SpookyH1Alien
10-05 06:47 PM
I am a law abiding up-standing Citizen of that country, and that stupid lady was asking me why am I going there. This is like asking somebody why they are going to their house. So, I just gave her a name...now that I look back, I should have said "Mr. Johnny Walker"..since I always pick up a Johnny Walker at the duty free!!..but Dhurandhar Bhadvadekar sounded much more cool...
That is Utpal Dutt's name in the movie Rang birange. That's one of those great comedy movies.
That is Utpal Dutt's name in the movie Rang birange. That's one of those great comedy movies.
wallpaper Back Butterflies Tattoos
Alabaman
11-09 02:00 PM
Like my name suggests this is Alabama. I am in Birmingham... lets gather round yall.
locomotive36
11-08 10:34 AM
Thanks to all those who voted!
Please note, that you can cast multiple votes and there is no restriction. Please take a minute each day, to cast atleast one vote per day until Nov 18th.
Spread the word around about the good cause and hope Narayan Krishnan wins!
Thank you.
Please note, that you can cast multiple votes and there is no restriction. Please take a minute each day, to cast atleast one vote per day until Nov 18th.
Spread the word around about the good cause and hope Narayan Krishnan wins!
Thank you.
2011 Female Back Tattoos
bajrangbali
07-03 10:02 AM
You guys still dont get it..do you??
Why would they ban non-immigrants from investing when there is ZERO loss for the country?
Its upto each individual to evaluate their priorities and go ahead and move their investments. I have already done it as I am just an alien waiting for permanent residency and I do not want my money stuck in any of the investment vehicles in a foreign land making it difficult for me to take it along with me when the day comes to leave the country.
Why would they ban non-immigrants from investing when there is ZERO loss for the country?
Its upto each individual to evaluate their priorities and go ahead and move their investments. I have already done it as I am just an alien waiting for permanent residency and I do not want my money stuck in any of the investment vehicles in a foreign land making it difficult for me to take it along with me when the day comes to leave the country.
more...
h1-b forever
07-16 09:58 AM
It will be very nice if anyone of you can help to my post.
"father FirstName and lastName reverse"
Write to the Indian Consulate and check for a solution with them. They will have definitely handled these types of cases before.
"father FirstName and lastName reverse"
Write to the Indian Consulate and check for a solution with them. They will have definitely handled these types of cases before.
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
more...
kevinkris
07-31 04:50 PM
Why do you need to go to Canada ? If your you have I797 you are approved and can start working with adjustment of status. Am I missing something ?
Hi, I am planning to goto india and i don't want to visit US Embassy in Chennai as i am working for a small consulting company. They will ask so many things.
I hope canada will be smooth.
My question is if US embassy in Canada don't want to extend my H1 will they cancel my current H1? Can i re-enter USA?
Hi, I am planning to goto india and i don't want to visit US Embassy in Chennai as i am working for a small consulting company. They will ask so many things.
I hope canada will be smooth.
My question is if US embassy in Canada don't want to extend my H1 will they cancel my current H1? Can i re-enter USA?
2010 Hot Back Tattoos
Desertfox
04-28 04:11 PM
The new administration has definitely something to do with this. Being an AZ resident for a while, I noticed how popular Janet Napolitano was here as a governor, even in this strongly republican state. I am sure her nomination as DHS secretary will bring more positive changes for us.
more...
lazycis
12-21 06:53 PM
I applied I-140 with a substitution labor in May'07. Then I applied I-485 on July2nd,2007. Got EAD on Aug20th. Two months back my I-140 was approved. Now I am on EAD. I am working with a very good financial corporation which they are asking me to join as full-time from Jan1st2008. I told my manager that I can join as a full-time from Feb20th 2008. Can any one throw some light on these doubts?
1. What happens if I move before 180 days of EAD to this new company and send AC21 to USCIS after finishing 180 days on EAD?
2. If I moved after 180 days what kind of queries we get from USCIS on AC21?
3. Do we need to make sure my employer also agrees what we are doing? What kind of documents we need from the existing employer?
4. Does my new company has to give same exact responsibilities as my labor certificate?
I would appreciate if any one replies to these posts. Thanks in advance.
1. Technically you can start working for a new employer from January 2nd (180 days after I-485 received date). It does not matter when you've got EAD.
2. If you do not notify the USCIS and you current employer won't withdraw I-140, the USCIS will never know about the job change.
3. See #2. You have to make sure they will not withdraw I-140. AC21 or not, it's in your best interest to leave on good terms.
4. Not really. Make sure job title or responsibilities/duties are same or similar. It does not have to be 100% match.
1. What happens if I move before 180 days of EAD to this new company and send AC21 to USCIS after finishing 180 days on EAD?
2. If I moved after 180 days what kind of queries we get from USCIS on AC21?
3. Do we need to make sure my employer also agrees what we are doing? What kind of documents we need from the existing employer?
4. Does my new company has to give same exact responsibilities as my labor certificate?
I would appreciate if any one replies to these posts. Thanks in advance.
1. Technically you can start working for a new employer from January 2nd (180 days after I-485 received date). It does not matter when you've got EAD.
2. If you do not notify the USCIS and you current employer won't withdraw I-140, the USCIS will never know about the job change.
3. See #2. You have to make sure they will not withdraw I-140. AC21 or not, it's in your best interest to leave on good terms.
4. Not really. Make sure job title or responsibilities/duties are same or similar. It does not have to be 100% match.
hair lower ack tattoos for women
k_usa
12-16 10:52 AM
I got mine renewed in July'08 based on EAD in Lodi, NJ (Bergen county).
They renewed until EAD expiry date + 3 months.
They renewed until EAD expiry date + 3 months.
more...
KKtexas
01-21 02:59 PM
Person traveling with AP does not require Transit Visa if u dont plan to go outside of Frankfurt airport for what so reason.I had traveled via Frankfurt on 01/07/09.
Please do check with German consulate.
Please do check with German consulate.
hot Women back tattoo
rpulipati
09-11 05:03 PM
See ya all there!
more...
house cherry blossom tree tattoos
lee.cook
May 30th, 2007, 10:27 AM
Hey Again,
I bought myself one off those Giotto Rocket Blowers thingimajigs, but wanted advice on the correct way to use it, the angle etc, angle off the camera.
Anybody got any pictures of the correct way? thanks very much.
I bought myself one off those Giotto Rocket Blowers thingimajigs, but wanted advice on the correct way to use it, the angle etc, angle off the camera.
Anybody got any pictures of the correct way? thanks very much.