Chevrolet Cruze Lt Interiors
images 2011 Chevrolet Cruze 1LT side
bsbawa10
01-23 06:17 PM
Since Ombudsman invited these. Here is a very big list of them.
1. Transparency: USCIS never releases how many eb1 or eb2 cases are pending so things are so unpredictable, no body can expect the time frame at all.
2. Respect priority dates: There is no logic what so ever in giving green cards to people having priority dates 2006 when the cases with priority dates 2003, 2004 are all pending. Why is priority date even there then ?
3. Email support and some real customer service: Currently customer service is just getting their pay stubs. They just speak whatever is on the website and have no power at all. Why does this type of customer support even have to be their from the tax payers money.
4. Update the cases on the website: Often the cases on the USCIS are not updated and people can bang their heads trying to guess what is happening and customer service is as has been described. For eg. my case shows that my I485 case is in California service center whereas I know that it is in Texas Service Center. I have run from piller to post to get it changed including calling customer service many many times, writing letters to Texas Service center, calling Californa service center and Texas Service Center but to no use at all. Atlast I gave up.
5. Automatic Advance Parole and EAD: Why does USCIS try to increase load for itself ? Is it for making more money or is it to claim that they have a lot of load and then say that they are understaffed? Why not the very fact that I485 is pending should give permission for work as well as permission to reenter the country ?
Thanks.
1. Transparency: USCIS never releases how many eb1 or eb2 cases are pending so things are so unpredictable, no body can expect the time frame at all.
2. Respect priority dates: There is no logic what so ever in giving green cards to people having priority dates 2006 when the cases with priority dates 2003, 2004 are all pending. Why is priority date even there then ?
3. Email support and some real customer service: Currently customer service is just getting their pay stubs. They just speak whatever is on the website and have no power at all. Why does this type of customer support even have to be their from the tax payers money.
4. Update the cases on the website: Often the cases on the USCIS are not updated and people can bang their heads trying to guess what is happening and customer service is as has been described. For eg. my case shows that my I485 case is in California service center whereas I know that it is in Texas Service Center. I have run from piller to post to get it changed including calling customer service many many times, writing letters to Texas Service center, calling Californa service center and Texas Service Center but to no use at all. Atlast I gave up.
5. Automatic Advance Parole and EAD: Why does USCIS try to increase load for itself ? Is it for making more money or is it to claim that they have a lot of load and then say that they are understaffed? Why not the very fact that I485 is pending should give permission for work as well as permission to reenter the country ?
Thanks.
wallpaper 2011 Chevrolet Cruze LT w/1LT
mzafar125
05-11 12:39 PM
Hello,
I am trying to file by I-485 paperwork and the only roadblock is the birth certificate. I called the Pakistani embassy and they said they would issue me with a letter stating my name, DOB, father and mothers name. Can someone for the love of god let me know if this will be acceptable to the dept of homeland security ?
This is the last hurdle I have to pass before I can file my I-485 so I would appreciate any feedback. You lot have a good weekend and thanks for all your efforts.
Thanks!
I am trying to file by I-485 paperwork and the only roadblock is the birth certificate. I called the Pakistani embassy and they said they would issue me with a letter stating my name, DOB, father and mothers name. Can someone for the love of god let me know if this will be acceptable to the dept of homeland security ?
This is the last hurdle I have to pass before I can file my I-485 so I would appreciate any feedback. You lot have a good weekend and thanks for all your efforts.
Thanks!
Pagal
09-19 11:21 AM
Hello,
Sorry to read your experience ... not to rationalize the conduct of the rude employee, but they are also just human beings who have family, financial worries/problems and not all of them like their jobs either ...
Having said that, there is no reason for you to accept the rude behavior of anyone ... you are asking for a visa, not begging for it! Here are somethings that you can do ...
1. Email to the Consul General to file a complaint (provide as many details as possible, e.g. time of interview, window number, sequence of interactions, specific parts that you found offending and unreasonable). Here are the contact details (http://mumbai.usconsulate.gov/contact-us.html).
2. Write a letter to Consul General with copy to US ambassador, the Ombudsman of state department and Secretary of State. Here is the online form (http://contact-us.state.gov/cgi-bin/state.cfg/php/enduser/ask.php?p_sid=qk*MUpak&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPSZwX3NvcnRfYnk9JnBfZ3JpZHNvcnQ9JnBfc m93X2NudD05NCw5NCZwX3Byb2RzPSZwX2NhdHM9JnBfcHY9JnB fY3Y9JnBfc2VhcmNoX3R5cGU9YW5zd2Vycy5zZWFyY2hfbmwmc F9wYWdlPTE!) (and on left side, there are phone numbers and addresses).
Always remember that you are a free citizen of a free country who is working in US because there exists documented need for your skills in US.
Good luck and I hope your visa is granted in due time ...
Sorry to read your experience ... not to rationalize the conduct of the rude employee, but they are also just human beings who have family, financial worries/problems and not all of them like their jobs either ...
Having said that, there is no reason for you to accept the rude behavior of anyone ... you are asking for a visa, not begging for it! Here are somethings that you can do ...
1. Email to the Consul General to file a complaint (provide as many details as possible, e.g. time of interview, window number, sequence of interactions, specific parts that you found offending and unreasonable). Here are the contact details (http://mumbai.usconsulate.gov/contact-us.html).
2. Write a letter to Consul General with copy to US ambassador, the Ombudsman of state department and Secretary of State. Here is the online form (http://contact-us.state.gov/cgi-bin/state.cfg/php/enduser/ask.php?p_sid=qk*MUpak&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPSZwX3NvcnRfYnk9JnBfZ3JpZHNvcnQ9JnBfc m93X2NudD05NCw5NCZwX3Byb2RzPSZwX2NhdHM9JnBfcHY9JnB fY3Y9JnBfc2VhcmNoX3R5cGU9YW5zd2Vycy5zZWFyY2hfbmwmc F9wYWdlPTE!) (and on left side, there are phone numbers and addresses).
Always remember that you are a free citizen of a free country who is working in US because there exists documented need for your skills in US.
Good luck and I hope your visa is granted in due time ...
2011 Rolls Royce Interior.
GC_Aspirant101
09-28 05:23 PM
i am in the same boat. receipt notice says Jul5 25 .. online september 15 ( I guess it is notice date)
more...
ajp5
12-20 01:42 PM
Thanks buddy, I shall ask my friend, who has another friend, who is friend with another friend of his friend who is friend with another friend who is known by alb2c3 who will tell me how to "FO" as he has a PhD in "F@##"". As soon as I here from him I shall let you know friend
Guys,
You might be a little frustrated with whats going on in your lives, hence the FOs and F****. You have the right to be pissed at this guy and what you have said is correct. But if you ever want anyone to take "Immigration Voice" seriously.............STOP cursing in these forums. IV is paying thousands of dollars for lobbying and trying to bring change. We have helped thousands of people with answers (and that includes me) but using such language in the forums undermines everything we stand for.
If you can help..go ahead...If you cant.........LOG OFF.
Guys,
You might be a little frustrated with whats going on in your lives, hence the FOs and F****. You have the right to be pissed at this guy and what you have said is correct. But if you ever want anyone to take "Immigration Voice" seriously.............STOP cursing in these forums. IV is paying thousands of dollars for lobbying and trying to bring change. We have helped thousands of people with answers (and that includes me) but using such language in the forums undermines everything we stand for.
If you can help..go ahead...If you cant.........LOG OFF.
prinive
03-27 04:15 PM
:o
more...
prinive
03-28 08:35 PM
Any one else ....:o
2010 Best Sedan Chevy Cruze 2011
Kevin Sadler
August 8th, 2005, 10:58 AM
michael, that's a great technique! i would think anyplace where there is a steady motion with fixed objects would work. some things that come to mind are places with pedestrians or cars. a busy downtown sidewalk, a bridge, a scenic freeway, etc. can't wait to see more of these. kevin
more...
maddipati1
08-20 03:58 PM
i traveled to India and went for stamping when my PP was expiring within couple of months and got VISA stamped successfully and traveled back safely.
the initial screening officer at Chennai consulate commented with a smile 'you know, your passport is expiring in couple of months'. but the main immi officer didnt mention anything about it. this proves that there is no such law that says, u have to have a PP valid for six months.
but, when u r applying for a stamping appointment, the system says, 'its recommended to have a PP valid for at least six months'.
in your case i guess its just travel and no stamping involved and so u r in much better shape.
but, THIS WAS JUST MY EXPERIENCE. I WOULDN'T RELY ON THIS.
EVER SINCE I STRONGLY FEEL I WAS SUPER STUPID TO TAKE THAT KIND OF A RISK.
coz, i found out couple of things after wards :-)
in SFO consulate i could get PP in less than 7 business days. i guess urs is Chicago, so might not apply for u.
but, in India u can get new PP very fast under Tatkal scheme. do this,
be prepared with required dox and stuff before going there, ask ur relative/friend there to talk to local Tatkal officer to make it ready for ur PP renewal, soon as u land in India apply for PP renewal under Tatkal, u will get ur new PP before ur Jet lag is over. this leaves a buffer of ur vacation time, for contingencies.
finally, what GCCOVET said is absolutely right, u will get I-94 only until the expiry date of old PP. u would need to renew it again. not worth it. luckily i live close to border so i drove and came back to extend my I-94 after getting new PP.
the initial screening officer at Chennai consulate commented with a smile 'you know, your passport is expiring in couple of months'. but the main immi officer didnt mention anything about it. this proves that there is no such law that says, u have to have a PP valid for six months.
but, when u r applying for a stamping appointment, the system says, 'its recommended to have a PP valid for at least six months'.
in your case i guess its just travel and no stamping involved and so u r in much better shape.
but, THIS WAS JUST MY EXPERIENCE. I WOULDN'T RELY ON THIS.
EVER SINCE I STRONGLY FEEL I WAS SUPER STUPID TO TAKE THAT KIND OF A RISK.
coz, i found out couple of things after wards :-)
in SFO consulate i could get PP in less than 7 business days. i guess urs is Chicago, so might not apply for u.
but, in India u can get new PP very fast under Tatkal scheme. do this,
be prepared with required dox and stuff before going there, ask ur relative/friend there to talk to local Tatkal officer to make it ready for ur PP renewal, soon as u land in India apply for PP renewal under Tatkal, u will get ur new PP before ur Jet lag is over. this leaves a buffer of ur vacation time, for contingencies.
finally, what GCCOVET said is absolutely right, u will get I-94 only until the expiry date of old PP. u would need to renew it again. not worth it. luckily i live close to border so i drove and came back to extend my I-94 after getting new PP.
hair The new Chevrolet Cruze#39;s
vnsriv
08-14 03:30 PM
Please update on who received their FP notices:
485 RD:
485 ND:
FP ND:
FP Date:
Got spouse's
485 RD:
485 ND:
FP ND:
FP Date:
Got spouse's
more...
frostrated
09-03 02:01 PM
Does that also apply to a case where the person is employed in another country and getting paid there? What about a case where the H4 holder travels to their home country and works for 3 months at a local company and gets paid for it?
Correct me if I am wrong but I would think the rule only applies if you work and earn money in the US.
You are correct. An H4 cannot work in the US if they are getting paid on US payroll. They can work as long as they do NOT get paid in US. They can telecommute for a company in India for all you want, and get paid in India in Indian currency. The H4 holder will have to file taxes in India though.
Correct me if I am wrong but I would think the rule only applies if you work and earn money in the US.
You are correct. An H4 cannot work in the US if they are getting paid on US payroll. They can work as long as they do NOT get paid in US. They can telecommute for a company in India for all you want, and get paid in India in Indian currency. The H4 holder will have to file taxes in India though.
hot 2011 Cruze at Fort Worth
aarbi
08-01 11:15 PM
nope... I have my receipt notice that has June 11th on it, but the only system says July 3rd, which is the day they sent my notice :)
more...
house 2011 Chevrolet Cruze LT Turbo
admin
02-09 10:32 PM
Everyone, I am working on a way to customize the WebFax. I should be able to complete it over the weekend.
tattoo 2011 chevrolet cruze lt
gc28262
01-29 05:46 PM
How is e-Verify going to affect legal immigrants ?
more...
pictures Chevrolet Cruze LT Car photos,
smuggymba
09-17 11:47 PM
For FY2010 it was ~ 10K and it was mentioned some time back on USCIS website that the spillover for FY2011 may be similar. But I guess we won't know until an official announcement is made.
thread starter is saying it will make dates current....how is this possible with the same amount of spillover?
thread starter is saying it will make dates current....how is this possible with the same amount of spillover?
dresses 2011 Chevrolet CHEVY CRUZE LS
hianupam
04-16 11:29 AM
I am thinking to moving from Allentown (PA) to Houston. Just wondering if anybody can enlighten me on the challenges that I am likely to face.
Drivers License,Commute to downtown, childcare etc.
I will probably get flamed again for posting a non immigration related (mostly except the DL part I guess) topic.
I have an approved i-140 and EAD and 180 days past on 485 filing.
Drivers License,Commute to downtown, childcare etc.
I will probably get flamed again for posting a non immigration related (mostly except the DL part I guess) topic.
I have an approved i-140 and EAD and 180 days past on 485 filing.
more...
makeup Chevrolet+cruze+interior+
mihird
07-11 05:29 PM
www.congress.org is not a government site. Please do not mislead people here into thinking that this site has any affiliation to The Congress.
Dude, don't accuse me of anyting...I never said its a government site, although it does look like one - now that you are telling me that it not one - thanks for clarifying...
I think, the emails would still go to Bush/Cheney...
Dude, don't accuse me of anyting...I never said its a government site, although it does look like one - now that you are telling me that it not one - thanks for clarifying...
I think, the emails would still go to Bush/Cheney...
girlfriend The Chevrolet Cruz will be
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 2011 All New Chevy Cruze Sales
gjoe
08-22 03:03 PM
Demand application numbers by PD , country and category for every month starting from 1998.
sbmallik
05-15 03:57 PM
I am planning to file Labor under EB2. Below is my education detail.
3 years Bachelor Degree i.e. B.Com.
2 years MBA(Information Technology)
10 years pure IT experience in Java, Oracle
5 Professional Certification from Sun Microsystem,Oracle and IBM
Based on these education background will I have problem with EB2 labor and I-140 approval?
Please suggest.
FYI - EB2 category literally means either US Masters or US Bachelors + 5 years of progressive experience. In your case it is imperative to prove that 3 year B.Com together with 2 year MBA yields a U.S. Bachelor Degree in Computer Science. Moreover, the education and work experience should match.
3 years Bachelor Degree i.e. B.Com.
2 years MBA(Information Technology)
10 years pure IT experience in Java, Oracle
5 Professional Certification from Sun Microsystem,Oracle and IBM
Based on these education background will I have problem with EB2 labor and I-140 approval?
Please suggest.
FYI - EB2 category literally means either US Masters or US Bachelors + 5 years of progressive experience. In your case it is imperative to prove that 3 year B.Com together with 2 year MBA yields a U.S. Bachelor Degree in Computer Science. Moreover, the education and work experience should match.
ilikekilo
05-27 12:22 PM
When did they say they have repealed AC21? Is this true?
Regarding (6) above, it is not 10K, more like 5K.
form immigrationlaw.com
Final Version of Sanders' Amendment of H-1B Supplemental Fee and American Student Scholarship Fund as Passed
The controversial Sanders' amendment initially was passed in the Senate last week which imposes $3,500 (or $1,750) for a supplemental fee for the American Student Scholarship Fund. The supplemental fee is added to the current fees that include $1,500 (or $750) ACWIA fee, $500 fraud prevention fee, and $190 H-1B petition (which will in itself increase substantially when the fee increase regulation is implemented). Go figure! The text of the final amendment is as follows:
SEC. 713. SUPPLEMENTAL FEES.
Section 214(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:``(15)(A) In each instance where the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Secretary of State is required to impose a fee pursuant to paragraph (9) or (11), the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Secretary of State, as appropriate, shall impose a supplemental fee on the employer in addition to any other fee required by such paragraph or any other provision of law, in the amount determined under subparagraph (B).
``(B) The amount of the supplemental fee shall be $3,500, except that the fee shall be 1/2 that amount for any employer with not more than 25 full-time equivalent employees who are employed in the United States (determined by including any affiliate or subsidiary of such employer).
``(C) Fees collected under this paragraph shall be deposited in the Treasury in accordance with section 286(x).''
Initially it was proposed to charge $10,000!!!
Regarding (6) above, it is not 10K, more like 5K.
form immigrationlaw.com
Final Version of Sanders' Amendment of H-1B Supplemental Fee and American Student Scholarship Fund as Passed
The controversial Sanders' amendment initially was passed in the Senate last week which imposes $3,500 (or $1,750) for a supplemental fee for the American Student Scholarship Fund. The supplemental fee is added to the current fees that include $1,500 (or $750) ACWIA fee, $500 fraud prevention fee, and $190 H-1B petition (which will in itself increase substantially when the fee increase regulation is implemented). Go figure! The text of the final amendment is as follows:
SEC. 713. SUPPLEMENTAL FEES.
Section 214(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:``(15)(A) In each instance where the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Secretary of State is required to impose a fee pursuant to paragraph (9) or (11), the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Secretary of State, as appropriate, shall impose a supplemental fee on the employer in addition to any other fee required by such paragraph or any other provision of law, in the amount determined under subparagraph (B).
``(B) The amount of the supplemental fee shall be $3,500, except that the fee shall be 1/2 that amount for any employer with not more than 25 full-time equivalent employees who are employed in the United States (determined by including any affiliate or subsidiary of such employer).
``(C) Fees collected under this paragraph shall be deposited in the Treasury in accordance with section 286(x).''
Initially it was proposed to charge $10,000!!!
