Karthikthiru
07-26 10:16 PM
This is true. Check the following link. And then drill down to Ammendments link. You can see that
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.02638:
Karthik
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.02638:
Karthik
wallpaper hair love quotes for her
obviously
07-30 12:14 AM
We should get a group of folks asking for reinstatement of I-140 premium processing. This SINGLE administrative move will enable high skilled workers on many counts. Legal interfiling cases can be expedited, and non interfilers can be one step closer to getting their I-485's with EAD cards should there be future retrogression.
Also, the reality of revenue gained from premium processing cannot be ignored. Ok, dont keep it at 15 days, make is 30 or even 45 days. But dont take it away in its entirety.
I would sincerely request even EB2's that have current dates to join in requesting I-140 premium processing. This should not negatively intersect with any of your interests.
Also, the reality of revenue gained from premium processing cannot be ignored. Ok, dont keep it at 15 days, make is 30 or even 45 days. But dont take it away in its entirety.
I would sincerely request even EB2's that have current dates to join in requesting I-140 premium processing. This should not negatively intersect with any of your interests.
cjain
11-01 06:28 PM
next time make sure only news pertaining to smartboy is posted...all else can wait...hail smartboy
And how does this news add any values to our issues here ????
And how does this news add any values to our issues here ????
2011 love quotes for her from her.
.jpg "love quotes for her from her.")
ilwaiting
06-15 03:30 PM
There actually are four separate types of A#. You can tell them apart by the number of digits and the first digit. The first kind is an eight-digit A#. These are manually assigned at local offices. If you have one of these numbers, simply treated it as if it was "0" plus the number. Nine-digit A#'s that start with the digit 1 are used for employment authorization cards, usually related to students. Nine-digit A#'s that start with the digit 3 are used for fingerprint tracking of V visa applicants. All other nine-digit A#'s (these actually always start with a 0) are permanent A#'s and remain permanently with you for life.
Therefore, the rule is: if you are asked for an A# and have one, always give this A#, regardless of whether it starts with a 0, 1 or 3. If you have both a 0-A# and a 1-A# or a 3-A#, then use the one that starts with a 0.
Therefore, the rule is: if you are asked for an A# and have one, always give this A#, regardless of whether it starts with a 0, 1 or 3. If you have both a 0-A# and a 1-A# or a 3-A#, then use the one that starts with a 0.
more...
letstalklc
11-05 02:49 PM
Just voted.
Thank you very much for putting here in the immigration forums.
Thank you very much for putting here in the immigration forums.
ca_immigrant
02-11 12:08 PM
Hi Folks,
What is the fastest and perhaps a little economic way to get documents over to chennai (Tamil Nadu) or Calicut (Kerala) from here in San Jose, ca.
USPS has this service called Express Mail ($27.95) or Priority Mail ($12.95)
I guess USPS is claiming 6-10 days (guess no gurantee) to india.
Other couriers seems to be $70+ (FedEx, UPS, DHL)..
Anyone has had good luck with USPS ? or do you suggest the couriers mentioned above ?
Need to get docs for an interview for parents on Feb 26th in Chennai...
Thanks in Advance for your reply !!
What is the fastest and perhaps a little economic way to get documents over to chennai (Tamil Nadu) or Calicut (Kerala) from here in San Jose, ca.
USPS has this service called Express Mail ($27.95) or Priority Mail ($12.95)
I guess USPS is claiming 6-10 days (guess no gurantee) to india.
Other couriers seems to be $70+ (FedEx, UPS, DHL)..
Anyone has had good luck with USPS ? or do you suggest the couriers mentioned above ?
Need to get docs for an interview for parents on Feb 26th in Chennai...
Thanks in Advance for your reply !!
more...
paskal
11-01 11:42 PM
1. there has been a recapture for nurses once already- 50,000 GC
therefore older PD's are likely to have a GC already, this lot is likely to be for newer applicants
2. last time USCIS did this in a way that did not benefit EB3. instead of starting with recapture numbers right away, they first exhausted the regular quota, so all nurses already coming up for GC got numbers from the annual quota, then they gave recapture numbers to people with more recent applications
of course, either way in the longer run it reduces the number of people in line. but it would be nice if everyone that is waiting could benefit, not just nurses. i'm not writing this to oppose nurses relief or anything, just a factual comment. i do wish they had found a different way- exempt nurses from the quota and allow recapture numbers to be used for everyone...
therefore older PD's are likely to have a GC already, this lot is likely to be for newer applicants
2. last time USCIS did this in a way that did not benefit EB3. instead of starting with recapture numbers right away, they first exhausted the regular quota, so all nurses already coming up for GC got numbers from the annual quota, then they gave recapture numbers to people with more recent applications
of course, either way in the longer run it reduces the number of people in line. but it would be nice if everyone that is waiting could benefit, not just nurses. i'm not writing this to oppose nurses relief or anything, just a factual comment. i do wish they had found a different way- exempt nurses from the quota and allow recapture numbers to be used for everyone...
2010 Love Quotes for Her
gccovet
09-25 10:57 AM
good one!!!
Fastest way in NIW or Investor quota(1 mil $$)
GCCovet.
Fastest way in NIW or Investor quota(1 mil $$)
GCCovet.
more...
Marphad
01-08 02:49 PM
I read on www.immigration-law.com
01/08/2009: Bill Introduced in the House for Comprehensive Immigration Reform
Rep> Sheila Jackson-Lee of Texas introduced H.R.264 yesterday to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to comprehensively reform immigration law, and for other purposes. For the full text of the bill, please stay tuned.
Keep the fingers crossed :)
01/08/2009: Bill Introduced in the House for Comprehensive Immigration Reform
Rep> Sheila Jackson-Lee of Texas introduced H.R.264 yesterday to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to comprehensively reform immigration law, and for other purposes. For the full text of the bill, please stay tuned.
Keep the fingers crossed :)
hair love quotes for her from her.
apahilaj
04-21 07:19 PM
Hi,
I have couple of questions about renewing EADs and APs (mine and my wife's current EAD/AP expires on 8/29/08):
1. I am currently on H1 and do not intend to use EAD in the near future. Can I skip my EAD renewal for now and if I need to use it say couple of months later (example: 5/01/2009) can I apply for extension at that time without any issues?
2. My wife is currently on H4 visa and she will need EAD to work. Is there any issue if primary applicant does not apply for EAD but the dependent does?
3. My lawyer had initially applied for mine and my wife's EAD and AP at the time of 485 filing. Can I apply for the renewals myself (is the procedure straight forward) or do I need to pay my lawyer for these renewals?
4. My wife will need AP for travel purposes since she'll be using EAD to work. Does it make sense for me to apply for AP renewal given that I won't be using EAD in the near future? Only issue I see is if I have to travel outside of US and the officer asks for AP at port of entry. Can I apply for AP at any point in time?
5. I am assuming that I have to wait for 120 days prior to the expiration of current documents in order to apply for their renewals, correct?
Apologize for a huge list of questions, but I am trying to make a decision in the coming weeks.
Any help/pointers any one can give will be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
I have couple of questions about renewing EADs and APs (mine and my wife's current EAD/AP expires on 8/29/08):
1. I am currently on H1 and do not intend to use EAD in the near future. Can I skip my EAD renewal for now and if I need to use it say couple of months later (example: 5/01/2009) can I apply for extension at that time without any issues?
2. My wife is currently on H4 visa and she will need EAD to work. Is there any issue if primary applicant does not apply for EAD but the dependent does?
3. My lawyer had initially applied for mine and my wife's EAD and AP at the time of 485 filing. Can I apply for the renewals myself (is the procedure straight forward) or do I need to pay my lawyer for these renewals?
4. My wife will need AP for travel purposes since she'll be using EAD to work. Does it make sense for me to apply for AP renewal given that I won't be using EAD in the near future? Only issue I see is if I have to travel outside of US and the officer asks for AP at port of entry. Can I apply for AP at any point in time?
5. I am assuming that I have to wait for 120 days prior to the expiration of current documents in order to apply for their renewals, correct?
Apologize for a huge list of questions, but I am trying to make a decision in the coming weeks.
Any help/pointers any one can give will be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
more...
485Question
10-30 07:27 PM
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=14756
hot love quotes: In her first
chanduv23
07-05 07:20 AM
Senthil1 - behaves like an anti immigrant sitting in this forum. Though at times he gets things right and in perspective, most times he is always supportive of the other side - with no logic or reasoning.
Senthil - do you get paid by numbersusa etc// :D :D :D :D
Does USCIS promise u fast citizenship if you do this???:D :D :D :D
Senthil - do you get paid by numbersusa etc// :D :D :D :D
Does USCIS promise u fast citizenship if you do this???:D :D :D :D
more...
house love quotes for her from the
WeShallOvercome
07-26 12:29 PM
I live in Jersey City. I am planning to move to NYC. My company and job location stays the same. I have filed my I-485 (received July 23rd) with I-140pending. I don't have my I-485 receipt notice, only I-140 receipt.
1) Is it safe to change one's residence(different state) ?
2) How do I update my address for I-485 so that I get the receipt notice at the new address ? As far as I know USCIS stuff is not forwarded by USPS.
Thanks
It is advisable not to move until you get fingerprinting notice.
The reason is that you can't update your address before you get receipt notice and FP notice comes very shortly after you get receipt notice. You may or may not get your address updated in time to get FP notice at your new address. Given the workload at the USCIS at this time, try to make things as simple as you can.
1) Is it safe to change one's residence(different state) ?
2) How do I update my address for I-485 so that I get the receipt notice at the new address ? As far as I know USCIS stuff is not forwarded by USPS.
Thanks
It is advisable not to move until you get fingerprinting notice.
The reason is that you can't update your address before you get receipt notice and FP notice comes very shortly after you get receipt notice. You may or may not get your address updated in time to get FP notice at your new address. Given the workload at the USCIS at this time, try to make things as simple as you can.
tattoo love quotes for her in
ilikekilo
07-25 01:29 PM
Hello,
I have an unfortunate situation. My parents names are misspelled in the Birth certificate compared to the Passport parents name page. Do we need to submit the parents names page of the passport when we submit our documents for 485 ?? Please let me know if this will be a problem and if there is a work around for this ??
Also if I have a Birth certificate (with my actual full name - dated in 2007 though), do I need to submit the affidavits ??
Thanks
dont confuse dated dob cert with the registration date...as long as the dob cert has the registraation date within 3 years or less, i believe, then u r ok...
I have an unfortunate situation. My parents names are misspelled in the Birth certificate compared to the Passport parents name page. Do we need to submit the parents names page of the passport when we submit our documents for 485 ?? Please let me know if this will be a problem and if there is a work around for this ??
Also if I have a Birth certificate (with my actual full name - dated in 2007 though), do I need to submit the affidavits ??
Thanks
dont confuse dated dob cert with the registration date...as long as the dob cert has the registraation date within 3 years or less, i believe, then u r ok...
more...
pictures love quotes for her in
franklin
07-17 06:04 PM
Send a donation instead
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26&Itemid=25#HowToContribute
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26&Itemid=25#HowToContribute
dresses love quotes for her in spanish
b_boy
08-28 03:58 PM
Pending too
more...
makeup love quotes for her from him.
nagrajram
12-17 11:23 AM
Now the biggest hurdle of Apr 30, 2001 is crossed. I am sure that not many people has filed between Sep 2001 and February 2002. Also if you look into PD for China and Phillipines, the dates moved very fast after June 2001. Lot of people applied in late 2002 and early 2003. My guess would be that it will take about 3 to 4 years to clear all the backlogs of 2003. For 2004 it may be over 5 years.
girlfriend images love quotes for her to
Gundark
08-26 11:40 AM
Thanks guys! It was fun making somebody else's idea, I never would have thought of making a Sonic smiley.
We need more suggestions!
We need more suggestions!
hairstyles love quotes for her from me.
GCWhru
08-04 05:04 PM
anoopraj2010,
We are also on the same boat. My GC (primary ) approved on Aug 2008 and my wife's 485 still pending, we have returned back from India last week and no questions asked about her AP.
We are also on the same boat. My GC (primary ) approved on Aug 2008 and my wife's 485 still pending, we have returned back from India last week and no questions asked about her AP.
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.
beautifulMind
08-24 12:40 PM
Fragomen Client Alert (08/06/09) - USCIS Expands Employer Site Visit Program (http://www.worldwideerc.org/Resources/Immigration/Documents/fragomen-20090806.html)
August 6, 2009
USCIS Expands Employer Site Visit Program __________________________________________________ _______
Executive Summary
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is expanding its unannounced visits to the worksites of employers that sponsor foreign workers. USCIS uses site visits to verify the information in an immigration petition submitted by the employer and to make sure that sponsored workers are complying with the terms of their admission to the United States.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is expanding its site visits to employers that sponsor foreign workers. The site visits, which are conducted by USCIS's Fraud Detection and National Security (FDNS) unit, are usually conducted without notice. They are used to verify the existence of the employer, the information the employer has provided in immigration petitions, and whether sponsored foreign nationals are working in compliance with the terms of their admission to the United States. If your company is contacted by an FDNS officer, you should call your designated Fragomen professional immediately to discuss options, including the possibility of having counsel present during a site visit.
Though the FDNS unit has conducted employer site visits for several years, it has recently begun to add more staff and broaden its investigative efforts. In the past, site visits usually pertained to already-approved immigration petitions. However, under the expanded program, the agency is more frequently using site visits to verify information in petitions that are pending with USCIS. USCIS could use information obtained during a site visit to decide whether or not to approve a petition. In submitting petitions for immigration benefits, employers subject themselves to reasonable inquiries from the government. Therefore, it is crucial that employers make efforts to cooperate with FDNS officers. A failure to cooperate could jeopardize an employer's pending petitions and its ability to participate in U.S.
immigration programs.
Typically, an FDNS officer will make an unannounced appearance at the petitioning employer's worksite, though occasionally an officer may call the company in advance to notify it of an impending visit. During the site visit, the officer may ask to speak to an employer representative, such as a human resources manager, and may also ask to meet with a sponsored foreign worker. Usually, the officer will have a copy of a specific immigration petition and will seek interviews to verify the information in the petition.
During site visits, FDNS officers typically work from a standard list of questions. Officers commonly ask about the employer's business; the worksite; the number of employees; whether the employer filed the immigration petition in question; whether the foreign national is actually employed by the employer; the foreign national's position, job duties and salary; and the foreign national's qualifications for the position, educational background, previous employment and immigration history, residence and dependents in the United States. The officer may also ask about the employer's overall use of specific immigration programs. In addition to conducting interviews, the FDNS officer may ask to tour the employer's premises or examine the foreign national's work area, and may also request payroll records and other documentation pertaining to the foreign national's employment.
Fragomen is closely monitoring the FDNS site visit program and will issue additional information as we discern investigation trends. If you have any questions about this alert, please contact the Fragomen professional with whom you usually work.
Copyright 2009 by Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy, LLP
Fragomen Immigration Alerts
August 6, 2009
USCIS Expands Employer Site Visit Program __________________________________________________ _______
Executive Summary
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is expanding its unannounced visits to the worksites of employers that sponsor foreign workers. USCIS uses site visits to verify the information in an immigration petition submitted by the employer and to make sure that sponsored workers are complying with the terms of their admission to the United States.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is expanding its site visits to employers that sponsor foreign workers. The site visits, which are conducted by USCIS's Fraud Detection and National Security (FDNS) unit, are usually conducted without notice. They are used to verify the existence of the employer, the information the employer has provided in immigration petitions, and whether sponsored foreign nationals are working in compliance with the terms of their admission to the United States. If your company is contacted by an FDNS officer, you should call your designated Fragomen professional immediately to discuss options, including the possibility of having counsel present during a site visit.
Though the FDNS unit has conducted employer site visits for several years, it has recently begun to add more staff and broaden its investigative efforts. In the past, site visits usually pertained to already-approved immigration petitions. However, under the expanded program, the agency is more frequently using site visits to verify information in petitions that are pending with USCIS. USCIS could use information obtained during a site visit to decide whether or not to approve a petition. In submitting petitions for immigration benefits, employers subject themselves to reasonable inquiries from the government. Therefore, it is crucial that employers make efforts to cooperate with FDNS officers. A failure to cooperate could jeopardize an employer's pending petitions and its ability to participate in U.S.
immigration programs.
Typically, an FDNS officer will make an unannounced appearance at the petitioning employer's worksite, though occasionally an officer may call the company in advance to notify it of an impending visit. During the site visit, the officer may ask to speak to an employer representative, such as a human resources manager, and may also ask to meet with a sponsored foreign worker. Usually, the officer will have a copy of a specific immigration petition and will seek interviews to verify the information in the petition.
During site visits, FDNS officers typically work from a standard list of questions. Officers commonly ask about the employer's business; the worksite; the number of employees; whether the employer filed the immigration petition in question; whether the foreign national is actually employed by the employer; the foreign national's position, job duties and salary; and the foreign national's qualifications for the position, educational background, previous employment and immigration history, residence and dependents in the United States. The officer may also ask about the employer's overall use of specific immigration programs. In addition to conducting interviews, the FDNS officer may ask to tour the employer's premises or examine the foreign national's work area, and may also request payroll records and other documentation pertaining to the foreign national's employment.
Fragomen is closely monitoring the FDNS site visit program and will issue additional information as we discern investigation trends. If you have any questions about this alert, please contact the Fragomen professional with whom you usually work.
Copyright 2009 by Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy, LLP
Fragomen Immigration Alerts
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق