied ...
and then she asked me for my old passport and wrote CWOP on expired visa.....
she asked my wife if she has old passport and i said no and there it started..."SHE got angry and said did i asked you? let her speak... " "women can speak for herself etc..." she did utter some few words slowly so i said "excuse me" and that's it..she told me people like me should not be in usa..etc...etc........."
here is the deal...she did not gave me any slip or anything and said we can go now.....
WHAT WILL HAPPEN?
will i get my passport with stamp? or do they send Pink/Yellow/White slip through courier?
expert any advise?
i tracked the passport on VFS site on Saturday morning and VFS says they have not received passport from the embassy. is this normal? should i wait till monday evening before jump on any conclusion?
But didn't you ask her if you were granted visa or not? If they retained your passport thats tell that visa is issued. Also keep tracking via SMS, that seems to be more accurate. Keep us posted here. Good luck.
i had interview at mumbai consulate on friday morning 9.30.
EVERYONE please take time to read and reply...
the officer was very rude... i said good morning upon entering and she did not reply.... then she said she is getting strange people since morning and no one is following her instructions....
she asked me the name of company, my job title etc..i replied ...
and then she asked me for my old passport and wrote CWOP on expired visa.....
she asked my wife if she has old passport and i said no and there it started..."SHE got angry and said did i asked you? let her speak... " "women can speak for herself etc..." she did utter some few words slowly so i said "excuse me" and that's it..she told me people like me should not be in usa..etc...etc........."
here is the deal...she did not gave me any slip or anything and said we can go now.....
WHAT WILL HAPPEN?
will i get my passport with stamp? or do they send Pink/Yellow/White slip through courier?
expert any advise?
i tracked the passport on VFS site on Saturday morning and VFS says they have not received passport from the embassy. is this normal? should i wait till monday evening before jump on any conclusion?
girlfriend hair have
apk1928
04-30 01:36 PM
Here is the format that you need. I got this from my attorney.
AFFIDAVIT
OF BIRTH
I, __________________________, certify to the following:
1. I was born on ___________, 19___, in the town of ___________________ and country of ________________________. I am _____ years of age. I am currently residing at __________________________________________________ _______________________.
2. ________________________________ was born to _________________________ and _________________________ on _______________ in ____________________.
3. The above facts are within my personal knowledge because _________________ is my _____________(uncle, cousin, friend, etc.), and I was present at the time of said birth.
Dated: ______________, 200_ _____________________________
Signature
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
________ day of ___________, 200_
at ________________________________.
My commission expires ___________, 200_
___________________________ ________________________
Notary Public Official Seal
AFFIDAVIT
OF BIRTH
I, __________________________, certify to the following:
1. I was born on ___________, 19___, in the town of ___________________ and country of ________________________. I am _____ years of age. I am currently residing at __________________________________________________ _______________________.
2. ________________________________ was born to _________________________ and _________________________ on _______________ in ____________________.
3. The above facts are within my personal knowledge because _________________ is my _____________(uncle, cousin, friend, etc.), and I was present at the time of said birth.
Dated: ______________, 200_ _____________________________
Signature
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
________ day of ___________, 200_
at ________________________________.
My commission expires ___________, 200_
___________________________ ________________________
Notary Public Official Seal
hairstyles hairstyles medium length fine hair. slenderizing hair styles
tampacoolie
07-14 03:23 PM
Guys,
My lawyer is also suggesting to file next week. He had everything to go by July2 and now he wants to file ASAP. Any thoughts on this?. I am thinking this pure pot shots game with USCIS.
My lawyer is also suggesting to file next week. He had everything to go by July2 and now he wants to file ASAP. Any thoughts on this?. I am thinking this pure pot shots game with USCIS.
ampudhukode
06-17 02:08 PM
A friend of mine had used it twice before his approval came last June.
hebbar77
03-12 08:08 PM
I had same problem. I was told to re -apply after i called in feb (after 30 days of approval).
Next day I called again, and used s**t word on them. Then they told me that they might not have sent it. Meanwhile I also got status change of case transfer. Few days ago status changed to document sent. I am waiting for the document. Hopefull I get it. At any cost I will not spend a penny on immigration anymore let alone re-applying for AP. I rather party or do charity with that money!
Next day I called again, and used s**t word on them. Then they told me that they might not have sent it. Meanwhile I also got status change of case transfer. Few days ago status changed to document sent. I am waiting for the document. Hopefull I get it. At any cost I will not spend a penny on immigration anymore let alone re-applying for AP. I rather party or do charity with that money!
No comments:
Post a Comment