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.
wallpaper 2006 Ford Fusion Review / Road
morchu
06-01 04:44 PM
If you "extension of status" is denied, you can "re-enter" only with a new visa stamping on your passport. Same applies for family.
USCIS most probably will issue RFEs if the exact dates of out of status is not clear. And eventually if it become obvious of 4 months of out of status, I think mostly your extension of status will be denied. Only exceptional situations / explanations can get an extension of status / change of status approved even with 4 months of out of status.
At this point, I suggest you plan for the return to home country (even if it is temporary), and if you can secure an offer, file for H1 and wait for its approval in your home country. I know it is painful, but please do plan for it, to make it less painful.
Staying out of status too long will even affect your next entry. And I think 4 months is long. But it is your choice.
Thank you for your immediate reply. I have 2 more questions as below :
My H1B is valid till 2011. I came through �A� company and this is my second employer (�B�). After I joined �B� company, I never went out of USA. �B� Company�s name is not reflected in my H1B visa (in passport). Only I have the copy of I129 with �B� company�s name. Now, I am no more with �B� company.
1. What is the process of re-enter to USA ? I mean, what type of documents I need to show to Immigration Dept ?
3. My families also need to re-enter to USA at the same time ?
Hopefully, I am able to explain my occurred situation correctly.
I need your valuable suggestion pls.
USCIS most probably will issue RFEs if the exact dates of out of status is not clear. And eventually if it become obvious of 4 months of out of status, I think mostly your extension of status will be denied. Only exceptional situations / explanations can get an extension of status / change of status approved even with 4 months of out of status.
At this point, I suggest you plan for the return to home country (even if it is temporary), and if you can secure an offer, file for H1 and wait for its approval in your home country. I know it is painful, but please do plan for it, to make it less painful.
Staying out of status too long will even affect your next entry. And I think 4 months is long. But it is your choice.
Thank you for your immediate reply. I have 2 more questions as below :
My H1B is valid till 2011. I came through �A� company and this is my second employer (�B�). After I joined �B� company, I never went out of USA. �B� Company�s name is not reflected in my H1B visa (in passport). Only I have the copy of I129 with �B� company�s name. Now, I am no more with �B� company.
1. What is the process of re-enter to USA ? I mean, what type of documents I need to show to Immigration Dept ?
3. My families also need to re-enter to USA at the same time ?
Hopefully, I am able to explain my occurred situation correctly.
I need your valuable suggestion pls.
man-woman-and-gc
03-09 06:44 PM
I and my wife got this update from CRIS. Anyone seen this before or know what it means?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS E-MAIL ***
The last processing action taken on your case
Receipt Number: LINXXXXXXXX
Application Type: I485 , APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
Current Status: This case has been sent to another office for processing because it has jurisdiction over the case.
On March 9, 2009, we transferred this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS to our NATIONAL BENEFITS CENTER location for processing because they now have jurisdiction over the case. We sent you a notice of this transfer. Please follow any instructions on this notice. You will be notified by mail when a decision is made, or if the office needs something from you. If you move while this case is pending, call customer service. We process cases in the order we receive them. You can use our processing dates to estimate when this case will be done. This case has been sent to our NATIONAL BENEFITS CENTER location. Follow the link below to check processing dates. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the link below to register.
If you have questions or concerns about your application or the case status results listed above, or if you have not received a decision from USCIS within the current processing time listed*, please contact USCIS Customer Service at (800) 375-5283.
*Current processing times can be found on the USCIS website at www.uscis.gov under Case Status and Processing Dates.
*** Please do not respond to this e-mail message.
Sincerely,
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS E-MAIL ***
The last processing action taken on your case
Receipt Number: LINXXXXXXXX
Application Type: I485 , APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
Current Status: This case has been sent to another office for processing because it has jurisdiction over the case.
On March 9, 2009, we transferred this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS to our NATIONAL BENEFITS CENTER location for processing because they now have jurisdiction over the case. We sent you a notice of this transfer. Please follow any instructions on this notice. You will be notified by mail when a decision is made, or if the office needs something from you. If you move while this case is pending, call customer service. We process cases in the order we receive them. You can use our processing dates to estimate when this case will be done. This case has been sent to our NATIONAL BENEFITS CENTER location. Follow the link below to check processing dates. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the link below to register.
If you have questions or concerns about your application or the case status results listed above, or if you have not received a decision from USCIS within the current processing time listed*, please contact USCIS Customer Service at (800) 375-5283.
*Current processing times can be found on the USCIS website at www.uscis.gov under Case Status and Processing Dates.
*** Please do not respond to this e-mail message.
Sincerely,
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
2011 2006 Ford Fusion Picture
raju_abc
07-23 11:20 AM
It's not consultant, you mean to say that you applied through an agent. Know that you are the consultant but not the company or anyone else.
ya , in ur words agents
ya , in ur words agents
more...
san3297
08-31 01:07 PM
Cant i use the I 94 attached to my 797 document.Will it not solve my problem.
MAEB2TR
09-04 10:42 AM
I heard that too. If your attorney feels confident, then proceed with the filing.
more...
Michael chertoff
12-17 10:13 AM
What is the reason, Did u use AC21
2010 2006 Ford Fusion V SEL Images
Steve Mitchell
October 24th, 2003, 12:18 PM
What makes that image work is the color combination and the textures. Particularly the contrasting textures and the very diffrent white textures that look like bright lights. I'd give this an even higher score if the entire circle of the dandelion had been in the frame instead of only a portion. I think that would have really set it off.
I like 'em both. Like Steve, I think the dandelion is surreal and "way cool". But I do have a question with the ruins photo. I'd like to kinda turn this members' critique back on you, if you don't mind. Maybe I can learn something...hopefully this isn't out of line in this forum....if so, my apologies to all.
Initially, I really like the photo, and as I stare at it longer I see more and more reason to like it. At first the greenery seems part of the ruins, but as my eyes hold on it for a moment, the green soon pops out into a more 3D presentation. The colors, the composition, the uniqueness....all is very appealing...and I don't know why.
But.....here is the question....what "makes" this shot? Let me clarify...I am an engineer and my left lobe tends to see in the B&W and straight lines of life. The artsy stuff doesn't come easily for me. When I see something that is right, I know it. It's just difficult for me to arrange something to be right or to see the perfect image inside a lot of clutter. I'm convinced that I would have gone right past this one if you hadn't pointed it out to me with this posting.
Bottom line.....this photo....what I'd like you to do is to critique your own work. Tell us (me, in particular) what makes this such a good shot? What elements bring this frame together? What do you particularly like about this shot? What would you change or do differently? Help me to "see" why I like this photo. What "makes" this shot?
Other Dphoto pro's.....same questions. WHAT are the elements work so well here? WHY is this a good shot?
I like 'em both. Like Steve, I think the dandelion is surreal and "way cool". But I do have a question with the ruins photo. I'd like to kinda turn this members' critique back on you, if you don't mind. Maybe I can learn something...hopefully this isn't out of line in this forum....if so, my apologies to all.
Initially, I really like the photo, and as I stare at it longer I see more and more reason to like it. At first the greenery seems part of the ruins, but as my eyes hold on it for a moment, the green soon pops out into a more 3D presentation. The colors, the composition, the uniqueness....all is very appealing...and I don't know why.
But.....here is the question....what "makes" this shot? Let me clarify...I am an engineer and my left lobe tends to see in the B&W and straight lines of life. The artsy stuff doesn't come easily for me. When I see something that is right, I know it. It's just difficult for me to arrange something to be right or to see the perfect image inside a lot of clutter. I'm convinced that I would have gone right past this one if you hadn't pointed it out to me with this posting.
Bottom line.....this photo....what I'd like you to do is to critique your own work. Tell us (me, in particular) what makes this such a good shot? What elements bring this frame together? What do you particularly like about this shot? What would you change or do differently? Help me to "see" why I like this photo. What "makes" this shot?
Other Dphoto pro's.....same questions. WHAT are the elements work so well here? WHY is this a good shot?
more...
morchu
05-04 02:02 PM
Please be aware that logic and emotions doesnt matter much for this.
Get the exact rules on the basis of which they denied your case, and prove why they were wrong. An attorney will be helpful if you are not good in interpreting the laws.
My I-485 was denied April 14. USCIS said I only sent them a partial answer to their request for evidence.
I filed for I-485 and I-130 in Nov. 2008 and in December we had to resend all mine, my husband (sponsor) and my cosponsor's tax info. which we did. My case was resumed but I never received my EAD. I contacted the USCIS regarding this and they responded with another RFE; they needed my cosponsor's tax. info again. We resend the exact same things as we did in December and in the meantime I contact my senator and the ombudsman who both look into the case and tell me the USCIS has promised to respond to me a.s.a.p.
USCIS's response: My I-485 has been denied, my cosponsor did not send in all his tax info. My cosponsor, who has an identical copy of everything he has sent now three times (everything was in the original application in Nov. too) says it is all there. The USCIS wants us to file for a motion to reopen the case which costs $585. To me this is ridiculous; I originally lost my job (I was working under OPT) becuase they kept delaying my case, and now they want more money? I know it's my word against theirs but we are considering applying for the motion to reopen but was wondering how long do they have to accept or deny this. Also, we are submitting a waiver for the fee due to my husband also being unemployed at the moment and need our savings if we have to leave the country but are wondering if we can also send a check along with the waiver in case they won't waive the fee. They denied the case on April 14, 2009 but did not mail the letter out until the april 23 - we now have less than a week to file for a motion.
Please, if anyone has any experience with filing a motion let us know about it.
Get the exact rules on the basis of which they denied your case, and prove why they were wrong. An attorney will be helpful if you are not good in interpreting the laws.
My I-485 was denied April 14. USCIS said I only sent them a partial answer to their request for evidence.
I filed for I-485 and I-130 in Nov. 2008 and in December we had to resend all mine, my husband (sponsor) and my cosponsor's tax info. which we did. My case was resumed but I never received my EAD. I contacted the USCIS regarding this and they responded with another RFE; they needed my cosponsor's tax. info again. We resend the exact same things as we did in December and in the meantime I contact my senator and the ombudsman who both look into the case and tell me the USCIS has promised to respond to me a.s.a.p.
USCIS's response: My I-485 has been denied, my cosponsor did not send in all his tax info. My cosponsor, who has an identical copy of everything he has sent now three times (everything was in the original application in Nov. too) says it is all there. The USCIS wants us to file for a motion to reopen the case which costs $585. To me this is ridiculous; I originally lost my job (I was working under OPT) becuase they kept delaying my case, and now they want more money? I know it's my word against theirs but we are considering applying for the motion to reopen but was wondering how long do they have to accept or deny this. Also, we are submitting a waiver for the fee due to my husband also being unemployed at the moment and need our savings if we have to leave the country but are wondering if we can also send a check along with the waiver in case they won't waive the fee. They denied the case on April 14, 2009 but did not mail the letter out until the april 23 - we now have less than a week to file for a motion.
Please, if anyone has any experience with filing a motion let us know about it.
hair 2006 Ford Fusion interior
perm2gc
08-02 02:22 PM
You probably meant to say that you are NOT an immigration lawyer. Correct?
Yes..sorry for the Mistake
Yes..sorry for the Mistake
more...
rb_248
10-19 04:58 PM
Friends,
If you want to use AC21 and are worried about matching job descriptions, you may do the following:
Go to the SWA O'net site: O*NET Code Connector - Occupation Search (http://www.onetcodeconnector.org/find/result)
Get the O'net code under which your application was filed from your attorney. Use the search option to find out the details of the job description listed under your O'net code. Write down the job duties of your future employment and see is your future job duties match the duties of your O'net code. If it matches 100% you are good. If not, see to what extent it matches.
My job duties matched about 60-70%. I took the risk because I didn't have a choice. I was laid off.
My understanding is that your future job duties should be compared to your O'net job duties and not to your current function at your current firm.
I guess this information helps you to do your ground work before you talk to your attorney. Using AC 21 is a pretty significant decision and can be done very safely if you have a good attorney to guide you through.
PM me if you have any further questions.
If you want to use AC21 and are worried about matching job descriptions, you may do the following:
Go to the SWA O'net site: O*NET Code Connector - Occupation Search (http://www.onetcodeconnector.org/find/result)
Get the O'net code under which your application was filed from your attorney. Use the search option to find out the details of the job description listed under your O'net code. Write down the job duties of your future employment and see is your future job duties match the duties of your O'net code. If it matches 100% you are good. If not, see to what extent it matches.
My job duties matched about 60-70%. I took the risk because I didn't have a choice. I was laid off.
My understanding is that your future job duties should be compared to your O'net job duties and not to your current function at your current firm.
I guess this information helps you to do your ground work before you talk to your attorney. Using AC 21 is a pretty significant decision and can be done very safely if you have a good attorney to guide you through.
PM me if you have any further questions.
hot 2006 Ford Fusion Overview
green_card
07-20 01:58 PM
stop the guessing game. give some concrete info if you know it or let someone else that knows answer.
what you believe doesnt amount to a hill of beans. no offense.
I do not believe they really have time to sort out by priority date if sep'30 is the date they need to get 40K approvals through.
what you believe doesnt amount to a hill of beans. no offense.
I do not believe they really have time to sort out by priority date if sep'30 is the date they need to get 40K approvals through.
more...
house 2006 Ford Fusion SE Sedan
Leo07
12-05 05:29 PM
Good Luck!
tattoo HOME / FORD / FORD FUSION
fromnaija
02-07 01:08 AM
good question. i guess you were thinking we both were on AOS stage.
only im on adjustment of status, i havent filed for my spouse yet. i got married after reto kicked in. so the only option for her is to stay here is on H4 and to support that I had to stay on H1B, even thou i have EAD.
hope this explains. thanks.
Yes, that explains it. Okay, now that your spouse is here how do you add her to your 485? What happens to her H4 when your 485 is approved? I am asking because someone I know is in same situation.
I guess the question I am trying to ask is, is there a way to have an addendum to a 485 after submission?
only im on adjustment of status, i havent filed for my spouse yet. i got married after reto kicked in. so the only option for her is to stay here is on H4 and to support that I had to stay on H1B, even thou i have EAD.
hope this explains. thanks.
Yes, that explains it. Okay, now that your spouse is here how do you add her to your 485? What happens to her H4 when your 485 is approved? I am asking because someone I know is in same situation.
I guess the question I am trying to ask is, is there a way to have an addendum to a 485 after submission?
more...
pictures 2006 Ford Fusion AWD - Fusion
AB1275
12-19 04:08 PM
Hello friends....
I just spoke to my lawyer....she said I could file an MTR first since its response is faster.
In the MTR she will state that W-2 can be received only in Jan and hence we will submit the evidence in January 2009. She thinks with the W-2 being in line with prevailing wage rate, it should be an open and shut case. So technically we are filing an MTR without new evidence but mentioning that there will be new evidence.
I counter argued that they can deny saying u should have submitted paystubs - why wait for W-2. She said yes they can said that but we did not submit paystubs and we can then appeal.
I discussed with her that will i be given an option of Appeal if this MTR is denied. She said yes and if they dont we can go to court...They cannot deny the right to appeal an MTR. Is this true?
Your input on this please!!!!
I just spoke to my lawyer....she said I could file an MTR first since its response is faster.
In the MTR she will state that W-2 can be received only in Jan and hence we will submit the evidence in January 2009. She thinks with the W-2 being in line with prevailing wage rate, it should be an open and shut case. So technically we are filing an MTR without new evidence but mentioning that there will be new evidence.
I counter argued that they can deny saying u should have submitted paystubs - why wait for W-2. She said yes they can said that but we did not submit paystubs and we can then appeal.
I discussed with her that will i be given an option of Appeal if this MTR is denied. She said yes and if they dont we can go to court...They cannot deny the right to appeal an MTR. Is this true?
Your input on this please!!!!
dresses 2006 Ford Fusion Se Interior
njdude26
07-19 03:57 PM
My attorney today informed me just a week after he sent an email to them saying that case was closed in error they replied back saying they are reopening the case. wow that was fast...
more...
makeup 2006 FORD FUSION DELIVERS BOLD
Caliber
05-05 10:09 AM
Below are your subscription details
Subscription To Terms Amount
Donation to Support Immigration Voice (User: Caliber)
$25.00 USD for one month
Effective Date: May 5, 2009 $25.00 USD
Note
The details of this transaction are stored in your PayPal account for easy access anytime. For details login to www.paypal.com
Contact Information
Business Name: Immigration Voice
Contact Email: donations@immigrationvoice.org
Contact Phone: 850-391-4966
Subscription To Terms Amount
Donation to Support Immigration Voice (User: Caliber)
$25.00 USD for one month
Effective Date: May 5, 2009 $25.00 USD
Note
The details of this transaction are stored in your PayPal account for easy access anytime. For details login to www.paypal.com
Contact Information
Business Name: Immigration Voice
Contact Email: donations@immigrationvoice.org
Contact Phone: 850-391-4966
girlfriend 2006 Ford Fusion - Left Side
makemygc
08-03 10:34 PM
maybe they meant 07/1/2007
See the disclaimer at the bottom of the page. It says it might take another 14 days to receive the receipt even though they might have issued it. What I understand from this is that USCIS has completed the data entry for the dates given and issue the receipts (essentially means, receipt date has been marked against your application in the database) but the receipt will take another 14 days to reach.
So guys keep patience as USCIS is going to give us update every week now...mentioned in the news letter.
See the disclaimer at the bottom of the page. It says it might take another 14 days to receive the receipt even though they might have issued it. What I understand from this is that USCIS has completed the data entry for the dates given and issue the receipts (essentially means, receipt date has been marked against your application in the database) but the receipt will take another 14 days to reach.
So guys keep patience as USCIS is going to give us update every week now...mentioned in the news letter.
hairstyles Ford Encases The Fusion In A
karthkc
07-31 05:34 PM
Hey thx a lot guys for all your help....
To (M306M),
The priority date for Family Based First Preference is 15 Mar 2002, and my grandfather who is a citizen filed for my mom's Greencard in April 27 2002.
Hope this helps....
Family Based (FB) quota works differently from Employment-based (EB) for green cards. This forum is geared towards EB so you may not get a lot of help here...
As far as extending her H1B goes, if there have been no other Employment-Based GC applications filed on her behalf, I dont think of any way that will allow you to extend her H1B short of time outside the country recapture (as suggested above)
Look at all the days she has been out of the US in the last 6 years and that might give you enough time to come up with options and file an extension ASAP.
Also, if willing to take a chance, she can use the 180 day rule to stay out of status, however I would strongly recommend against that since the consequences might affect any current or future GC petition..
To (M306M),
The priority date for Family Based First Preference is 15 Mar 2002, and my grandfather who is a citizen filed for my mom's Greencard in April 27 2002.
Hope this helps....
Family Based (FB) quota works differently from Employment-based (EB) for green cards. This forum is geared towards EB so you may not get a lot of help here...
As far as extending her H1B goes, if there have been no other Employment-Based GC applications filed on her behalf, I dont think of any way that will allow you to extend her H1B short of time outside the country recapture (as suggested above)
Look at all the days she has been out of the US in the last 6 years and that might give you enough time to come up with options and file an extension ASAP.
Also, if willing to take a chance, she can use the 180 day rule to stay out of status, however I would strongly recommend against that since the consequences might affect any current or future GC petition..
vinabath
03-24 03:14 PM
list of some of the threads created by "vinabath" - how many do you see meaningful???
Thread / Thread Starter Last Post Replies Views Forum
No more LC substitution, No more delays in 140. What a relief
vinabath Today 02:55 PM
what would you do if you get GC tomorrow? ( 1 2 3 4 )
vinabath Today 02:37 PM
What does the dots in my profile mean?
vinabath Today 02:00 PM
Tips to get your GC in a YEAR ( 1 2 3 4 )
vinabath Yesterday 03:38 AM
by vinabath 0 445 Retrogression, priority dates and Visa bulletins
Poll: How many will be happy if..... ( 1 2 )
by vinabath 21 1,922 Priority dates transfers and Post 140-approval options
H4-H1 stamping in chennai- Visa renewal??
by vinabath 45 4,405 Retrogression, priority dates and Visa bulletins
BIG JOKE on us by USCIS. Story of the Century.
vinabath 07-02-2007 04:00 PM
by vinabath 14 1,037 Retrogression, priority dates and Visa bulletins
Medical Report Delayed by Six months
vinabath 06-15-2007 01:38 PM
by franklin 8 653 Medical exams and related issues
Y1 Visa - Lets make USA as Dubai
vinabath 05-18-2007 10:44 AM
by vinabath 0 468 Retrogression, priority dates and Visa bulletins
EB2 India - Feb 23 2003. Is it possible this year??
I am exposed now.
Thread / Thread Starter Last Post Replies Views Forum
No more LC substitution, No more delays in 140. What a relief
vinabath Today 02:55 PM
what would you do if you get GC tomorrow? ( 1 2 3 4 )
vinabath Today 02:37 PM
What does the dots in my profile mean?
vinabath Today 02:00 PM
Tips to get your GC in a YEAR ( 1 2 3 4 )
vinabath Yesterday 03:38 AM
by vinabath 0 445 Retrogression, priority dates and Visa bulletins
Poll: How many will be happy if..... ( 1 2 )
by vinabath 21 1,922 Priority dates transfers and Post 140-approval options
H4-H1 stamping in chennai- Visa renewal??
by vinabath 45 4,405 Retrogression, priority dates and Visa bulletins
BIG JOKE on us by USCIS. Story of the Century.
vinabath 07-02-2007 04:00 PM
by vinabath 14 1,037 Retrogression, priority dates and Visa bulletins
Medical Report Delayed by Six months
vinabath 06-15-2007 01:38 PM
by franklin 8 653 Medical exams and related issues
Y1 Visa - Lets make USA as Dubai
vinabath 05-18-2007 10:44 AM
by vinabath 0 468 Retrogression, priority dates and Visa bulletins
EB2 India - Feb 23 2003. Is it possible this year??
I am exposed now.
cygent
09-15 03:05 PM
EB3 I-140 is still March 30th, 2007, a whole year behind EB2. EB2 jumped from July 2007 to March 13th, 2008 UNBELIEVABLE :confused: Seems like they just want us to blow our brains out, or whatever little is left of it anyway... This is just so sick.
No comments:
Post a Comment