desi3933
02-11 07:59 PM
I checked with attorney and they mentioned that I can continue on my L1 if I am with L1 employer OR if I am with H1 employer then I can be only on H1 status...
...
Did you tell your attorney that you have got new I-94 with H1-B written on it. I-94 indicates new status. There are no 2 ways about it.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
...
Did you tell your attorney that you have got new I-94 with H1-B written on it. I-94 indicates new status. There are no 2 ways about it.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
wallpaper makeup nicki minaj body efore
amoljak
02-09 12:33 PM
Let's not forget that the reason Immigration Voices exists and the reason we are standing in the long line of immigration is exactly what David Brooks has outlined in the first few paragraphs.
If India and China were to blow by the US... why would we be here in the first place?
So instead of making an argument that you will be damned if you don't let us in (which is not entirely true), we should argue that US is a great country and a land of opportunities and we can help to make it even better...
If India and China were to blow by the US... why would we be here in the first place?
So instead of making an argument that you will be damned if you don't let us in (which is not entirely true), we should argue that US is a great country and a land of opportunities and we can help to make it even better...
gc_chahiye
08-22 02:27 PM
Friends Need Advise Please!
My 485 packet reached NSC on July 2 with an approved 140 from TSC and no CC or receipts yet. My 140 has LUD of 08/12. God only knows where my 485 packet is lying. I applied for my 1st H1 extension at VSC which has a receipt date of July 12. I am planning to upgrade my H1B application to premium because my drivers license is expiring on Sep 30.
My questions here is,
1) Would there be any problem if my H1b is approved in premium with a new I-94 while my 485 is still lying with USCIS with out the recipts.
2) Would a new I-94 jeopardize my 485.
3) Is there any relation between H1B extension and 485 receipting.
Any answers would be greatly appreciated.
there are no issues: your H1 and 485 are independent (until the 485 is approved, at which point your H1 is invalid). Until then, even if you have filed your 485, whether you have receipts or not you can keep filing extensions and getting new I-94s. You can also transfer your H1 around (better to do after 180 days and invoke AC21) whether you have a 485 receipt or not.
dont worry, go ahead and bump up your H1 extension to PP. As long as you qualify for the extension (LC >365 days or 140 approved) you will get it and your 485 continues getting processed independently.
My 485 packet reached NSC on July 2 with an approved 140 from TSC and no CC or receipts yet. My 140 has LUD of 08/12. God only knows where my 485 packet is lying. I applied for my 1st H1 extension at VSC which has a receipt date of July 12. I am planning to upgrade my H1B application to premium because my drivers license is expiring on Sep 30.
My questions here is,
1) Would there be any problem if my H1b is approved in premium with a new I-94 while my 485 is still lying with USCIS with out the recipts.
2) Would a new I-94 jeopardize my 485.
3) Is there any relation between H1B extension and 485 receipting.
Any answers would be greatly appreciated.
there are no issues: your H1 and 485 are independent (until the 485 is approved, at which point your H1 is invalid). Until then, even if you have filed your 485, whether you have receipts or not you can keep filing extensions and getting new I-94s. You can also transfer your H1 around (better to do after 180 days and invoke AC21) whether you have a 485 receipt or not.
dont worry, go ahead and bump up your H1 extension to PP. As long as you qualify for the extension (LC >365 days or 140 approved) you will get it and your 485 continues getting processed independently.
2011 Niki Minaj is an up and coming
masterji
08-20 11:38 PM
I know people might have answered this before. So, sorry for any redundancy. I have a query. If I travel outside of US on my valid H1B visa and when I am out of US, my 485 gets approved. What happens then? Say, I do not have AP with me. Will I have problems entering the US?
more...
sheelalann
05-21 09:13 AM
Its been real fast. Yesterday I received my Approval letter, today I received my Card in mail.
Application was approved on 13 may after opening SR on 6th may. So canceling INFOPASS... :)
Congratulations !! Enjoy the freedom
Application was approved on 13 may after opening SR on 6th may. So canceling INFOPASS... :)
Congratulations !! Enjoy the freedom
gimme Green!!
07-04 10:05 PM
Please, stop rubbing salt on our wounds:mad:
I am surprised by your comment.
Congrats to ll those who got I-485 approved.
I am surprised by your comment.
Congrats to ll those who got I-485 approved.
more...
sabbygirl99
03-28 02:28 PM
Has anyone ever seen this scenario before??!
Part time worker but a full time student - all on a part time H1 visa? I have talked to one lawyer and a couple of admissions officers. They all say that it should be OK (but they are not crazy about it) but I want to talk to someone that actually did it.
Is anyone out there like that??? Thanks!!
Sincerely,
Need To Move on With My Life
Part time worker but a full time student - all on a part time H1 visa? I have talked to one lawyer and a couple of admissions officers. They all say that it should be OK (but they are not crazy about it) but I want to talk to someone that actually did it.
Is anyone out there like that??? Thanks!!
Sincerely,
Need To Move on With My Life
2010 girlfriend nicki minaj fake ody efore nicki minaj body efore surgery.
bytegame
07-17 04:14 PM
Instead of flowers, lets make IV strong by contributing more to it. The battle isn't over yet. We may still end up living rest of our lives on EADs and APs.
Again, pl. contribute!!
Again, pl. contribute!!
more...
gcmadhu
12-04 01:50 AM
hello all,
i attended for visa stamping on dec 1st at Hyderabad consulate so i got 221g yellow form but he retained passport with him. he told to submit all the documents that are mentioned on the yellow form. did any body got same thing. usually how many days they will take for processing after submiting the documents
Thanks,
Praveen
I was in the same position 2 years back at Chennai center. I got my passport back one week after I submitted the requested docs.
Good luck.
i attended for visa stamping on dec 1st at Hyderabad consulate so i got 221g yellow form but he retained passport with him. he told to submit all the documents that are mentioned on the yellow form. did any body got same thing. usually how many days they will take for processing after submiting the documents
Thanks,
Praveen
I was in the same position 2 years back at Chennai center. I got my passport back one week after I submitted the requested docs.
Good luck.
hair nicki minaj booty efore
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...
LostInGCProcess
11-10 11:47 AM
Dear Friends/Experts,
- I am planning to visit India in end of November' 2008....I was wondering as EMPLOYER "A" H1B is already stamped in my passport and stamp is valid till Oct'2009. I was wondering do i need to get a *NEW* H1B visa stamped?
- My concern is regarding the EMPLOYER "A" H1B Status on USCIS website (above). Does this above status means that H1B from EMPLOYER "A" has been revoked? Do i need to get EMPLOYER "B" visa stamped now?
- The reason I am asking is due to the delay concerns due to PIMS system.:mad: I am planning to get it stamped at NEW DELHI.:confused:
I will appreciate your quick response.
Thanks, :confused::confused:
Please clarify: First H1 was from Dec 2007 and second H1 is from June 2007??? I hope it was a typo.
Ans1) You do not need to get get a *NEW* H1B visa stamped at a consulate abroad. At the POE you have to show the latest H1B to the IO who would issue the I94 based on the exp date on the new H1.
Ans2) Again same answer. You don't need to get a new visa stamped every time you change a company and would travel abroad. You need to get the visa stamped, only if it is expiring within 6 months.
Enjoy your trip and congratulation on your engagement!!
- I am planning to visit India in end of November' 2008....I was wondering as EMPLOYER "A" H1B is already stamped in my passport and stamp is valid till Oct'2009. I was wondering do i need to get a *NEW* H1B visa stamped?
- My concern is regarding the EMPLOYER "A" H1B Status on USCIS website (above). Does this above status means that H1B from EMPLOYER "A" has been revoked? Do i need to get EMPLOYER "B" visa stamped now?
- The reason I am asking is due to the delay concerns due to PIMS system.:mad: I am planning to get it stamped at NEW DELHI.:confused:
I will appreciate your quick response.
Thanks, :confused::confused:
Please clarify: First H1 was from Dec 2007 and second H1 is from June 2007??? I hope it was a typo.
Ans1) You do not need to get get a *NEW* H1B visa stamped at a consulate abroad. At the POE you have to show the latest H1B to the IO who would issue the I94 based on the exp date on the new H1.
Ans2) Again same answer. You don't need to get a new visa stamped every time you change a company and would travel abroad. You need to get the visa stamped, only if it is expiring within 6 months.
Enjoy your trip and congratulation on your engagement!!
hot Nicki-minaj-efore-surgery
kaisersose
05-29 11:14 AM
Hi,
I'm on L1B for Company A.
My visa, Petition, I-94 are expiring this September.
I was about to begin L1-B Extension.
Now I got news from company B that my H1B petition has been selected in Lottery..
(this is for COS from my L1B to H1B).
Can I go ahead with L1B extension work ?
I do not want to do this, if it will affect the H1 Petition approval.
Please help. Thanks.:confused:
So you want to have both H-1b and L-1 status starting October 1st?
You can have only one at a time. For now, your status will become H from Oct 1st after which you can no longer be employed by company A.
I'm on L1B for Company A.
My visa, Petition, I-94 are expiring this September.
I was about to begin L1-B Extension.
Now I got news from company B that my H1B petition has been selected in Lottery..
(this is for COS from my L1B to H1B).
Can I go ahead with L1B extension work ?
I do not want to do this, if it will affect the H1 Petition approval.
Please help. Thanks.:confused:
So you want to have both H-1b and L-1 status starting October 1st?
You can have only one at a time. For now, your status will become H from Oct 1st after which you can no longer be employed by company A.
more...
house surgery nicki minaj before
mbawa2574
05-22 09:48 AM
Doe anybody have any doubt who developed USCIS software?............ Loser's Guild.
:D:D:D:D Funded by Numbers USA:D:D:D
:D:D:D:D Funded by Numbers USA:D:D:D
tattoo nicki minaj before and
adibhatla
06-16 11:59 AM
I think people should refrain from making congressional enquiries just to get a status update on their case. It should be used only under special circumstances, RFE, rejection, etc.
If everyone starts doing this, these congressional offices will just not entertain our genuine requests anymore.
If you really need to check just the status, take an Infopass.
Just my 2 cents.
va_dude
Thanks Dude. I am in a rejection situation (of I485) here and had opened an MTR in December' 08, haven't heard since them from USCIS.
Regards
MA
If everyone starts doing this, these congressional offices will just not entertain our genuine requests anymore.
If you really need to check just the status, take an Infopass.
Just my 2 cents.
va_dude
Thanks Dude. I am in a rejection situation (of I485) here and had opened an MTR in December' 08, haven't heard since them from USCIS.
Regards
MA
more...
pictures Nicki Minaj Before And After
BMWX5
03-14 11:58 PM
We all know that we are able to file 485 on July and we got EAD due to IV efforts. Which in turn helping us to get a 600$ rebate for the spouse (Some plan to spend the money).. Can we make a pledge here that we will contribute a certain % to our organization? The % can be your choice. At least this % can help this site up and running� If the moderator decide that this is not a good idea please close this thread.
First from me 20% from whatever I get as rebate �
Why should I contribute?
I'm not going to do.
For this I'll get red dots, and will be banned.
I do not care.
First from me 20% from whatever I get as rebate �
Why should I contribute?
I'm not going to do.
For this I'll get red dots, and will be banned.
I do not care.
dresses photos of nicki minaj before surgery. Nicki Minaj before and
r2i2009
05-15 04:26 PM
The reason for my saying so....this election is different from others. Very tight race and either party do not want to pass any bill that would negatively affect the results.
Our problem is the least of the problems the country is facing right now.
They would pass bill which would stimuate economy not help EB3 folks(who already have EADs) to get GC and make them sleep easily.
So let us be patient. Even if we get GCs...it is not useful for either parties....because we cannot vote.
Secondly, GOVT would lose EAD renewal, AP revenue etc.
So let us get out the illusion that our bills would be passed....it is not going to help the ailing economy. It might help lawyers to earn some good bucks.
Our problem is the least of the problems the country is facing right now.
They would pass bill which would stimuate economy not help EB3 folks(who already have EADs) to get GC and make them sleep easily.
So let us be patient. Even if we get GCs...it is not useful for either parties....because we cannot vote.
Secondly, GOVT would lose EAD renewal, AP revenue etc.
So let us get out the illusion that our bills would be passed....it is not going to help the ailing economy. It might help lawyers to earn some good bucks.
more...
makeup 2011 tattoo Nicki Minaj before
bluekayal
10-22 09:24 PM
This seems pretty amazing. I wonder how it will play out in action.
"On October 20, the Senate followed the House of Representatives in voting to protect surviving family members when either the petitioner or the principal beneficiary of a petition dies. President Obama is expected to sign this legislation shortly.
Presently, the law provides that when the petitioner or the principal beneficiary dies, so does the petition. Typically, if the beneficiaries are present in the U.S., their applications for adjustment of status are denied and they are placed in removal proceedings.
* WHO WILL BENEFIT FROM THE NEW LAW?
Not only does the new law eliminate the infamous "widow penalty", it does so much more!
When either the petitioner or the principal beneficiary dies in a wide variety of instances, the law acts to protect the surviving family members:
There are few options for surviving relatives:
For example, there is a section of the law which provides that a surviving spouse of a U.S. citizen can self-petition for permanent residence, but only if the marriage occurred at least two years before the petitioner's death.
There is also a regulation which provides that where the petitioner of a family-based petition dies before the beneficiaries of the petition became permanent residents, the beneficiaries may request that the USCIS reinstate the petition for "humanitarian" reasons.
1) Parents, spouses and children of a U.S. citizen with pending or approved petitions;
2) Beneficiaries, principal or derivative, of pending or approved family-based petitions;
3) Beneficiaries, principals or derivative, of pending or approved employment-based petitions;
4) Beneficiaries, principal or derivative, of pending or approved asylee/refugee relative petitions;
5) Nonimmigrants entitled to "T" (trafficking victims) or "U" (crime victims) status.
Since the waiting times for family-based and employment-based preference can range up to between five and 22 years, often petitioners and principal beneficiaries die before the beneficiaries of the petition can obtain permanent residence.
........
* EXAMPLE #4 - Employment-Based Petition
Dr. Kumar is a physician born in India. His wife and daughter reside with him in the U.S. He is in H-1B status. His wife and daughter are in H-4 status. Dr. Kumar completed his medical residency in the U.S. on a J-1 visa. Then, for three years, he worked in a medically-underserved area in H-1B status. In 2006, his employer submitted a PERM application on his behalf. It was approved in the Spring of 2007. In July 2007, when all the employment-based numbers became current, Dr. Kumar's employer submitted an EB-2 visa petition on his behalf. Simultaneously, Dr. Kumar, his wife and daughter all applied for adjustment of status. Then his priority date retrogressed. In 2009, Dr. Kumar was killed by a drunk driver. Under present law, the visa petition would be revoked. Under the new law, Dr. Kumar's wife and daughter would be permitted to continue with their applications to adjust status. The visa petition could only be revoked if the USCIS determined that its continued approval would not be "in the public interest".
* CONCLUSION
The new law will provide immigration benefits to "survivors" in various types of immigration cases where either the petitioner or the principal beneficiary dies before the other family members are able to become permanent residents.
However, the law is complex, and the extent of its benefits will not be known until after the USCIS and the State Department promulgate regulations, or issue memos, explaining how they plan to implement the new law."
http://shusterman.typepad.com/nation...y-members.html
"On October 20, the Senate followed the House of Representatives in voting to protect surviving family members when either the petitioner or the principal beneficiary of a petition dies. President Obama is expected to sign this legislation shortly.
Presently, the law provides that when the petitioner or the principal beneficiary dies, so does the petition. Typically, if the beneficiaries are present in the U.S., their applications for adjustment of status are denied and they are placed in removal proceedings.
* WHO WILL BENEFIT FROM THE NEW LAW?
Not only does the new law eliminate the infamous "widow penalty", it does so much more!
When either the petitioner or the principal beneficiary dies in a wide variety of instances, the law acts to protect the surviving family members:
There are few options for surviving relatives:
For example, there is a section of the law which provides that a surviving spouse of a U.S. citizen can self-petition for permanent residence, but only if the marriage occurred at least two years before the petitioner's death.
There is also a regulation which provides that where the petitioner of a family-based petition dies before the beneficiaries of the petition became permanent residents, the beneficiaries may request that the USCIS reinstate the petition for "humanitarian" reasons.
1) Parents, spouses and children of a U.S. citizen with pending or approved petitions;
2) Beneficiaries, principal or derivative, of pending or approved family-based petitions;
3) Beneficiaries, principals or derivative, of pending or approved employment-based petitions;
4) Beneficiaries, principal or derivative, of pending or approved asylee/refugee relative petitions;
5) Nonimmigrants entitled to "T" (trafficking victims) or "U" (crime victims) status.
Since the waiting times for family-based and employment-based preference can range up to between five and 22 years, often petitioners and principal beneficiaries die before the beneficiaries of the petition can obtain permanent residence.
........
* EXAMPLE #4 - Employment-Based Petition
Dr. Kumar is a physician born in India. His wife and daughter reside with him in the U.S. He is in H-1B status. His wife and daughter are in H-4 status. Dr. Kumar completed his medical residency in the U.S. on a J-1 visa. Then, for three years, he worked in a medically-underserved area in H-1B status. In 2006, his employer submitted a PERM application on his behalf. It was approved in the Spring of 2007. In July 2007, when all the employment-based numbers became current, Dr. Kumar's employer submitted an EB-2 visa petition on his behalf. Simultaneously, Dr. Kumar, his wife and daughter all applied for adjustment of status. Then his priority date retrogressed. In 2009, Dr. Kumar was killed by a drunk driver. Under present law, the visa petition would be revoked. Under the new law, Dr. Kumar's wife and daughter would be permitted to continue with their applications to adjust status. The visa petition could only be revoked if the USCIS determined that its continued approval would not be "in the public interest".
* CONCLUSION
The new law will provide immigration benefits to "survivors" in various types of immigration cases where either the petitioner or the principal beneficiary dies before the other family members are able to become permanent residents.
However, the law is complex, and the extent of its benefits will not be known until after the USCIS and the State Department promulgate regulations, or issue memos, explaining how they plan to implement the new law."
http://shusterman.typepad.com/nation...y-members.html
girlfriend tattoo nicki minaj before
green_mile
09-14 01:41 PM
This is a great idea I am in.
hairstyles nicki minaj images efore surgery. nicki minaj before surgery
wrldnw4me
01-31 10:29 AM
We are under Legal Slavery.
alisa
08-03 10:45 AM
I am starting this thread for people who are still waiting for their I-140 approvals.
There is a thread about the delay in I-140 approvals at TSC. However, from what I can tell by looking at data, NSC is worse than TSC.
The processing dates suggest that NSC is looking at March 2007 I-140 applications. But thats what they have been saying for the last three months.
In December 07, the processing dates for NSC EB3 were at January 2007.
In July 2008, the processing dates (NSC, EB3) are at March 2007.
We are witnessing the birth of another 'backlog elimination center.' This must be pointed out, so that there is a chance that this could be stopped.
There is a thread about the delay in I-140 approvals at TSC. However, from what I can tell by looking at data, NSC is worse than TSC.
The processing dates suggest that NSC is looking at March 2007 I-140 applications. But thats what they have been saying for the last three months.
In December 07, the processing dates for NSC EB3 were at January 2007.
In July 2008, the processing dates (NSC, EB3) are at March 2007.
We are witnessing the birth of another 'backlog elimination center.' This must be pointed out, so that there is a chance that this could be stopped.
Gravitation
06-04 10:11 AM
Morning business @ 2:30 p.m. ??
morning business - Routine business that is supposed to occur during the first two hours of a new legislative day. This business includes receiving messages from the President and from the House of Representatives, reports from executive branch officials, petitions from citizens, memorials from States, and committee reports, and the introduction of bills and submission of resolutions. In practice, the Senate often does this business instead by unanimous consent at other convenient points in the day.
Reference:
http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/morning_business.htm
morning business - Routine business that is supposed to occur during the first two hours of a new legislative day. This business includes receiving messages from the President and from the House of Representatives, reports from executive branch officials, petitions from citizens, memorials from States, and committee reports, and the introduction of bills and submission of resolutions. In practice, the Senate often does this business instead by unanimous consent at other convenient points in the day.
Reference:
http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/morning_business.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment