leenakamat
08-15 02:15 PM
You can file a DOL complaint, which could spell serious consequences for the employer. You could also file a wage claim with your state's employment development department to recover the wages you were owed.
wallpaper Actress Selena Gomezstopped by
sobers
02-09 08:58 AM
Discussion about challenges in America�s immigration policies tends to focus on the millions of illegal immigrants. But the more pressing immigration problem facing the US today, writes Intel chairman Craig Barrett, is the dearth of high-skilled immigrants required to keep the US economy competitive. Due to tighter visa policies and a growth in opportunities elsewhere in the world, foreign students majoring in science and engineering at US universities are no longer staying to work after graduation in the large numbers that they once did. With the poor quality of science and math education at the primary and secondary levels in the US, the country cannot afford to lose any highly-skilled immigrants, particularly in key, technology-related disciplines. Along with across-the-board improvements in education, the US needs to find a way to attract enough new workers so that companies like Intel do not have to set up shop elsewhere.
----------------------------------
America Should Open Its Doors Wide to Foreign Talent
Craig Barrett
The Financial Times, 1 February 2006
America is experiencing a profound immigration crisis but it is not about the 11m illegal immigrants currently exciting the press and politicians in Washington. The real crisis is that the US is closing its doors to immigrants with degrees in science, maths and engineering � the �best and brightest� from around the world who flock to the country for its educational and employment opportunities. These foreign-born knowledge workers are critically important to maintaining America�s technological competitiveness.
This is not a new issue; the US has been partially dependent on foreign scientists and engineers to establish and maintain its technological leadership for several decades. After the second world war, an influx of German engineers bolstered our efforts in aviation and space research. During the 1960s and 1970s, a brain drain from western Europe supplemented our own production of talent. In the 1980s and 1990s, our ranks of scientists and engineers were swelled by Asian immigrants who came to study in our universities, then stayed to pursue professional careers.
The US simply does not produce enough home-grown graduates in engineering and the hard sciences to meet our needs. Even during the high-tech revolution of the past two decades, when demand for employees with technical degrees was exploding, the number of students majoring in engineering in the US declined. Currently more than half the graduate students in engineering in the US are foreign born � until now, many of them have stayed on to seek employment. But this trend is changing rapidly.
Because of security concerns and improved education in their own counties, it is increasingly difficult to get foreign students into our universities. Those who do complete their studies in the US are returning home in ever greater numbers because of visa issues or enhanced professional opportunities there. So while Congress debates how to stem the flood of illegal immigrants across our southern border, it is actually our policies on highly skilled immigration that may most negatively affect the American economy.
The US does have a specified process for granting admission or permanent residency to foreign engineers and scientists. The H1-B visa programme sets a cap � currently at 65,000 � on the number of foreigners allowed to enter and work each year. But the programme is oversubscribed because the cap is insufficient to meet the demands of the knowledge-based US economy.
The system does not grant automatic entry to all foreign students who study engineering and science at US universities. I have often said, only half in jest, that we should staple a green card to the diploma of every foreign student who graduates from an advanced technical degree programme here.
At a time when we need more science and technology professionals, it makes no sense to invite foreign students to study at our universities, educate them partially at taxpayer expense and then tell them to go home and take the jobs those talents will create home with them.
The current situation can only be described as a classic example of the law of unintended consequences. We need experienced and talented workers if our economy is to thrive. We have an immigration problem that remains intractable and, in an attempt to appear tough on illegal immigration, we over-control the employment-based legal immigration system. As a consequence, we keep many of the potentially most productive immigrants out of the country. If we had purposefully set out to design a system that would hobble our ability to be competitive, we could hardly do better than what we have today. Certainly in the post 9/11 world, security must always be a foremost concern. But that concern should not prevent us from having access to the highly skilled workers we need.
Meanwhile, when it comes to training a skilled, home-grown workforce, the US is rapidly being left in the dust.
A full half of China�s college graduates earn degrees in engineering, compared with only 5 per cent in the US. Even South Korea, with one-sixth the population of the US, graduates about the same number of engineers as American universities do. Part of this is due to the poor quality of our primary and secondary education, where US students typically fare poorly compared with their international counterparts in maths and science.
In a global, knowledge-based economy, businesses will naturally gravitate to locations with a ready supply of knowledge-based workers. Intel is a US-based company and we are proud of the fact that we have hired almost 10,000 new US employees in the past four years. But the hard economic fact is that if we cannot find or attract the workers we need here, the company � like every other business � will go where the talent is located.
We in the US have only two real choices: we can stand on the sidelines while countries such as India, China, and others dominate the game � and accept the consequent decline in our standard of living. Or we can decide to compete.
Deciding to compete means reforming the appalling state of primary and secondary education, where low expectations have become institutionalised, and urgently expanding science education in colleges and universities � much as we did in the 1950s after the Soviet launch of Sputnik gave our nation a needed wake-up call.
As a member of the National Academies Committee assigned by Congress to investigate this issue and propose solutions, I and the other members recommended that the government create 25,000 undergraduate and 5,000 graduate scholarships, each of $20,000 (�11,300), in technical fields, especially those determined to be in areas of urgent �national need�. Other recommendations included a tax credit for employers who make continuing education available for scientists and engineers, so that our workforce can keep pace with the rapid advance of scientific discovery, and a sustained national commitment to basic research.
But we all realised that even an effective national effort in this area would not produce results quickly enough. That is why deciding to compete also means opening doors wider to foreigners with the kind of technical knowledge our businesses need. At a minimum the US should vastly increase the number of permanent visas for highly educated foreigners, streamline the process for those already working here and allow foreign students in the hard sciences and engineering to move directly to permanent resident status. Any country that wants to remain competitive has to start competing for the best minds in the world. Without that we may be unable to maintain economic leadership in the 21st century.
----------------------------------
America Should Open Its Doors Wide to Foreign Talent
Craig Barrett
The Financial Times, 1 February 2006
America is experiencing a profound immigration crisis but it is not about the 11m illegal immigrants currently exciting the press and politicians in Washington. The real crisis is that the US is closing its doors to immigrants with degrees in science, maths and engineering � the �best and brightest� from around the world who flock to the country for its educational and employment opportunities. These foreign-born knowledge workers are critically important to maintaining America�s technological competitiveness.
This is not a new issue; the US has been partially dependent on foreign scientists and engineers to establish and maintain its technological leadership for several decades. After the second world war, an influx of German engineers bolstered our efforts in aviation and space research. During the 1960s and 1970s, a brain drain from western Europe supplemented our own production of talent. In the 1980s and 1990s, our ranks of scientists and engineers were swelled by Asian immigrants who came to study in our universities, then stayed to pursue professional careers.
The US simply does not produce enough home-grown graduates in engineering and the hard sciences to meet our needs. Even during the high-tech revolution of the past two decades, when demand for employees with technical degrees was exploding, the number of students majoring in engineering in the US declined. Currently more than half the graduate students in engineering in the US are foreign born � until now, many of them have stayed on to seek employment. But this trend is changing rapidly.
Because of security concerns and improved education in their own counties, it is increasingly difficult to get foreign students into our universities. Those who do complete their studies in the US are returning home in ever greater numbers because of visa issues or enhanced professional opportunities there. So while Congress debates how to stem the flood of illegal immigrants across our southern border, it is actually our policies on highly skilled immigration that may most negatively affect the American economy.
The US does have a specified process for granting admission or permanent residency to foreign engineers and scientists. The H1-B visa programme sets a cap � currently at 65,000 � on the number of foreigners allowed to enter and work each year. But the programme is oversubscribed because the cap is insufficient to meet the demands of the knowledge-based US economy.
The system does not grant automatic entry to all foreign students who study engineering and science at US universities. I have often said, only half in jest, that we should staple a green card to the diploma of every foreign student who graduates from an advanced technical degree programme here.
At a time when we need more science and technology professionals, it makes no sense to invite foreign students to study at our universities, educate them partially at taxpayer expense and then tell them to go home and take the jobs those talents will create home with them.
The current situation can only be described as a classic example of the law of unintended consequences. We need experienced and talented workers if our economy is to thrive. We have an immigration problem that remains intractable and, in an attempt to appear tough on illegal immigration, we over-control the employment-based legal immigration system. As a consequence, we keep many of the potentially most productive immigrants out of the country. If we had purposefully set out to design a system that would hobble our ability to be competitive, we could hardly do better than what we have today. Certainly in the post 9/11 world, security must always be a foremost concern. But that concern should not prevent us from having access to the highly skilled workers we need.
Meanwhile, when it comes to training a skilled, home-grown workforce, the US is rapidly being left in the dust.
A full half of China�s college graduates earn degrees in engineering, compared with only 5 per cent in the US. Even South Korea, with one-sixth the population of the US, graduates about the same number of engineers as American universities do. Part of this is due to the poor quality of our primary and secondary education, where US students typically fare poorly compared with their international counterparts in maths and science.
In a global, knowledge-based economy, businesses will naturally gravitate to locations with a ready supply of knowledge-based workers. Intel is a US-based company and we are proud of the fact that we have hired almost 10,000 new US employees in the past four years. But the hard economic fact is that if we cannot find or attract the workers we need here, the company � like every other business � will go where the talent is located.
We in the US have only two real choices: we can stand on the sidelines while countries such as India, China, and others dominate the game � and accept the consequent decline in our standard of living. Or we can decide to compete.
Deciding to compete means reforming the appalling state of primary and secondary education, where low expectations have become institutionalised, and urgently expanding science education in colleges and universities � much as we did in the 1950s after the Soviet launch of Sputnik gave our nation a needed wake-up call.
As a member of the National Academies Committee assigned by Congress to investigate this issue and propose solutions, I and the other members recommended that the government create 25,000 undergraduate and 5,000 graduate scholarships, each of $20,000 (�11,300), in technical fields, especially those determined to be in areas of urgent �national need�. Other recommendations included a tax credit for employers who make continuing education available for scientists and engineers, so that our workforce can keep pace with the rapid advance of scientific discovery, and a sustained national commitment to basic research.
But we all realised that even an effective national effort in this area would not produce results quickly enough. That is why deciding to compete also means opening doors wider to foreigners with the kind of technical knowledge our businesses need. At a minimum the US should vastly increase the number of permanent visas for highly educated foreigners, streamline the process for those already working here and allow foreign students in the hard sciences and engineering to move directly to permanent resident status. Any country that wants to remain competitive has to start competing for the best minds in the world. Without that we may be unable to maintain economic leadership in the 21st century.
saiimmi
07-16 07:09 PM
Please see links below:
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=TSC
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
:cool:
When will the next month dates come out ???
GCKabhayega!
What is the utility of your thread? You are posting this one month too late. I really do not want to give a red dot but request you to not dilute the purpose of IV forums by posting grossly useless messages.
Thanks,
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=TSC
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
:cool:
When will the next month dates come out ???
GCKabhayega!
What is the utility of your thread? You are posting this one month too late. I really do not want to give a red dot but request you to not dilute the purpose of IV forums by posting grossly useless messages.
Thanks,
2011 pedohysteria, Selena Gomez
casinoroyale
08-19 09:41 PM
(1) To being with, I have made an appointment using nvars.com at Ottawa for Sept 22nd. It was not easy, I have refreshed that page hundreds of times entering that security code. Several times I felt dizzy doing that.
(2) Working on Canada visitor visa
Questions:
I-94:
Based on what I read, it seems like we do not need to return our existing I-94s while entering Canada. Is this true if you enter either by Air or Land?
(2) Working on Canada visitor visa
Questions:
I-94:
Based on what I read, it seems like we do not need to return our existing I-94s while entering Canada. Is this true if you enter either by Air or Land?
more...
dealsnet
02-27 09:33 AM
That is why US consulate is not giving visit visa to Indian youths 15-35 years of age.
They know, these guys will come here and work then marry a US citizen to remain legal.
So need legal entry is required, then remain illegal, without any problem, just marry a US citizen.
This is giving a problem to deserving visit visa applicants.
Thank you. I was going to reply to Dealsnet and state that, but you beat me to it.
On a side note, i was going to add that out of status itself does not determine the start of the clock, for the 3 and 10 year bans, .. that would be "unlawful stay" determined from the expiration of the date on the I-94 OR an administrative determination of unlawful stay based on when they discovered the out of status situation. However, for the above purposes [GC based on marriage], this point is moot.
They know, these guys will come here and work then marry a US citizen to remain legal.
So need legal entry is required, then remain illegal, without any problem, just marry a US citizen.
This is giving a problem to deserving visit visa applicants.
Thank you. I was going to reply to Dealsnet and state that, but you beat me to it.
On a side note, i was going to add that out of status itself does not determine the start of the clock, for the 3 and 10 year bans, .. that would be "unlawful stay" determined from the expiration of the date on the I-94 OR an administrative determination of unlawful stay based on when they discovered the out of status situation. However, for the above purposes [GC based on marriage], this point is moot.
kumarc123
01-23 06:48 PM
Hi
Can someone please tell me how to post a new thread, lately I saw a post reflecting on us citizenship for international students who will serve in army intelligence, if someone could please post that thread here, I tried looking for it.
Please help me out here,
Thank you
Can someone please tell me how to post a new thread, lately I saw a post reflecting on us citizenship for international students who will serve in army intelligence, if someone could please post that thread here, I tried looking for it.
Please help me out here,
Thank you
more...
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.
2010 love interest Selena Gomez
arihant
05-06 04:10 PM
Additional Resources to Eliminate Backlog by Sep 2007
The DOL reports that they are "scaling up" resources dedicated to the elimination of backlog cases. Their stated deadline for eliminating the backlog is September 30, 2007. Based on what we at the Murthy Law Firm are experiencing, they are going to have to really increase their efforts, particularly in Pennsylvania, to meet this goal. They note that the work at the BPCs cannot be compared to the PERM case processing, since backlog cases receive full review, whereas the PERM cases are based upon attestations and primarily are technology-driven.
The DOL reports that they are "scaling up" resources dedicated to the elimination of backlog cases. Their stated deadline for eliminating the backlog is September 30, 2007. Based on what we at the Murthy Law Firm are experiencing, they are going to have to really increase their efforts, particularly in Pennsylvania, to meet this goal. They note that the work at the BPCs cannot be compared to the PERM case processing, since backlog cases receive full review, whereas the PERM cases are based upon attestations and primarily are technology-driven.
more...
GCard_Dream
09-03 08:14 PM
I think I know which memo you are talking about but I can't access it when I click on it because it is password protected. Is there a way you could just post the content of the memo here for those of us who can't access? It would be helpful.
AILA is collecting information in an effort to work with USCIS to identify adjustment of status applications that may be approvable as of October 1, 2008, when new visa numbers become available. The focus of this effort is those adjustment of status cases, which are approvable under the February 4, 2008, security check memo by Michael Aytes. (See http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=24522)
This information is being gathered for liaison purposes only in an attempt to identify and improve processing of cases covered by the February Aytes memo, and though the information will be provided to the USCIS for analysis, neither the AILA-USCIS Liaison Committee nor the USCIS will be contacting the attorney of record or the parties in direct response to information provided.
If your client has an adjustment of status pending over one year and is currently subject to a backlog but was current under the June 2008 Visa Bulletin, we would like to hear from you. Please fill out the following survey.
------------------------------------------
http://aila.org/RecentPosting/RecentPostingList.aspx
AILA is collecting information in an effort to work with USCIS to identify adjustment of status applications that may be approvable as of October 1, 2008, when new visa numbers become available. The focus of this effort is those adjustment of status cases, which are approvable under the February 4, 2008, security check memo by Michael Aytes. (See http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=24522)
This information is being gathered for liaison purposes only in an attempt to identify and improve processing of cases covered by the February Aytes memo, and though the information will be provided to the USCIS for analysis, neither the AILA-USCIS Liaison Committee nor the USCIS will be contacting the attorney of record or the parties in direct response to information provided.
If your client has an adjustment of status pending over one year and is currently subject to a backlog but was current under the June 2008 Visa Bulletin, we would like to hear from you. Please fill out the following survey.
------------------------------------------
http://aila.org/RecentPosting/RecentPostingList.aspx
hair Just because Selena#39;s family
X-Wing
05-15 04:33 PM
To Bindas74,
Did the e-file process ask you to pay the biometric fee? I ask because my attorney informed me this afternoon that I do not need to pay a biometric fee, or send in a G-325A form, when sending in my EAD/AP renewal. Do please let me know if this is not the case.
On the Advance Parole justification, I would put in a note stating that I maintain close ties with my family in <country here> and travel frequently to see them. Additionally, state that you wish to travel abroad on vacation on multiple occasions through the year, and request them to grant you an Advance Parole for these reasons. This document request seems to be in lieu of the covering letter that's usually sent with an AP request. I'm sure they don't need you to send them ticket receipts.
Thanks,
Did the e-file process ask you to pay the biometric fee? I ask because my attorney informed me this afternoon that I do not need to pay a biometric fee, or send in a G-325A form, when sending in my EAD/AP renewal. Do please let me know if this is not the case.
On the Advance Parole justification, I would put in a note stating that I maintain close ties with my family in <country here> and travel frequently to see them. Additionally, state that you wish to travel abroad on vacation on multiple occasions through the year, and request them to grant you an Advance Parole for these reasons. This document request seems to be in lieu of the covering letter that's usually sent with an AP request. I'm sure they don't need you to send them ticket receipts.
Thanks,
more...
reddog
06-25 01:09 PM
Me and my group of friends have used this method and the photos look better than the Walgreen/CVS ones. And they are already on US passports/other stuff.
http://www.dpchallenge.com/tutorial.php?TUTORIAL_ID=22 Photoshop/GIMP required.
Another cheap place is Sams Club, if you dont have a digital camera(pun intended) they give 3 photos for 5 bucks.
http://www.dpchallenge.com/tutorial.php?TUTORIAL_ID=22 Photoshop/GIMP required.
Another cheap place is Sams Club, if you dont have a digital camera(pun intended) they give 3 photos for 5 bucks.
hot Selena Gomez
chanduv23
01-14 03:59 PM
Folks, lets use this thread to post information about how to help the victims of Haitian earthquake.
Posts can be links to organizations where we can donate money or food or clothes.
If you have done something please post on this thread
Lets keep this thread alive and on top
Posts can be links to organizations where we can donate money or food or clothes.
If you have done something please post on this thread
Lets keep this thread alive and on top
more...
house selena gomez family tree.
rvr_jcop
02-18 11:15 AM
Incorrect.
As per Yates memo (link (http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/I140_AC21_8403.pdf))
It should be noted that there is no requirement in statute or regulations that a beneficiary of a Form I-140 actually be in the underlying employment until permanent residence is authorized. Therefore, it is possible for an alien to qualify for the provisions of �106(c) of AC21 even if he or she has never been employed by the prior petitioning employer or the subsequent employer under section 204(j) of the Act.
______________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
Thanks desi3933 for correcting me and posting the link. But, I know a couple of instances where they got the RFE/NOID for the same reason. But, I am sure they will eventually get approved if they go for MTR as this was addressed in Yates Memo.
I have a question, is 'memo' same as law? Can the IO come back and say its not in the law? Just out of my curiosity ...
As per Yates memo (link (http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/I140_AC21_8403.pdf))
It should be noted that there is no requirement in statute or regulations that a beneficiary of a Form I-140 actually be in the underlying employment until permanent residence is authorized. Therefore, it is possible for an alien to qualify for the provisions of �106(c) of AC21 even if he or she has never been employed by the prior petitioning employer or the subsequent employer under section 204(j) of the Act.
______________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
Thanks desi3933 for correcting me and posting the link. But, I know a couple of instances where they got the RFE/NOID for the same reason. But, I am sure they will eventually get approved if they go for MTR as this was addressed in Yates Memo.
I have a question, is 'memo' same as law? Can the IO come back and say its not in the law? Just out of my curiosity ...
tattoo CITY GIRL photo | Selena Gomez
trueguy
08-08 06:18 PM
^^^^^^^
bump
^^^^^^^
bump
^^^^^^^
more...
pictures Selena Gomez – Disney Kids
chanduv23
07-08 06:10 PM
I am in New York, if any other New York members want to register, we can do it on the July 14th NYC drive.
dresses Selena Gomez Beezus Ramona
gandalf_gray
06-02 10:13 AM
Kaiser.
thx for replying . but I do not want both Visa on Oct1.
My L1 ends sometime in mid September.
My H1 would be effective only from Oct 1.
So, during this time I will be out of status right ?
So if I do my L1 Extension, I might solve the problem.
But Will doing that affect the approved H1 ?
Pls. help. thanks.
thx for replying . but I do not want both Visa on Oct1.
My L1 ends sometime in mid September.
My H1 would be effective only from Oct 1.
So, during this time I will be out of status right ?
So if I do my L1 Extension, I might solve the problem.
But Will doing that affect the approved H1 ?
Pls. help. thanks.
more...
makeup Upfront: Selena Gomez
redelite
08-26 10:07 AM
I want a smug smiley.
Also, the 'mad' one, :m: looks more like a steaming bun than an angry face ; )
I made this one the other day and put it up..http://www.kirupa.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=47648&stc=1&d=1219355088
Not sure if that's quite what your looking for... but he's pretty angry :P
Also, the 'mad' one, :m: looks more like a steaming bun than an angry face ; )
I made this one the other day and put it up..http://www.kirupa.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=47648&stc=1&d=1219355088
Not sure if that's quite what your looking for... but he's pretty angry :P
girlfriend Selena Gomez At The 2011
GC_1000Watt
05-25 01:50 AM
Please share if anyone of us has taken care of PIMS thing in any way. I wanted to handle this PIMS thing well in advance in order to avoid any possible hassle or delays later on while I go for stamping in Mumbai consulate.
Thanks in advance.
Thanks in advance.
hairstyles Selena Gomez To His Family
prince_waiting
12-12 02:28 PM
I am in.....No complaints about that......
GAFAAAAA
10-27 11:36 AM
you can make bird houses out of tables, surley that blue bird on twitter must land somewhere of a night on his cyber bird house when everyone has shut up for the night about how the jonas brothers suck. he/she probably goes home from work too you know.
gcdreamer05
08-18 01:14 PM
As explained earlier I proactively decided to send in the medicals with a copy of the receipt notices since I didn't want to waste processing time through RFEs and was under the impression that medicals expire in 12-18 mths. However, when I spoke to the lawyer about this she said: "The medicals do not expire any more . . . let's "keep our fingers crossed" that the medicals make it to your files; we usually wait for CIS to send us an RFE, as that way there is a bar code on the cover letter to help get the medical to the examiner who has the file."
She also said that I wouldn't get any receipt notice or anything regarding the submission. So I guess I'll have to keep my fingers crossed.
My question is also about 485 submitted without medicals, i filed during july 2007, without medicals, they have not yet asked any RFE, but if they do, should i go and do medicals again because i did medical examination in Aug 2007 and sent the documents to my attorney who is waiting to get the RFE.
But will those medicals expire ? or should i do again because i heard there is a change in the format and new form has to be filled.
Does any one know if medicals expire ???
She also said that I wouldn't get any receipt notice or anything regarding the submission. So I guess I'll have to keep my fingers crossed.
My question is also about 485 submitted without medicals, i filed during july 2007, without medicals, they have not yet asked any RFE, but if they do, should i go and do medicals again because i did medical examination in Aug 2007 and sent the documents to my attorney who is waiting to get the RFE.
But will those medicals expire ? or should i do again because i heard there is a change in the format and new form has to be filled.
Does any one know if medicals expire ???
No comments:
Post a Comment