yabadaba
06-26 08:24 PM
^^^^
wallpaper miss you so much quotes. miss
bkam
01-31 10:55 PM
Dear "colleagues in faith" :-) There is a rule in life - if you want something and beg for it, you most probably will not get it. You have to fight and find a (legal) way to get it. This is the way the American Anglo-Saxon population mixed with smart Jews and other hard working nations achieved economical and political power over the last centuries. Not by begging for rights and being scared of people with different opinion.
These people who are against the uncontrolled immigration have their point. This process has to be controlled or the USA would become just another "developing" country. However, we are talking about something else. We are talking about rules set by the US government. When most of us came in this country years ago, we knew the rules and we expected those rules to be followed. If a government agency keeps my LC certification for years without processing it and even without indicating when it would be processed, then the government is not following those rules. And it is my right to know why is that. If I honestly pay my taxes and follow the laws of this country, I expect the government of the very same country to fulfill its obligations to me and (in particular) to process my application in a reasonable time and by following the current laws. If I do not qualify - OK, I will "pack back". But I want to know that, not to be kept in the dark.
This is what should be the main goal of the "volunteers" of this forum or organization (whatever) - fairness and following the rules by the government. If the immigration agency is a bunch of people incapable to sort out their problems, then they have to be replaced and problems solved quickly and efficiently. Excuses like "no money, understaffing" do not work because we throw $$$ in lawyers laps - part of this money can be easily used by the government for "overstaffing".
I see that some people got annoyed of my opinion but again, they should not forget that the issue we discuss concerns 350,000 highly qualified professionals who support the economy of this country. The opponents from numbersusa etc do not represent all Americans and most people are not against this king of immigration, if properly regulated. They just have to be properly informed.
In addition, do not be afraid to voice your opinion if you think you are right and if you do not hide something. Then people will respect you.
These people who are against the uncontrolled immigration have their point. This process has to be controlled or the USA would become just another "developing" country. However, we are talking about something else. We are talking about rules set by the US government. When most of us came in this country years ago, we knew the rules and we expected those rules to be followed. If a government agency keeps my LC certification for years without processing it and even without indicating when it would be processed, then the government is not following those rules. And it is my right to know why is that. If I honestly pay my taxes and follow the laws of this country, I expect the government of the very same country to fulfill its obligations to me and (in particular) to process my application in a reasonable time and by following the current laws. If I do not qualify - OK, I will "pack back". But I want to know that, not to be kept in the dark.
This is what should be the main goal of the "volunteers" of this forum or organization (whatever) - fairness and following the rules by the government. If the immigration agency is a bunch of people incapable to sort out their problems, then they have to be replaced and problems solved quickly and efficiently. Excuses like "no money, understaffing" do not work because we throw $$$ in lawyers laps - part of this money can be easily used by the government for "overstaffing".
I see that some people got annoyed of my opinion but again, they should not forget that the issue we discuss concerns 350,000 highly qualified professionals who support the economy of this country. The opponents from numbersusa etc do not represent all Americans and most people are not against this king of immigration, if properly regulated. They just have to be properly informed.
In addition, do not be afraid to voice your opinion if you think you are right and if you do not hide something. Then people will respect you.
ashiqman
06-24 03:04 PM
I work for a very small start-up American firm. The company has been in business since 1 year. Even I have been with the company (full-time) for approximately the same amount of time. Unfortunately, the company has not been able to make any revenues in this 1 year. I am planning to visit India in May and if I do, I will have to get my H1 restamped, since my old visa has expired. In this forum, I have seen some instances of rejection/hold on H1B stamping. Taking that into account and given the situation of my company (although genuine and still having enough funds to run), is it worth taking the risk? I will be appearing for an interview in Mumbai. Any info in this regard will be really helpful to me. Thanks in advance.
2011 Missing you Quotes 30 - photo
gsc999
07-11 02:54 PM
People who want to volunteer:
Please PM Franklin or/and me your e-mail address and phone number so that we can share the phone list. There are 380 numbers to call. So if e'one takes 50
we need seven members.
Please PM Franklin or/and me your e-mail address and phone number so that we can share the phone list. There are 380 numbers to call. So if e'one takes 50
we need seven members.
more...
neobuddha
10-17 06:37 PM
Hi,
In my case, it was concurrent filling on July 02. I received receipts of I-485, EAD and AP early Aug. However, I never received receipt for I-140. My Lawyer check the encashment of checks and found the LIN number. According to that number, my case was approved on Aug 30th.
However, we never received any receipt or notice of approval for my I-140. Thus, not sure, if everything is correct. My lawyer has promised me to check with USCIS guys and get more concrete information soon.
In my case, it was concurrent filling on July 02. I received receipts of I-485, EAD and AP early Aug. However, I never received receipt for I-140. My Lawyer check the encashment of checks and found the LIN number. According to that number, my case was approved on Aug 30th.
However, we never received any receipt or notice of approval for my I-140. Thus, not sure, if everything is correct. My lawyer has promised me to check with USCIS guys and get more concrete information soon.
immig4me
04-29 08:32 AM
we r coming to a full circle here..... over 90% americans also supported & practiced slavery back in 1786...... the declaration of independence was agreed by all americans and it said - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.... but over 90% americans supported slavery which wasthe biggest mockery of what everyone believed..... it just proves that just becoz majority of the people support something doesn't make it right or doesn't make it just.... in the end this nation had to go in for a civil war between the north & the south to end slavery.....
fast forward.... the current immigration debate is no different...... this country ought to have learned from the experience of the civil war..... for all the men, women and children who died in the civil war.... this country & this world provides for abundance of resources for everyone..... we can all cohabit this planet and live happily.... some people just don't want too..... the real question is...... will these facist forces stop with the undocumented or will they next try to squash another group who don't look like them..... my guess is that after they take care of the undocumented..... we r next.... its the generation old question that was asked during 2nd world war.... will the nazi forces of hitler stop within europe or will they next attack the US or soviet etc.... we all know the answer to that question.... and hence the 2nd world war.... the debate for the undocumented is of the same kind.... do we stop the negative fascist forces right here or will they be allowed to expand their wings.... i know the final outcome..... its just a matter of time.....
now u can throw out all the bull arguing that these are "illegal" people or they crossed the border etc.... these r the same sort of arguments presented for slavery or for mistreating women or immigrant groups, who were treated as slaves back then.... these negative fascist forces said the exact same things against abolishing slavery or giving equal rights to women, african americans and different immigrant groups..... u may think u are on the right side of this debate but u have no freaking clue that above human law there is another law... and that greater law supersedes every other human law.... every action in contradiction to the greater law will eventually lose.... wait & watch.... its just a matter of time....
Totally true....agree with every point you make
Go Utah! ... Go Texas !
Yes, Arizona, Texas and Utah get ready for the backlash and a host of lawsuits!!!!!!!!!!!
fast forward.... the current immigration debate is no different...... this country ought to have learned from the experience of the civil war..... for all the men, women and children who died in the civil war.... this country & this world provides for abundance of resources for everyone..... we can all cohabit this planet and live happily.... some people just don't want too..... the real question is...... will these facist forces stop with the undocumented or will they next try to squash another group who don't look like them..... my guess is that after they take care of the undocumented..... we r next.... its the generation old question that was asked during 2nd world war.... will the nazi forces of hitler stop within europe or will they next attack the US or soviet etc.... we all know the answer to that question.... and hence the 2nd world war.... the debate for the undocumented is of the same kind.... do we stop the negative fascist forces right here or will they be allowed to expand their wings.... i know the final outcome..... its just a matter of time.....
now u can throw out all the bull arguing that these are "illegal" people or they crossed the border etc.... these r the same sort of arguments presented for slavery or for mistreating women or immigrant groups, who were treated as slaves back then.... these negative fascist forces said the exact same things against abolishing slavery or giving equal rights to women, african americans and different immigrant groups..... u may think u are on the right side of this debate but u have no freaking clue that above human law there is another law... and that greater law supersedes every other human law.... every action in contradiction to the greater law will eventually lose.... wait & watch.... its just a matter of time....
Totally true....agree with every point you make
Go Utah! ... Go Texas !
Yes, Arizona, Texas and Utah get ready for the backlash and a host of lawsuits!!!!!!!!!!!
more...
factoryman
06-18 12:37 PM
so, my city / state is : Bellingham/ WA
where he I-94 is issued.
where he I-94 is issued.
2010 miss you so much quotes.
ras
05-24 12:15 PM
My attorney told me that EAD to H1 will not counted against the cap if the person was on H1 before going on EAD. Is it true.
couple of attorneys with whom I enquired also told me that if you still have time on h1 then you are not counted under the cap and do not need to file afresh which goes through the process of lottery etc. I think at the most you need to go to the consulate to get the visa stamping. Can some one experience corroborate this.
Has anyone in the forum did EAD to H1?
couple of attorneys with whom I enquired also told me that if you still have time on h1 then you are not counted under the cap and do not need to file afresh which goes through the process of lottery etc. I think at the most you need to go to the consulate to get the visa stamping. Can some one experience corroborate this.
Has anyone in the forum did EAD to H1?
more...
gcseeker2002
09-16 02:57 PM
Hi,
I am also planning to travel on AP to India. I changed my employer, but didn't file AC21. AP's are still from the time when i was working for my old employer who sponsored me. Will it be any issue, if i travel with these AP's. What type of letter do i need to take from present employer durimg my travel. Please advise...
There is no problem with travelling on AP. For me, you should not even have second thoughts on personal travel , just go, AP or H1 does not matter as long as you have some form of reentry with you.
I am also planning to travel on AP to India. I changed my employer, but didn't file AC21. AP's are still from the time when i was working for my old employer who sponsored me. Will it be any issue, if i travel with these AP's. What type of letter do i need to take from present employer durimg my travel. Please advise...
There is no problem with travelling on AP. For me, you should not even have second thoughts on personal travel , just go, AP or H1 does not matter as long as you have some form of reentry with you.
hair miss you so much quotes.
Queen Josephine
August 9th, 2005, 07:42 AM
I am trained as a physicist, and crossed polarizers are a common method of managing light in physics experiments, so I decided to try that here.
You can't use circular polarizers like most of us have for our autofocus DSLRs. Stacked C-polarizers don't black out, because they are both filtering the same light.
With two polarizers you get weird rainbow effects from diffraction, and the whole scene tends to the purple/UV.
Always nice to have a scientist on board seeing possibilities we sometimes miss. Thanks for the great explanation Michael!
You can't use circular polarizers like most of us have for our autofocus DSLRs. Stacked C-polarizers don't black out, because they are both filtering the same light.
With two polarizers you get weird rainbow effects from diffraction, and the whole scene tends to the purple/UV.
Always nice to have a scientist on board seeing possibilities we sometimes miss. Thanks for the great explanation Michael!
more...
pd2001_12
09-15 01:42 PM
I got past strip bars or junk like that long time back... I am going to do something similar to what you said. I am going to become more responsible citizen and would start enjoying life more..
First thank GOD for pulling you out of this mess.
Instead of blowing the money in strip bar or any place like that, send it to India and ask them feed any orphans. You will be blessed more......
First thank GOD for pulling you out of this mess.
Instead of blowing the money in strip bar or any place like that, send it to India and ask them feed any orphans. You will be blessed more......
hot house why i love you so much
chanduv23
10-02 04:56 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^
more...
house We will all miss you so much,; miss you so much quotes. quot;I miss you so
apb
09-11 02:47 PM
I also know one more with PD dec/03 and waiting
tattoo Miss You So Much Quotes. i
dontcareanymore
08-05 12:39 PM
similar sit and my 485 was accepted with older pd!
what you say maybe true, but pls don't say it so confidently unless your are an attorney!
Do you care to provide details ?
Is it possible that you were eligible to file I485 with other (Latest) PD as well and they are considering the recapture request ??
what you say maybe true, but pls don't say it so confidently unless your are an attorney!
Do you care to provide details ?
Is it possible that you were eligible to file I485 with other (Latest) PD as well and they are considering the recapture request ??
more...
pictures miss you so much quotes.
ashkam
06-25 01:02 PM
I see what you are saying now, you were paid retroactively this year for work done last year. Since that pay will be reflected in this year's W2, you should be fine with the IRS. I am not sure how this will square up with the USCIS though. Talking to a good immigration attorney is a good idea.
dresses miss you so much quotes. i
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
more...
makeup 3/5/2011 9:01 PMi miss you so
continuedProgress
06-29 02:24 PM
Thanks logiclife for showing an option when I had given up!.
I have an approved 140 and I can get a letter mentioning future employment from my previous employer. I understand that I cannot apply for EAD since I will not be working for them, however, what additional steps do I need to take to invoke 'AC21 portability'?. Since I am assuming my 485 will take more than 180 days.
Thanks!
A
I have an approved 140 and I can get a letter mentioning future employment from my previous employer. I understand that I cannot apply for EAD since I will not be working for them, however, what additional steps do I need to take to invoke 'AC21 portability'?. Since I am assuming my 485 will take more than 180 days.
Thanks!
A
girlfriend I miss you so much - Quotes
tabletpc
10-17 12:15 PM
Can anyone tell me what it means in terms of documents...???
hairstyles Miss You So Much Quotes. i
Jerrome
05-21 01:30 PM
I have received RFE for my spouse, I have not received the details yet, but need to clarify the following(i am in touch with my attorney also).
We applied for her H1 in 2007 April, it got approved on September 2007.
We also applied 485 in July 2007 so she did not join the H1b Company on September 2007.
We applied COS to H4 on February 2008 but she started working on EAD from March 2008 onwards, she is still working on EAD.
Her H4 approved on November 2008(but i was no more in H1).
I think my wife's status is AOS from July 2007 onwards is that correct? Or is this a problem.
Bump
We applied for her H1 in 2007 April, it got approved on September 2007.
We also applied 485 in July 2007 so she did not join the H1b Company on September 2007.
We applied COS to H4 on February 2008 but she started working on EAD from March 2008 onwards, she is still working on EAD.
Her H4 approved on November 2008(but i was no more in H1).
I think my wife's status is AOS from July 2007 onwards is that correct? Or is this a problem.
Bump
Berkeleybee
02-05 02:30 PM
All,
Just wanted to say, if you think everything is going to be fine cos PACE has 30 democrat and 30 republican supporters, think again. The right wing has already mobilized its talking heads, look for more stories that discredit the basic premises of PACE and the American Competitiveness Initiative.
This from David Brooks, Op Ed columnist at the NYT, on Feb 2, 2006.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
The New York Times
February 2, 2006 Thursday
Late Edition - Final
HEADLINE: The Nation of the Future
BYLINE: By DAVID BROOKS
BODY:
Everywhere I go people tell me China and India are going to blow by us in the coming decades. They've got the hunger. They've got the people. They've got the future. We're a tired old power, destined to fade back to the second tier of nations, like Britain did in the 20th century.
This sentiment is everywhere -- except in the evidence. The facts and figures tell a different story.
Has the United States lost its vitality? No. Americans remain the hardest working people on the face of the earth and the most productive. As William W. Lewis, the founding director of the McKinsey Global Institute, wrote, ''The United States is the productivity leader in virtually every industry.'' And productivity rates are surging faster now than they did even in the 1990's.
Has the United States stopped investing in the future? No. The U.S. accounts for roughly 40 percent of the world's R. & D. spending. More money was invested in research and development in this country than in the other G-7 nations combined.
Is the United States becoming a less important player in the world economy? Not yet. In 1971, the U.S. economy accounted for 30.52 percent of the world's G.D.P. Since then, we've seen the rise of Japan, China, India and the Asian tigers. The U.S. now accounts for 30.74 percent of world G.D.P., a slightly higher figure.
What about the shortage of scientists and engineers? Vastly overblown. According to Duke School of Engineering researchers, the U.S. produces more engineers per capita than China or India. According to The Wall Street Journal, firms with engineering openings find themselves flooded with resumes. Unemployment rates for scientists and engineers are no lower than for other professions, and in some specialties, such as electrical engineering, they are notably higher.
Michael Teitelbaum of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation told The Wall Street Journal last November, ''No one I know who has looked at the data with an open mind has been able to find any sign of a current shortage.'' The G.A.O., the RAND Corporation and many other researchers have picked apart the quickie studies that warn of a science and engineering gap. ''We did not find evidence that such shortages have existed at least since 1990, nor that they are on the horizon,'' the RAND report concluded.
What about America's lamentable education system? Well, it's true we do a mediocre job of educating people from age 0 to 18, even though we spend by far more per pupil than any other nation on earth. But we do an outstanding job of training people from ages 18 to 65.
At least 22 out of the top 30 universities in the world are American. More foreign students come to American universities now than before 9/11.
More important, the American workplace is so competitive, companies are compelled to promote lifelong learning. A U.N. report this year ranked the U.S. third in the world in ease of doing business, after New Zealand and Singapore. The U.S. has the second most competitive economy on earth, after Finland, according the latest Global Competitiveness Report. As Michael Porter of Harvard told The National Journal, ''The U.S. is second to none in terms of innovation and an innovative environment.''
What about partisan gridlock and our dysfunctional political system? Well, entitlement debt remains the biggest threat to the country's well-being, but in one area vital to the country's future posterity, we have reached a beneficent consensus. American liberals have given up on industrial policy, and American conservatives now embrace an aggressive federal role for basic research.
Ford and G.M. totter and almost nobody suggests using public money to prop them up. On the other hand, President Bush, reputed to be hostile to science, has increased the federal scientific research budget by 50 percent since taking office, to $137 billion annually. Senators Lamar Alexander and Jeff Bingaman have proposed excellent legislation that would double the R. & D. tax credit and create a Darpa-style lab in the Department of Energy, devoting $9 billion for scientific research and education. That bill has 60 co-sponsors, 30 Democrats and 30 Republicans.
Recent polling suggests that people in Afghanistan and Iraq are more optimistic about their nations' futures than people in the United States. That's just crazy, even given our problems with health care, growing inequality and such. America's problem over the next 50 years will not be wrestling with decline. It will be helping the frustrated individuals and nations left so far behind.
Just wanted to say, if you think everything is going to be fine cos PACE has 30 democrat and 30 republican supporters, think again. The right wing has already mobilized its talking heads, look for more stories that discredit the basic premises of PACE and the American Competitiveness Initiative.
This from David Brooks, Op Ed columnist at the NYT, on Feb 2, 2006.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
The New York Times
February 2, 2006 Thursday
Late Edition - Final
HEADLINE: The Nation of the Future
BYLINE: By DAVID BROOKS
BODY:
Everywhere I go people tell me China and India are going to blow by us in the coming decades. They've got the hunger. They've got the people. They've got the future. We're a tired old power, destined to fade back to the second tier of nations, like Britain did in the 20th century.
This sentiment is everywhere -- except in the evidence. The facts and figures tell a different story.
Has the United States lost its vitality? No. Americans remain the hardest working people on the face of the earth and the most productive. As William W. Lewis, the founding director of the McKinsey Global Institute, wrote, ''The United States is the productivity leader in virtually every industry.'' And productivity rates are surging faster now than they did even in the 1990's.
Has the United States stopped investing in the future? No. The U.S. accounts for roughly 40 percent of the world's R. & D. spending. More money was invested in research and development in this country than in the other G-7 nations combined.
Is the United States becoming a less important player in the world economy? Not yet. In 1971, the U.S. economy accounted for 30.52 percent of the world's G.D.P. Since then, we've seen the rise of Japan, China, India and the Asian tigers. The U.S. now accounts for 30.74 percent of world G.D.P., a slightly higher figure.
What about the shortage of scientists and engineers? Vastly overblown. According to Duke School of Engineering researchers, the U.S. produces more engineers per capita than China or India. According to The Wall Street Journal, firms with engineering openings find themselves flooded with resumes. Unemployment rates for scientists and engineers are no lower than for other professions, and in some specialties, such as electrical engineering, they are notably higher.
Michael Teitelbaum of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation told The Wall Street Journal last November, ''No one I know who has looked at the data with an open mind has been able to find any sign of a current shortage.'' The G.A.O., the RAND Corporation and many other researchers have picked apart the quickie studies that warn of a science and engineering gap. ''We did not find evidence that such shortages have existed at least since 1990, nor that they are on the horizon,'' the RAND report concluded.
What about America's lamentable education system? Well, it's true we do a mediocre job of educating people from age 0 to 18, even though we spend by far more per pupil than any other nation on earth. But we do an outstanding job of training people from ages 18 to 65.
At least 22 out of the top 30 universities in the world are American. More foreign students come to American universities now than before 9/11.
More important, the American workplace is so competitive, companies are compelled to promote lifelong learning. A U.N. report this year ranked the U.S. third in the world in ease of doing business, after New Zealand and Singapore. The U.S. has the second most competitive economy on earth, after Finland, according the latest Global Competitiveness Report. As Michael Porter of Harvard told The National Journal, ''The U.S. is second to none in terms of innovation and an innovative environment.''
What about partisan gridlock and our dysfunctional political system? Well, entitlement debt remains the biggest threat to the country's well-being, but in one area vital to the country's future posterity, we have reached a beneficent consensus. American liberals have given up on industrial policy, and American conservatives now embrace an aggressive federal role for basic research.
Ford and G.M. totter and almost nobody suggests using public money to prop them up. On the other hand, President Bush, reputed to be hostile to science, has increased the federal scientific research budget by 50 percent since taking office, to $137 billion annually. Senators Lamar Alexander and Jeff Bingaman have proposed excellent legislation that would double the R. & D. tax credit and create a Darpa-style lab in the Department of Energy, devoting $9 billion for scientific research and education. That bill has 60 co-sponsors, 30 Democrats and 30 Republicans.
Recent polling suggests that people in Afghanistan and Iraq are more optimistic about their nations' futures than people in the United States. That's just crazy, even given our problems with health care, growing inequality and such. America's problem over the next 50 years will not be wrestling with decline. It will be helping the frustrated individuals and nations left so far behind.
pragir
06-09 01:08 PM
His PD is sep 2003 which became current in April.. so it took him just over 2 months to get final approval.
Congratulations. How long did it take since your PD became current till you got the card production ordered email?.
Congratulations. How long did it take since your PD became current till you got the card production ordered email?.
No comments:
Post a Comment