Krilnon
01-21 11:31 PM
Feel free to steal any of the tedious collection work that I've done, like the JS/AS array associating the filename, author, and title.
Here is a ZIP archive with the SWFs that I harvested: http://reclipse.net/kirupa/fxpression09/fxpression_entries.zip
Here is a ZIP archive with the SWFs that I harvested: http://reclipse.net/kirupa/fxpression09/fxpression_entries.zip
genscn
01-29 11:58 AM
Although website mention 15 days for the PIO card, how long does it actually takes to process and receive PIO card?
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.
GreenCord
07-17 02:19 AM
Hello freinds :
I would appreciate if anyone can guide me through the situation I am in. I have been working for a company for past 4yrs. After the July bulletin was released on June 15, my employer has stopped responding to my emails, voicemails and registered mails by normal post. When I try to reach him on the telephone his voicemail message says that he is travelling and not to leave any voicemail messages but to email him and he will respond when he gets a chance. When I email him I get an out of office response. There are two other people working in the same company. I sent emails to these people and also left voicemail messages but they are also not responding.
This has put me in a very difficult situation as I dont know what is the status of my H1B application which expired recently. They were supposed to extend it. They are also not telling me the status of I140 application. My labor PD is June 2004. I would like to file the I485 application if USCIS reverses their decision.
Has anyone been throught the same or similar situation ?
This is my third employer and third GC attempt in the 11yrs I have been in this country.
I would appreciate if anyone can guide me through the situation I am in. I have been working for a company for past 4yrs. After the July bulletin was released on June 15, my employer has stopped responding to my emails, voicemails and registered mails by normal post. When I try to reach him on the telephone his voicemail message says that he is travelling and not to leave any voicemail messages but to email him and he will respond when he gets a chance. When I email him I get an out of office response. There are two other people working in the same company. I sent emails to these people and also left voicemail messages but they are also not responding.
This has put me in a very difficult situation as I dont know what is the status of my H1B application which expired recently. They were supposed to extend it. They are also not telling me the status of I140 application. My labor PD is June 2004. I would like to file the I485 application if USCIS reverses their decision.
Has anyone been throught the same or similar situation ?
This is my third employer and third GC attempt in the 11yrs I have been in this country.
more...
atlfp
04-08 03:17 PM
The raw majority definitely counts. The reson S.1932 failed was because it was an extremely republican bill -- it went through without a single democrat vote. A small fraction of republican was able to black mail the visa numbers stuff because of republican can not afford to lose any single republican vote. They needed all of them to get it trhough. In another words, those anti-immigration guys did not build a coalition against legal immigration, as they still can not today, they simply black mailed it.
The situation for PACE act is definitely different. PACE enjoys broad support from both side. It will be very difficult for any of those anti-immigration guy to play the same kind of trick again. It simply won't work.
Your belief in raw majority votes in the conference is touching. ;-) But all it takes is one person -- one Sensenbrenner, or equivalent to build a coalition within the conference, and one house leader to pick and choose the members of the conference.
To reiterate -- 20% of the house is in the House (Anti) Immigration Caucus. The house bill was voted in by a clear majority. Chew on that.
The situation for PACE act is definitely different. PACE enjoys broad support from both side. It will be very difficult for any of those anti-immigration guy to play the same kind of trick again. It simply won't work.
Your belief in raw majority votes in the conference is touching. ;-) But all it takes is one person -- one Sensenbrenner, or equivalent to build a coalition within the conference, and one house leader to pick and choose the members of the conference.
To reiterate -- 20% of the house is in the House (Anti) Immigration Caucus. The house bill was voted in by a clear majority. Chew on that.
dealsnet
08-19 01:01 PM
Here almost 70% of EB2 India people are going to get their GC in couple of months. So the traffic for IV going to be down by about 50%. So to keep the people in focus and in loop and keep the network of immigrant community even after GC and help their onward journey. They might need info about certification, tests, health, financial advise etc.
I am now interested to go for PE license in NY state. Without GC, I am not able to appear before.
I am now interested to go for PE license in NY state. Without GC, I am not able to appear before.
more...
ramus
06-07 01:10 PM
Please contribute to IV..
Thanks.
I am surprised with this thread. There is no Deadline for employemnt based GC (this was mentioned by Sen. Robert (Bob) Men�ndez,NJ when requesting to move the FB deadline which is clearly mentioned in the bill as May 01, 2005) . Please read the summary and text carefully.
Summary:
First five years
Total number of merit-based green cards includes sum of:
a.) First five fiscal years have same number of green cards as made available to EB category in 2005. This number is 246,878.
b.) Any visa number not used by family based category.
How the total number will be divided between Current system and new merit-based system and Y visa holders --
- 10,000 (or more) reserved for exceptional aliens under �Y� visa category.
- 90,000 (exactly 90,000 � not more not less) for backlogged (pending or approved I-140 applications). Currently, this number is 140,000.
- Remaining possibly goes to new merits system. Until the merits system is ready for accepting petitions, the Y visa holders probably get a shot at this since the clause says �No more than 10,000� � leaving room to let it go up from 10,000 to whatever is left.
and the TEXT of the Bill
�(A) for the first five fiscal years shall be equal to the
33 number of immigrant visas made available to aliens
34 seeking immigrant visas under section 203(b) of this
35 Act for fiscal year 2005, plus any immigrant visas
36 not required for the class specified in (c), of which:
37 (i) at least 10,000 will be for exceptional aliens
38 in nonimmigrant status under section
39 101(a)(15)(Y); and
40 (ii) 90,000 will be for aliens who were the
41 beneficiaries of an application that was pending
42 or approved at the time of the effective date of
43 this section, per Section 502(d) of the [Insert
44 title of Act] ( Act not the bill)
(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.�The amendments made by this section shall take
11 effect on the first day of the fiscal year subsequent to the fiscal year of
12 enactment.
So a bill becomes law only after signed by the president, and the effective date could be Oct 01, 2007 if not Oct 01, 2008.
So all the I-140 filed on of before Effective date are considered as pending!!
I don't know why even lawyers are getting confused here!:confused:
Thanks.
I am surprised with this thread. There is no Deadline for employemnt based GC (this was mentioned by Sen. Robert (Bob) Men�ndez,NJ when requesting to move the FB deadline which is clearly mentioned in the bill as May 01, 2005) . Please read the summary and text carefully.
Summary:
First five years
Total number of merit-based green cards includes sum of:
a.) First five fiscal years have same number of green cards as made available to EB category in 2005. This number is 246,878.
b.) Any visa number not used by family based category.
How the total number will be divided between Current system and new merit-based system and Y visa holders --
- 10,000 (or more) reserved for exceptional aliens under �Y� visa category.
- 90,000 (exactly 90,000 � not more not less) for backlogged (pending or approved I-140 applications). Currently, this number is 140,000.
- Remaining possibly goes to new merits system. Until the merits system is ready for accepting petitions, the Y visa holders probably get a shot at this since the clause says �No more than 10,000� � leaving room to let it go up from 10,000 to whatever is left.
and the TEXT of the Bill
�(A) for the first five fiscal years shall be equal to the
33 number of immigrant visas made available to aliens
34 seeking immigrant visas under section 203(b) of this
35 Act for fiscal year 2005, plus any immigrant visas
36 not required for the class specified in (c), of which:
37 (i) at least 10,000 will be for exceptional aliens
38 in nonimmigrant status under section
39 101(a)(15)(Y); and
40 (ii) 90,000 will be for aliens who were the
41 beneficiaries of an application that was pending
42 or approved at the time of the effective date of
43 this section, per Section 502(d) of the [Insert
44 title of Act] ( Act not the bill)
(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.�The amendments made by this section shall take
11 effect on the first day of the fiscal year subsequent to the fiscal year of
12 enactment.
So a bill becomes law only after signed by the president, and the effective date could be Oct 01, 2007 if not Oct 01, 2008.
So all the I-140 filed on of before Effective date are considered as pending!!
I don't know why even lawyers are getting confused here!:confused:
lostinbeta
10-15 07:31 PM
In Blue's Clues, the dog clue is a blue paw print, so I am assuming that was what was meant.
I don't recall seeing a paw print shape in PS7, I will scope that out later tonight.
I don't recall seeing a paw print shape in PS7, I will scope that out later tonight.
more...
GCNirvana007
10-08 05:20 PM
GCNirvana007 - Who filed you PERM? Who provided you with approved I-140? Who filed ur GC? ....company A.............right.............so u have to work for company A and yes u r obligated legally from USCIS perspective to work with them. Don't tell me u don't know this. Going thru GC process, one almost becomes an immigration lawyer so you should know this if u don't already.
Recent H1-B company B has nothing to do with GC.
Bottomline - Why did u file GC in EB category? ANSWER - To work for that employer A.
Now u r saying something about company C running ur payroll.
Mr.Smuggy - Easy buddy. Relax.
I am not as bright as you. I am trying to understand how it works. Since you know it all, what if Company A cant get me a job after i got GC and Company C is ?
Recent H1-B company B has nothing to do with GC.
Bottomline - Why did u file GC in EB category? ANSWER - To work for that employer A.
Now u r saying something about company C running ur payroll.
Mr.Smuggy - Easy buddy. Relax.
I am not as bright as you. I am trying to understand how it works. Since you know it all, what if Company A cant get me a job after i got GC and Company C is ?
polapragada
09-04 12:36 AM
Jeez! This is a really deplorable situation. USCIS has all the information and they are asking AILA for help? Why not just ask the guys who have their AOS cases pending? It's so unfortunate that this needs to be done.
You are right
You are right
more...
vjkypally
06-02 01:14 PM
It was just for me, primary applicant. They asked for my status from 1999 to 2004 including my I-20, 797's etc and also I-94 and EVLDid u receive rfe for both applications are just the prime application (assuming you).
mihird
09-26 04:29 PM
Ur missing the point.
The number after the letter, which stands for the classification category is pretty much irrelevant for the purpose of determining the maximum period of stay. You might notice that in many publications USCIS addresses visitors to the US as being in B, H or L status, omitting the #.
As long as your wife maintains her H4 status properly (providing you maintain your H1 status) and as long as she possess necessary travel documents she is free to enter and exit the country.
As far as I understand she will not have any legal problem obtaining an H1 visa after staying out of the country for a year, as long as the visa # is available, she has a job offer etc.
But I do not believe that her H status clock will reset if she leaves the country for a year, then enter in H4 status (which is still a derivative and tied to your principal H status clock). Therefore she will not be able to change her status to that of H1.
Again, it's a pretty complicated matter and you might want to consult an experienced lawyer.
Once you leave the US for 366 days, your H clock is reset. Now, you enter back on a H4, your H clock starts ticking down again..you should be able to do the H4->H1 change of status (once a H visa # is available) and exit and re-enter on a H1 visa and get new time on your H1 of [6 years - minus the time spent on H4]. Again, I am not an attorney, I am just saying this from what seems logical to me..
The number after the letter, which stands for the classification category is pretty much irrelevant for the purpose of determining the maximum period of stay. You might notice that in many publications USCIS addresses visitors to the US as being in B, H or L status, omitting the #.
As long as your wife maintains her H4 status properly (providing you maintain your H1 status) and as long as she possess necessary travel documents she is free to enter and exit the country.
As far as I understand she will not have any legal problem obtaining an H1 visa after staying out of the country for a year, as long as the visa # is available, she has a job offer etc.
But I do not believe that her H status clock will reset if she leaves the country for a year, then enter in H4 status (which is still a derivative and tied to your principal H status clock). Therefore she will not be able to change her status to that of H1.
Again, it's a pretty complicated matter and you might want to consult an experienced lawyer.
Once you leave the US for 366 days, your H clock is reset. Now, you enter back on a H4, your H clock starts ticking down again..you should be able to do the H4->H1 change of status (once a H visa # is available) and exit and re-enter on a H1 visa and get new time on your H1 of [6 years - minus the time spent on H4]. Again, I am not an attorney, I am just saying this from what seems logical to me..
more...
AjP
July 28th, 2005, 03:46 AM
David, great job!!! still a little dark to me, but it is all might me about monitor calibrations differences, I like all the images posted so far!!
we need to do similar thinng more once in a while, this way we could share our technics and ideas in diferent photography styles
we need to do similar thinng more once in a while, this way we could share our technics and ideas in diferent photography styles
mmanurker
12-10 02:30 PM
The dot system if used properly is a good system as other community members can privately control the reputation of each other. Community can also identify posters who are mischief makers by giving them reds and identifying them publicly. This reduces the need for moderators significantly as moderators cannot read every post and every thread everyday. Pls suggest better ways in which we should handle reputation system.
Yes, I agree that dot system if used properly is a good system. I dont mind people giving me red dots but what really bothers me is when people leave nasty comments and use foul language. So is it possible to show/expose user id along with the comments when ever someone uses foul language and leaves a nasty comment? This will make sure that people who use foul language will restrain from leaving such comments for the fear of getting their Id's exposed and the privacy is also maintained for those who use appropriate language.
OR
Show the Id's of all the people irrespective of red/green dots.
If this requires too much of time and work for IV admins then pls ignore this and we can think of alternate solutions.
Yes, I agree that dot system if used properly is a good system. I dont mind people giving me red dots but what really bothers me is when people leave nasty comments and use foul language. So is it possible to show/expose user id along with the comments when ever someone uses foul language and leaves a nasty comment? This will make sure that people who use foul language will restrain from leaving such comments for the fear of getting their Id's exposed and the privacy is also maintained for those who use appropriate language.
OR
Show the Id's of all the people irrespective of red/green dots.
If this requires too much of time and work for IV admins then pls ignore this and we can think of alternate solutions.
more...
smartimss
10-23 10:10 AM
Spouse application (secondary 485) is approved and received card in 2 months back but mine (primary application) is still pending? Is one in same boat? Please advice?
India EB3; PD: Feb 2002
Service Center: NSC
Receipt Date: 06/06/2007.
Notice Date: 06/15/2007.
India EB3; PD: Feb 2002
Service Center: NSC
Receipt Date: 06/06/2007.
Notice Date: 06/15/2007.
GCMan007
06-09 01:20 PM
That's encouraging, thanks for the info
What is the InfoPass # to call. I'm in the same boat. PD: Dec 2003 EB2
What is the InfoPass # to call. I'm in the same boat. PD: Dec 2003 EB2
more...
akunamatata
04-02 10:04 PM
Usually the RFE states that if the requested information is not received by XX/XX/XXX date, USCICS will make a determination based on the information they have.
SunnySurya
08-21 02:47 PM
No problems, I looking for an airconditioned office to work at..
I once explored the Indian job market. The sun is really hot!!! Beware of the Surya. :)
I once explored the Indian job market. The sun is really hot!!! Beware of the Surya. :)
Prashanthi
09-04 01:34 PM
HI All,
I currently have 797 approval document from Nov 2009 to Nov 2012 and My current 797 document is valid till Nov 2009.When i was coming back from india last week at POE the immigration officer gave me I 94 dated till Nov 2009.I said to him that as i have 797 till Nov 2012 i should get I 94 till that date.But he insisted saying as the current document is still valid he can only go with that.He cant give me I 94 date on my future 797 starting from Nov 2009.I kept asking him for about 5 min but again dint wanted argue a lot as it was border security immigration.
So what should i do now.Can i stay here after Nov 2009 or i need to go to stamping and come back before Nov 2009.What are my options.I don't have any travel plans at least a year from now.Do let me know is it mandatory for me to leave before Nov 2009.Also my New 797 as I 94 attached do you guys think if it is sufficient for me to stay here without any problems.
The officer can only look at the current I-797, cannot give an i-94 as per the future I-797. The other posters were correct last action rule does apply, however in my interpretation of the last action rule since your I-797 is not effective until November 2009 and your entry was before that, your last action in this case will be the latest I-797 and it will therefore be valid. In my opinion the Officer was correct in informing you that their is no problem for you to use your latest I-797 once the old one expires. Make sure you don't have a gap in the dates between the expiry of the old I-797 and start date of the new one.
I currently have 797 approval document from Nov 2009 to Nov 2012 and My current 797 document is valid till Nov 2009.When i was coming back from india last week at POE the immigration officer gave me I 94 dated till Nov 2009.I said to him that as i have 797 till Nov 2012 i should get I 94 till that date.But he insisted saying as the current document is still valid he can only go with that.He cant give me I 94 date on my future 797 starting from Nov 2009.I kept asking him for about 5 min but again dint wanted argue a lot as it was border security immigration.
So what should i do now.Can i stay here after Nov 2009 or i need to go to stamping and come back before Nov 2009.What are my options.I don't have any travel plans at least a year from now.Do let me know is it mandatory for me to leave before Nov 2009.Also my New 797 as I 94 attached do you guys think if it is sufficient for me to stay here without any problems.
The officer can only look at the current I-797, cannot give an i-94 as per the future I-797. The other posters were correct last action rule does apply, however in my interpretation of the last action rule since your I-797 is not effective until November 2009 and your entry was before that, your last action in this case will be the latest I-797 and it will therefore be valid. In my opinion the Officer was correct in informing you that their is no problem for you to use your latest I-797 once the old one expires. Make sure you don't have a gap in the dates between the expiry of the old I-797 and start date of the new one.
dcrtrv27
11-13 02:56 PM
Is tehre is any way for PREMIUM PROCESSING for I485 pending case?
In my case PD is current since years the I140 is approved. Backbround check etc is over. Confirmed by various sources that my case JUST needs to be picked up by IO.
I have somebusiness trips coming up. My employer want me to find out the way to get the GC faster that way there wont be any hassle for every year renewal od AP and also EADs. and then appplying VISAs which will expire along with teh AP last date.
Along with me my employer is also fed up now:p.
Our lawyer being stupid; the employer wants me to find out the way to expedite I485. Since it is in last stages I think theer could be quicker way.
I know there is the way WOM but is there any other way?:rolleyes:
In my case PD is current since years the I140 is approved. Backbround check etc is over. Confirmed by various sources that my case JUST needs to be picked up by IO.
I have somebusiness trips coming up. My employer want me to find out the way to get the GC faster that way there wont be any hassle for every year renewal od AP and also EADs. and then appplying VISAs which will expire along with teh AP last date.
Along with me my employer is also fed up now:p.
Our lawyer being stupid; the employer wants me to find out the way to expedite I485. Since it is in last stages I think theer could be quicker way.
I know there is the way WOM but is there any other way?:rolleyes:
gconmymind
05-29 11:17 PM
ramus, really appreciate your dedication in taking ownership of geeting people to send webfax. For the record sent the webfax, got my wife to send the web fax as well. Since people are so lazy if you ask somebody to send webfax, also include the url alteast that way they might click on the url and send the web fax. the url for the web fax is
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_iv_webfax&task=getContactDetails&Itemid=46
People for your own sake please follow all action alerts, web fax, calling senators emails etc. This is now or never
Error while sending fax....
Immigration Voice Web Fax
Message was not sent
Mailer Error: Language string failed to load: recipients_failedivoice-config@interpage.net
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_iv_webfax&task=getContactDetails&Itemid=46
People for your own sake please follow all action alerts, web fax, calling senators emails etc. This is now or never
Error while sending fax....
Immigration Voice Web Fax
Message was not sent
Mailer Error: Language string failed to load: recipients_failedivoice-config@interpage.net
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar