caond
05-07 05:41 AM
I am holding J-1 student visa (academic training) from 8/2007 and will be expired on 7/31/2010, sponsor by U of Colorado. I am working as a postdoc for a project funded by NIH until 2013 at VCU. My advisor want to change my visa category from J-1 student to J-1 scholar, sponsor by VCU, to continue the project.
According to an international advisor at VCU where I am applying J-1 scholar, I cannot change from J-1 student to J-1 scholar due to 12-month bar:
[Time spent in the United States in any J status (including J-2 status) during the 12-month period preceding the prospective professor or research scholar's program begin date may affect the alien's eligibility for participation as a Professor or Research Scholar.
22 C.F.R. � 62.20(d)(2) establishes what is referred to as the "12-month bar." The general proposition of the 12-month bar is that an alien is not eligible to begin an exchange program as a Professor or Research Scholar based on a DS-2019 issued "to begin a new program" if he or she was physically present in any J status (including J-2 status) for "all or part of" the "twelve month period immediately preceding the date of program commencement set forth on his or her Form DS-2019." ]
But according to an international advisor at University of Colorado (my current sponsor for J1 student) that the 12-month bar is not applicable for me due to exception:
[(A) J-1 transfers. The 12 month bar is not applicable to those who will begin a program by transferring to a new program sponsor under the transfer procedures of 22 C.F.R. � 62.42 ;
22 C.F.R. � 62.20(d)(2)(i) ]
Who is right? What should I do? :confused:
I appreciate any help !!!
According to an international advisor at VCU where I am applying J-1 scholar, I cannot change from J-1 student to J-1 scholar due to 12-month bar:
[Time spent in the United States in any J status (including J-2 status) during the 12-month period preceding the prospective professor or research scholar's program begin date may affect the alien's eligibility for participation as a Professor or Research Scholar.
22 C.F.R. � 62.20(d)(2) establishes what is referred to as the "12-month bar." The general proposition of the 12-month bar is that an alien is not eligible to begin an exchange program as a Professor or Research Scholar based on a DS-2019 issued "to begin a new program" if he or she was physically present in any J status (including J-2 status) for "all or part of" the "twelve month period immediately preceding the date of program commencement set forth on his or her Form DS-2019." ]
But according to an international advisor at University of Colorado (my current sponsor for J1 student) that the 12-month bar is not applicable for me due to exception:
[(A) J-1 transfers. The 12 month bar is not applicable to those who will begin a program by transferring to a new program sponsor under the transfer procedures of 22 C.F.R. � 62.42 ;
22 C.F.R. � 62.20(d)(2)(i) ]
Who is right? What should I do? :confused:
I appreciate any help !!!
wallpaper tattoo
grupak
03-01 10:20 AM
Time to send in the monthly contributions.
I just mailed mine online.
I just mailed mine online.
Sakthisagar
08-06 02:14 PM
Is it a big blow for desi consulting firms??
US raises H-1B, L1 visa fee by $2000
Washington: The US Senate today approved a substantial increase in application fees for H-1B and L1 visas, most sought after by Indian IT professionals to fund a $ 600 million emergency package to improve security along the porous Mexican border.
The proposed massive increase in H-1B and L1 visa application fee would primarily affect the top Indian IT companies who rely majorly on these categories of visas to continue with their work in the US. The Senate measure increases the visa fee to $ 2,000 per application on those companies that have less than 50 percent of their employees as American citizens.
"I prefer our source, which is from these companies which are not, as I say they are companies whose whole purpose is to bring people in on H-1B and the vast majority of them from other countries who go back to the other countries. That is a better funding source," Senator Charles Schumer from New York said in his remarks on the Senate floor.
Schumer along with his other democratic colleagues including Senator Claire McCaskill has introduced the legislation in this regard, which was passed by unanimous consent. During the debate, however, Senator John McCain wanted to fund the security along the Mexican border with the stimulus money, which was turned down by Schumer.
"The bottom line is this. I like the H-1B programme, and I think it does a lot of good for a lot of American companies. In fact, in the immigration proposal I made, along with Senator Reid and Senator Menendez, as well as the outline with Senator Graham, we expand H-1B in a variety of ways," Schumer argued.
"There is a part of H-1B that is abused, and it is by companies that are not American companies or even companies that are making something. Rather, they are companies that take foreign folks, bring them here, and then they stay here for a few years, learn their expertise, and go back. We think we should increase the fees when they do that," the Senator said.
Rejecting McCain's proposal to get the funding from the stimulus money, Schumer said: "I hope, even though I cannot accept these amendments, that maybe we could come together on something that we could bring back in September because I do believe we have to secure the border."
Schumer said: "Even in the comprehensive proposal that we made, we said we have to secure the border and do other things as well. It is my belief that securing the border alone will not solve our immigration problems; that until we have comprehensive reform, particularly in making sure employers do not hire illegal immigrants which they now do, even though they do not know they are illegal immigrants because documents are so easily forged, that we have to do comprehensive. But we should do the border. To say we have to do comprehensive does not gainsay that we have to work on theborder and work on it quickly and soon."
It is not clear yet, if this increase would also apply only to those firms that are also H-1B-dependent.
All Politics, .. only senate approved this now Congress has to put on vote and pass this and The President has to Sign, then only this is a Law other wise this remains as a Proposal.
US raises H-1B, L1 visa fee by $2000
Washington: The US Senate today approved a substantial increase in application fees for H-1B and L1 visas, most sought after by Indian IT professionals to fund a $ 600 million emergency package to improve security along the porous Mexican border.
The proposed massive increase in H-1B and L1 visa application fee would primarily affect the top Indian IT companies who rely majorly on these categories of visas to continue with their work in the US. The Senate measure increases the visa fee to $ 2,000 per application on those companies that have less than 50 percent of their employees as American citizens.
"I prefer our source, which is from these companies which are not, as I say they are companies whose whole purpose is to bring people in on H-1B and the vast majority of them from other countries who go back to the other countries. That is a better funding source," Senator Charles Schumer from New York said in his remarks on the Senate floor.
Schumer along with his other democratic colleagues including Senator Claire McCaskill has introduced the legislation in this regard, which was passed by unanimous consent. During the debate, however, Senator John McCain wanted to fund the security along the Mexican border with the stimulus money, which was turned down by Schumer.
"The bottom line is this. I like the H-1B programme, and I think it does a lot of good for a lot of American companies. In fact, in the immigration proposal I made, along with Senator Reid and Senator Menendez, as well as the outline with Senator Graham, we expand H-1B in a variety of ways," Schumer argued.
"There is a part of H-1B that is abused, and it is by companies that are not American companies or even companies that are making something. Rather, they are companies that take foreign folks, bring them here, and then they stay here for a few years, learn their expertise, and go back. We think we should increase the fees when they do that," the Senator said.
Rejecting McCain's proposal to get the funding from the stimulus money, Schumer said: "I hope, even though I cannot accept these amendments, that maybe we could come together on something that we could bring back in September because I do believe we have to secure the border."
Schumer said: "Even in the comprehensive proposal that we made, we said we have to secure the border and do other things as well. It is my belief that securing the border alone will not solve our immigration problems; that until we have comprehensive reform, particularly in making sure employers do not hire illegal immigrants which they now do, even though they do not know they are illegal immigrants because documents are so easily forged, that we have to do comprehensive. But we should do the border. To say we have to do comprehensive does not gainsay that we have to work on theborder and work on it quickly and soon."
It is not clear yet, if this increase would also apply only to those firms that are also H-1B-dependent.
All Politics, .. only senate approved this now Congress has to put on vote and pass this and The President has to Sign, then only this is a Law other wise this remains as a Proposal.
2011 Best Celtic Cross Tattoo
peer123
04-17 09:59 AM
How did you find what job code your labor was applied for?
it is on the approved labor certificate, that my lawyer gave me
it is on the approved labor certificate, that my lawyer gave me
more...
sreeanne
02-07 07:51 PM
i never filed EAD before but i filed 131 by myself 2 weeks back. its pretty straight forward and i even got receipt notice. make sure you attach all the required proofs along with new fees. thats it.
trueguy
08-08 09:22 PM
you shd have come with after 2004 before 2005 bullet too ..actually not sure if this poll is of use since there are many EB3 people who don't even visit this site...
How do I add more options in this Poll now? I didn't mean to discriminate and I was being realistic here. Sorry about that. Please someone, help me add more options to this poll.
Thanks.
How do I add more options in this Poll now? I didn't mean to discriminate and I was being realistic here. Sorry about that. Please someone, help me add more options to this poll.
Thanks.
more...
BMS1
08-02 11:24 PM
In my opinion USCIS is not very strict on the RFE deadlines. I was late by 3 days for an RFE on my I140. They accepted. But that was more than a year ago. May be, it depends on officer.
2010 Top Tattoo Design
morchu
05-11 08:07 AM
Please check the new fees from the EAD instructions. I see that it is 340.
The QA just means that you have to keep on paying for EAD.
Thanks Morchu.
I will go ahead and will apply EAD with $180/ as filing fee.
The QA just means that you have to keep on paying for EAD.
Thanks Morchu.
I will go ahead and will apply EAD with $180/ as filing fee.
more...
nabs501
07-27 04:31 PM
Did you put in your A# OR THE Petition Number 3 in that form. Please respond.
I did put in my A# which I then thought was same as the A# listed on the EAD for OPT. Obviously, I was wrong.
My point is, it's OK if you don't put in your A#.
But it would help if you put the receipt #.
They just use all of this information to retireve your record. If there's some information missing such as the receipt number, it would just take them longer to retrieve your records.
Try to get atleast the I140 receipt number from your employer. Dont worry about the A# (just put in NONE). I think they can very well dig out your application based on the receipt number.
Even if you dont get the receipt number, go ahead file the form and provide as much details as you possibly can regarding the I140 petition; attach a separate sheet if needed.
Dont forget to get the form notarized.
I did put in my A# which I then thought was same as the A# listed on the EAD for OPT. Obviously, I was wrong.
My point is, it's OK if you don't put in your A#.
But it would help if you put the receipt #.
They just use all of this information to retireve your record. If there's some information missing such as the receipt number, it would just take them longer to retrieve your records.
Try to get atleast the I140 receipt number from your employer. Dont worry about the A# (just put in NONE). I think they can very well dig out your application based on the receipt number.
Even if you dont get the receipt number, go ahead file the form and provide as much details as you possibly can regarding the I140 petition; attach a separate sheet if needed.
Dont forget to get the form notarized.
hair the world#39;s best tattoo
sam_hoosier
06-25 12:59 PM
I called AAA. They said its free for Premium members only. I'm Plus member and price is $25 for 6 photos.
Yep, thats what I paid ;) And while its true that we are spending a lot of money on our GC process, saving a few dollars here or there always helps.
I hope the members who are indifferent towards saving money on photographs are actively contributing to the IV cause.:p
Yep, thats what I paid ;) And while its true that we are spending a lot of money on our GC process, saving a few dollars here or there always helps.
I hope the members who are indifferent towards saving money on photographs are actively contributing to the IV cause.:p
more...
ivjobs
11-10 10:02 AM
Couple of polls have been started in the entrepreneurship group. Please follow the below link to participate
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/ivstartup/polls
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/ivstartup/polls
hot worlds coolest tattoos
belmontboy
05-23 03:36 PM
I am on H1 since 2005 and renewed last year and it is valid till april 2010.
Last year i joined directly to the client and they are processing my GC.
When they hired me they gave me list of projects and future plans for more then 5 years but this work is not IT driven and manufacutring in having late back attitude so my fear is if there are not projects in the future i may loose the job then at that point i will have very little time to get my labour approves abd re start the process...
So as back up i want to have a labour approve based on future employment and if possible have 140 processed.
guide me if this is not the correct thing to do...
regards
you surely can have two GC app's in process.
Last year i joined directly to the client and they are processing my GC.
When they hired me they gave me list of projects and future plans for more then 5 years but this work is not IT driven and manufacutring in having late back attitude so my fear is if there are not projects in the future i may loose the job then at that point i will have very little time to get my labour approves abd re start the process...
So as back up i want to have a labour approve based on future employment and if possible have 140 processed.
guide me if this is not the correct thing to do...
regards
you surely can have two GC app's in process.
more...
house Worlds Best Tattoos: Mom
singhsa3
08-14 11:02 PM
This will be mass distributed with the flyers.
tattoo worlds best tattoos.
NewDocinUS
02-05 01:21 PM
Hi,
I am a doctor from India and came to US on B1/B2 visa. I have cleared my Step1 and step2 USMLE and preparing for CS Exam. I am looking for a observership or externship oppertunity.
I applied and called a lot of places but no luck because of my visa situation. Please let me know if anyone here knows of any hospitals offering observerships for IMGs.
Thanks
I am a doctor from India and came to US on B1/B2 visa. I have cleared my Step1 and step2 USMLE and preparing for CS Exam. I am looking for a observership or externship oppertunity.
I applied and called a lot of places but no luck because of my visa situation. Please let me know if anyone here knows of any hospitals offering observerships for IMGs.
Thanks
more...
pictures Tattoo War Tattoo Inspiration
h1techSlave
07-30 10:27 AM
For the next conference call, may be we can pool together some common questions and a couple of people can ask them during the call.
dresses SEE the world#39;s greatest
jotv
11-19 01:09 PM
thank you for your reply .
i have another question is i took the dd in hdfc is 4322/- by combinding 4000+322. is this the correct way or should i have to take two different ?iam lokking for first time h1b visa stamping .i already mentioned this.
before going to interview i have to take any other dd like h4 persons will do? if yes how much ? because i read some where 20,000 for blanket petition .
please tell me what documents i have to take to the interview? is there any sample questions list ?
i appriciate your help really.
i have another question is i took the dd in hdfc is 4322/- by combinding 4000+322. is this the correct way or should i have to take two different ?iam lokking for first time h1b visa stamping .i already mentioned this.
before going to interview i have to take any other dd like h4 persons will do? if yes how much ? because i read some where 20,000 for blanket petition .
please tell me what documents i have to take to the interview? is there any sample questions list ?
i appriciate your help really.
more...
makeup Best Tribal Tattoo Designs
sertasheep
03-26 12:04 PM
dpsg,
I think the point we're trying to make is TOI could probably write about "relevant" problems. Illegal immigration is not a problem we're fighting in this forum. Anyone recollect an article in recent times in TOI on impact of GC backlog and retrogression?
The press is the primary forum for people's voices to be heard even in a difficult democracy like India.
Let the media be aware of the problems NRIs are going through. Most people back home(Des) will think that people in the US have a cushy life with no worries, when the reality is different.
This topic is really debatable, but its simply my humble opinion.
And guess what: making the India NRI minister (Vayalar Ravi) of these issues didn't even result in getting an email response back. We might as well expect that "nothing will happen". But, what's the harm in trying? Just a few minutes of time (and electrons) expended).
I think the point we're trying to make is TOI could probably write about "relevant" problems. Illegal immigration is not a problem we're fighting in this forum. Anyone recollect an article in recent times in TOI on impact of GC backlog and retrogression?
The press is the primary forum for people's voices to be heard even in a difficult democracy like India.
Let the media be aware of the problems NRIs are going through. Most people back home(Des) will think that people in the US have a cushy life with no worries, when the reality is different.
This topic is really debatable, but its simply my humble opinion.
And guess what: making the India NRI minister (Vayalar Ravi) of these issues didn't even result in getting an email response back. We might as well expect that "nothing will happen". But, what's the harm in trying? Just a few minutes of time (and electrons) expended).
girlfriend World#39;s Best Black amp; Grey.
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
hairstyles Flower tattoo designs are
bmeduru11
02-18 11:43 AM
Hi all,
I started working with a company in July 2006 and applied for I-140 in Nov 2006 with an existing labor of Nov 2004. My company is in losses all the time but I am getting more than proffered wage since I joined. Recently I received Intent to deny notice as there is no evidence that company can pay my in 2005. My attorney has replied for Intent to Deny notice and also applied for new I -140 using my own labor.
New I-140 got approved. I send a request for Interfiling to take out old I-140 from my 485 and use the approved I-140. when I checked the status of my case yesterday - both my old I-40 and 485 got denied. I didn't receive Denial notice yet.
Please suggest my any options I have for not losing I-485 and EAD.
I started working with a company in July 2006 and applied for I-140 in Nov 2006 with an existing labor of Nov 2004. My company is in losses all the time but I am getting more than proffered wage since I joined. Recently I received Intent to deny notice as there is no evidence that company can pay my in 2005. My attorney has replied for Intent to Deny notice and also applied for new I -140 using my own labor.
New I-140 got approved. I send a request for Interfiling to take out old I-140 from my 485 and use the approved I-140. when I checked the status of my case yesterday - both my old I-40 and 485 got denied. I didn't receive Denial notice yet.
Please suggest my any options I have for not losing I-485 and EAD.
purplehazea
05-11 01:31 PM
I spelled out the problems as much as I could with the limited time I had! I spoke as Amit, Irvine CA
I really hope they put it out there. And just for my satisfaction there was an illegal who got legalized via 245i before me so that I could question the backlog these people add!
I really hope they put it out there. And just for my satisfaction there was an illegal who got legalized via 245i before me so that I could question the backlog these people add!
mhtanim
09-15 02:05 PM
I can see it. Refresh your browser
Thanks inskrish for the news.
Anyway, the Proc. dates are a heap of bull shit. The NSC Proc date for I-485 says July 08 2007. We all know the dates were 'U' and noone could have filed a I-485 between July 2 - July 17th (July 2 fiasco). So how can the oldest application that the NSC is blocked on can be dated July 08 2007 !!!
Even if they came across ineligible applications like that, wouldn't they just outright reject them and quickly move on to some other application that they can process??? Why would they consider themselves blocked on such application(s) and issue the processing date to reflect such transient status ???
Some people actually did file during July 2 through July 17 and I am one of them. My law firm (one of the top immigration law firms) was actively involved with the AILF to file the lawsuit against DOS at that time. The law firm recommended all their clients to file I-485 even after July 1st as they though AILF has really good chances of winning the lawsuit.
Thanks inskrish for the news.
Anyway, the Proc. dates are a heap of bull shit. The NSC Proc date for I-485 says July 08 2007. We all know the dates were 'U' and noone could have filed a I-485 between July 2 - July 17th (July 2 fiasco). So how can the oldest application that the NSC is blocked on can be dated July 08 2007 !!!
Even if they came across ineligible applications like that, wouldn't they just outright reject them and quickly move on to some other application that they can process??? Why would they consider themselves blocked on such application(s) and issue the processing date to reflect such transient status ???
Some people actually did file during July 2 through July 17 and I am one of them. My law firm (one of the top immigration law firms) was actively involved with the AILF to file the lawsuit against DOS at that time. The law firm recommended all their clients to file I-485 even after July 1st as they though AILF has really good chances of winning the lawsuit.
No comments:
Post a Comment