gc007
01-05 10:23 PM
I have been on H4 since 2000. I once got an H1-B in the year 01, but did not get to work. Meanwhile my H4 got extended till now.
With the recent changes of de-coupling H1 & H4.......
My question is can I use the previous H1-B issued in 01 and apply for COS without any cap restrictions ? And can this be used by a new Employer ?
Appreciate any responses on this. Thanks
With the recent changes of de-coupling H1 & H4.......
My question is can I use the previous H1-B issued in 01 and apply for COS without any cap restrictions ? And can this be used by a new Employer ?
Appreciate any responses on this. Thanks
wallpaper pictures nicki minaj fake body
anilsal
10-30 04:31 PM
I was reading the USA Today articles and I have a suggestion...guys please try to do spell check before you submit to such forums. It looks bad on us especially when we call ourselves skilled immigrants.
One glaring error that I saw was this guy with a MBA from Stanford Univ and he wrote it as "Standford Univ"......Is there a univ called "Standford"???? I tried googling it but did not find it...I hope it was not somebody from our group....
That even applies to discussion on IV. If law makers have a look at the IV forums (after they have been appraised of the existence of IV) and see lots of posts that lack basic grammatical skills and in urgent need of spell checks, then you know, what goes on in their mind(s).
Simple spelling mistakes are fine, but if a post needs spell checks a lot, either the person who posted does not care or needs a good spellchecker.
Good that you brought this issue up. Are we not talking of Skilled Immigration? If yes, then let us all do some homework (run a spell checker, to make sure things are going to appear nice for readers).
Sorry if I appear rude. We are in this fight together and we need to come out successful :)
One glaring error that I saw was this guy with a MBA from Stanford Univ and he wrote it as "Standford Univ"......Is there a univ called "Standford"???? I tried googling it but did not find it...I hope it was not somebody from our group....
That even applies to discussion on IV. If law makers have a look at the IV forums (after they have been appraised of the existence of IV) and see lots of posts that lack basic grammatical skills and in urgent need of spell checks, then you know, what goes on in their mind(s).
Simple spelling mistakes are fine, but if a post needs spell checks a lot, either the person who posted does not care or needs a good spellchecker.
Good that you brought this issue up. Are we not talking of Skilled Immigration? If yes, then let us all do some homework (run a spell checker, to make sure things are going to appear nice for readers).
Sorry if I appear rude. We are in this fight together and we need to come out successful :)
lost_in_gc_land
01-24 01:46 PM
Hi
Am in the same situation, 221(g) yellow form Mumbai since mid-November. Still in India awaiting further indication from the consulate. Have had lawyers call DOS, have called the consulate a few times but the response is standard - awaiting feedback from Washington, no way to expedite.
Sucks...sorry you have to go through this too. Feel free to pm me if you like
Am in the same situation, 221(g) yellow form Mumbai since mid-November. Still in India awaiting further indication from the consulate. Have had lawyers call DOS, have called the consulate a few times but the response is standard - awaiting feedback from Washington, no way to expedite.
Sucks...sorry you have to go through this too. Feel free to pm me if you like
2011 pictures nicki minaj booty
deepimpact
09-17 11:35 PM
do we know how much it is for this year?
For FY2010 it was ~ 10K and it was mentioned some time back on USCIS website that the spillover for FY2011 may be similar. But I guess we won't know until an official announcement is made.
For FY2010 it was ~ 10K and it was mentioned some time back on USCIS website that the spillover for FY2011 may be similar. But I guess we won't know until an official announcement is made.
more...
rsdang
11-20 10:53 AM
http://cli.gs/De4Z4u
BTW, what's scary about this memo..
Infact, I find it encouraging, that TSC is trying to facilitate the process one way or other, given their system deficiency.
Are we missing something?
I wish Nebraska did this too and for all forms not just I-140...
BTW, what's scary about this memo..
Infact, I find it encouraging, that TSC is trying to facilitate the process one way or other, given their system deficiency.
Are we missing something?
I wish Nebraska did this too and for all forms not just I-140...
Sunx_2004
10-10 12:36 PM
My application reached NSC on July 17th, No updates yet..:mad:
more...
ashwaghoshk
11-02 08:18 AM
Gori hai kalaiya.. tu lade muze hari hari chudiya...
2010 nicki minaj booty before and
fromnaija
10-05 11:00 AM
Yes, I noticed that and thought the same. I am submitting my application today. I have been trying it for the last 7 years with no luck. Who knows, this one could be the one when I hit the jackpot ! :cool:
Dream on. I have been trying it since inception but have never won. Well, that's why it's called a lottery.
Dream on. I have been trying it since inception but have never won. Well, that's why it's called a lottery.
more...
authrd
08-23 10:59 AM
bumping/hoping for replies
hair Nicki Minaj Booty Before And
Macaca
07-11 06:28 PM
the bay area.
- SFSU
- SJSU
Most F1's are not realizing that they will NOT get GC without legislative changes. They need to be educated, if it is possible, about this FACT. I know that I, and most of my friends, would have been UNeducatable.
- SFSU
- SJSU
Most F1's are not realizing that they will NOT get GC without legislative changes. They need to be educated, if it is possible, about this FACT. I know that I, and most of my friends, would have been UNeducatable.
more...
CantLeaveAmerica
04-16 02:09 PM
not a good place for IT...dallas or austin is better than houston...
I dont agree..IT is good in Houston too..depends on what ur skillset is though
I dont agree..IT is good in Houston too..depends on what ur skillset is though
hot nicki minaj booty before and
akhilmahajan
05-01 07:18 AM
Keeping the thread alive.........
more...
house images Nicki Minaj Before And
Sakthisagar
04-22 03:45 PM
Congratulations HBK, what a relief to hear the good news on your case, I am in the same situation and started collecting papers to apply on normal processing will update all of you how it goes. same Vermont ..I am applying.
Hope things will work out good. the disaappearence of H1B memo from USCIS policy website itself is a good sign, let them announce formally also that they have withdrawn that memo.
May GOD Bless all.
USCIS Policy Memo site link below see for yourself.
USCIS - Policy Memoranda (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=7dc68f236e16e010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=7dc68f236e16e010VgnVCM1000000ecd190a RCRD)
Hope things will work out good. the disaappearence of H1B memo from USCIS policy website itself is a good sign, let them announce formally also that they have withdrawn that memo.
May GOD Bless all.
USCIS Policy Memo site link below see for yourself.
USCIS - Policy Memoranda (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=7dc68f236e16e010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=7dc68f236e16e010VgnVCM1000000ecd190a RCRD)
tattoo ooty, nicki minaj before
uma001
07-24 05:07 PM
If they receive too many responses during advertizing period, they may not process your gc. That is all to it. At that time u might chill out and wait for a year or so and reply. If your skills are in demand, I do not see a reason to wait. It is always better to take a dive as early as possible. Good luck.
Absolutely correct. This is the experience I had in my case. My company is fortune 550 company. They received lot of responses when they posted ads. I could not beleive the repsonse I got from VP. And they do not want to file green card now. He simply said 'he found candidates' :(
Absolutely correct. This is the experience I had in my case. My company is fortune 550 company. They received lot of responses when they posted ads. I could not beleive the repsonse I got from VP. And they do not want to file green card now. He simply said 'he found candidates' :(
more...
pictures nicki minaj booty before and
Raksha
12-11 06:26 PM
Hi,
If married in India & want to take divorce in USA what is the procedure & will it be a valid divorce?
If married in India & want to take divorce in USA what is the procedure & will it be a valid divorce?
dresses hot nicki minaj booty before
go_gc_way
02-09 12:46 PM
franklin...good thread.
Just would like to request you and others who are responding to this thread...to take a look at the following thread.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2700
This is one of the action items , Pappu has requested to participate several times. Can I request you and others who are visiting this thread to take a look and action.
This is going to increase IV membership too.
Just would like to request you and others who are responding to this thread...to take a look at the following thread.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2700
This is one of the action items , Pappu has requested to participate several times. Can I request you and others who are visiting this thread to take a look and action.
This is going to increase IV membership too.
more...
makeup 2011 Nicki Minaj Before
kshitijnt
06-16 03:20 PM
If the I-94 is attached to the new approval notice, you need not go for stamping to home country. If it is not, I advise that you go to home country for getting a new stamp.
The above applies if you do not plan to travel outside USA.
If you plan to travel outside USA, you can get stamp in any nearest USA consulate. Again neighbouring country or home country offers best choice.
The above applies if you do not plan to travel outside USA.
If you plan to travel outside USA, you can get stamp in any nearest USA consulate. Again neighbouring country or home country offers best choice.
girlfriend Nicki Minaj amp; Her Booty
bigboy007
11-01 02:15 AM
Ok i think u got me misunderstood : Ok to alleviate : Address A - My current address
Address B -- My friends address.
B is in IL , A is in CT. Now all my credit card statements , USCIS all other except DMV drivers license are in A. Only DL is with B reason i moved recently and not sure how many days this is going to work and since moving car registration etc is expensive thing in CT and there is no certainity on how it works . Now i am changing back my DL and Car registration hence asked this Question , i am well aware of fall backs of USCIS hence changed within 10 days filed AR-11 and all pending petetions and USCIS started corresponding with this new address.
Address B -- My friends address.
B is in IL , A is in CT. Now all my credit card statements , USCIS all other except DMV drivers license are in A. Only DL is with B reason i moved recently and not sure how many days this is going to work and since moving car registration etc is expensive thing in CT and there is no certainity on how it works . Now i am changing back my DL and Car registration hence asked this Question , i am well aware of fall backs of USCIS hence changed within 10 days filed AR-11 and all pending petetions and USCIS started corresponding with this new address.
hairstyles girlfriend nicki minaj booty
anandrajesh
02-06 10:35 PM
How (when) do you decide that you will take EAD or stay on H1B? Can you change your mind or it is a one time decision?
Do you have to mantain status (pay checks) on EAD? I understand you need to mantain status on H1B?
Sorry I am a moron.
It is purely upto you to decide what do u want. If u r planning to stick with the same company that has your H1B, then no need to pursue EAD option. But if you are planning to get out of your current company and pursue different opportunity, then you can use ur EAD.
No matter what the status(H1B or EAD) you are in, you need to be employed in the same position or a similar position as in your Labor Certification. If your Labor Certification says you are a Programmer you cant be a Project Mgr in EAD. Till you get your GC, you are compulsorily married to your profession and title.
Do you have to mantain status (pay checks) on EAD? I understand you need to mantain status on H1B?
Sorry I am a moron.
It is purely upto you to decide what do u want. If u r planning to stick with the same company that has your H1B, then no need to pursue EAD option. But if you are planning to get out of your current company and pursue different opportunity, then you can use ur EAD.
No matter what the status(H1B or EAD) you are in, you need to be employed in the same position or a similar position as in your Labor Certification. If your Labor Certification says you are a Programmer you cant be a Project Mgr in EAD. Till you get your GC, you are compulsorily married to your profession and title.
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.
eeezzz
06-12 01:32 PM
Thanks for the link. That clarifies that the new package fee of $1010 encompasses the EAD/AP renewal for the life of 485. If one had used the old fee structure then the new fee for I 765 (EAD) - $ 340 and I 131 Advance Parole - $ 305.
I would think that if you pay $645 (EAD and AP) for the renewal that would also be good for the life of the 485, though the link doesn't explicitly state that. Does anyone have any more info on that?
Thanks.
Can someone confirm that if you file I-485 with old fee system and pay for the new fee when you renew EAD and AP, do you still need to pay again on your 2nd time renewal ?
I would think that if you pay $645 (EAD and AP) for the renewal that would also be good for the life of the 485, though the link doesn't explicitly state that. Does anyone have any more info on that?
Thanks.
Can someone confirm that if you file I-485 with old fee system and pay for the new fee when you renew EAD and AP, do you still need to pay again on your 2nd time renewal ?
No comments:
Post a Comment