go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
wallpaper Pic of the Week: Lotus Elise
Lasantha
07-31 07:28 AM
For evaluations try Sheila Danzig at http://www.thedegreepeople.com/
From personal experience I know she is well qulaified for this kind of evaluations. She gives you a very comprehensive evaluation. I can honestly say that I have my GC now because of her. I have been recommending her ever since.
Hello,
I just received RFE for I-140.
I-140 Details:
I have applied I-140 under EB2 India.
I have BS(3 years) with computer science & MCA(MS 3 years) in computer science. So total 6 years of education in computer science(3 yrs BS + 3 yrs MS).
Also I have 1.5 years(18 months) of experience after completing my MS. I have submitted my experience letter at the time of filling labor But USCIS didn't ask anything regarding experience.
In labor(PERM) we mentioned Masters required
& Major field of study is Computers.
Do I qualify for EB2?? Plz let me know.
RFE details:
1) Degree evaluation(what's the procedure?)
&
2) They want most recent W2 for 2007.
In 2007(W2) I got paid $59K(gross) & in LCA(H1B) prevailing wage mentioned is $55k.
In labor(PERM) prevailing wage mentioned is $63K & offered wage mentioned is $65K.
Difference between W2 & Prevailing wage in labor(PERM) is $4000($63K - $59K).
Difference between W2 & Offered wage in labor(PERM) is $6000($65K - $59K).
Is this a serious problem???
My labor already got approved.
My company is financially very good.
Now which wage USCIS consider or match with W2??
I will really appreciate your response.
Thanks.
From personal experience I know she is well qulaified for this kind of evaluations. She gives you a very comprehensive evaluation. I can honestly say that I have my GC now because of her. I have been recommending her ever since.
Hello,
I just received RFE for I-140.
I-140 Details:
I have applied I-140 under EB2 India.
I have BS(3 years) with computer science & MCA(MS 3 years) in computer science. So total 6 years of education in computer science(3 yrs BS + 3 yrs MS).
Also I have 1.5 years(18 months) of experience after completing my MS. I have submitted my experience letter at the time of filling labor But USCIS didn't ask anything regarding experience.
In labor(PERM) we mentioned Masters required
& Major field of study is Computers.
Do I qualify for EB2?? Plz let me know.
RFE details:
1) Degree evaluation(what's the procedure?)
&
2) They want most recent W2 for 2007.
In 2007(W2) I got paid $59K(gross) & in LCA(H1B) prevailing wage mentioned is $55k.
In labor(PERM) prevailing wage mentioned is $63K & offered wage mentioned is $65K.
Difference between W2 & Prevailing wage in labor(PERM) is $4000($63K - $59K).
Difference between W2 & Offered wage in labor(PERM) is $6000($65K - $59K).
Is this a serious problem???
My labor already got approved.
My company is financially very good.
Now which wage USCIS consider or match with W2??
I will really appreciate your response.
Thanks.
tabletpc
05-28 02:31 PM
Thanks guys...some kind of relief ...!!!!
2011 Lotus Car Wallpaper.
sukhyani
01-03 11:16 AM
Guys,
I am seeing in CRIS, Soft LUD's on old H1B extentions dated 12/30/07 (2006,2007) while none recent one on 140/485!
Any ideas to help me understand. My 140/485 were filed in July 2007 concurrently. FP/EAD/AP were done.
Gurus can you please throw some more light on the following email that I have received from USCIS? I was wondering what the standard processing should mean at this stage?
Application Type: I485 , APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS Current Status: This case is now pending at the office to which it was transferred. The I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS was transferred and is now pending standard processing at a USCIS office. You will be notified by mail when a decision is made, or if the office needs something from you. If you move while this case is pending, please use our Change of Address online tool to update your case with your new address. We process cases in the order we receive them. You can use our processing dates to estimate when this case will be done, counting from when USCIS received it. Follow the link below to check processing dates. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case.
My PD is 09/04 ROW, I485 was filed on June 05th 07.
I am seeing in CRIS, Soft LUD's on old H1B extentions dated 12/30/07 (2006,2007) while none recent one on 140/485!
Any ideas to help me understand. My 140/485 were filed in July 2007 concurrently. FP/EAD/AP were done.
Gurus can you please throw some more light on the following email that I have received from USCIS? I was wondering what the standard processing should mean at this stage?
Application Type: I485 , APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS Current Status: This case is now pending at the office to which it was transferred. The I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS was transferred and is now pending standard processing at a USCIS office. You will be notified by mail when a decision is made, or if the office needs something from you. If you move while this case is pending, please use our Change of Address online tool to update your case with your new address. We process cases in the order we receive them. You can use our processing dates to estimate when this case will be done, counting from when USCIS received it. Follow the link below to check processing dates. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case.
My PD is 09/04 ROW, I485 was filed on June 05th 07.
more...
villamonte6100
11-02 08:50 AM
cjain...
Everybody has a right to express their opinions...immuser has the freedom to share information..I have the freedom to express my opinion....Hope you learn something from posts from alterego..He shared a different view which was very informative....I admit I had'nt thought about it that way...showed me a different perspective...
I guess it's time you grow up....by making sarcastic comments you help no one....If you have nothing to say....there is no rule in the forumn that you have to.....Ever tried keeping your mouth Shut...
Its better to keep your mouth Shut and let others think you are a fool, rather than opening your mouth and confirming all doubts ...
I totally agree with your earlier comment. This is an immigration forum for people like us in the US. If we can just post anything here, then I'd like to post my problems with my neighbor as well.
Once again, Good on you mate!!!!
Everybody has a right to express their opinions...immuser has the freedom to share information..I have the freedom to express my opinion....Hope you learn something from posts from alterego..He shared a different view which was very informative....I admit I had'nt thought about it that way...showed me a different perspective...
I guess it's time you grow up....by making sarcastic comments you help no one....If you have nothing to say....there is no rule in the forumn that you have to.....Ever tried keeping your mouth Shut...
Its better to keep your mouth Shut and let others think you are a fool, rather than opening your mouth and confirming all doubts ...
I totally agree with your earlier comment. This is an immigration forum for people like us in the US. If we can just post anything here, then I'd like to post my problems with my neighbor as well.
Once again, Good on you mate!!!!
singhsa3
04-30 05:11 PM
All,
I am planning to write a letter to USCIS and DOS , suggesting the visa cut off dates for India. Kindly help me develop a model. I will send this letter over the weekend and also post over here.
So far I have the following rational (Of course , I will word them properly).
I have grouped applicants in the following groups
BEC, PERM ROW and PERM Non Row Countries. I then will estimate the visa usage by each categories using sources like FLCdata and DHS publications. Along the way I will make some assumption but the results should be realistic.
Facts
1. Per DOL , As of April'06 50K BEC labors were certified. Certification rates were 50% of labor processed (certified, denied or withdrawn).
Per DOL, as of Sep'07 362,000 BEC labor were processed (certified, denied or withdrawn).
2. Per DHS, total EB (2, 3, 4 and 5 only) visas issued in FY’07 were 135,479 and FY’06 was 122,121.
3. FLC data center indicates that between March’05 and Oct’05, ~6000 PERM applications were filled and certified.
4. Per FLC data, 46,340 ROW PERM applications were certified in FY’06 and 47,251 ROW applications were certified in FY’07.
Assumptions
1. Each labor application uses in 2.2 visas.
2. Based on Fact 1 and Fact 2, let us assumed that in total 180,000 BEC labors were certified between March'05 and Sep'07 by BEC.
3. Total BEC visas requirements 180,000*2.2= 396,000
4. NIW applications are negligible.
5. Retrogressed countries account for 50% of visas used.
Calculations
Scenario 1: Visa processing time is Zero
1. BEC visas used in Fy'06 : = 122,121- (46,340)x 2.2 = 20173
2. BEC visas issued in FY'07 : 135,459-(47,251+6000)x2.2=18,306
3. BEC visas remaining as on 10/01/08= 396,000-20,173-18,306= 357,521
Scenario 2: Visa processing time is one year. Note: it affects only the applications certified within the preceding year.
1. BEC visas used in Fy'06 : = 122,121- (46,340)x 2.2 = 20,173
2. BEC visas issued in FY'07 : 135,459-(6000)x2.2=122,259
3. BEC visas (And NOT labor) remaining as on 10/01/08 = 396,000-122,259= 273,741.
What it means:
BEC contained labors from both retrogressed and non-retrogressed countries. Thus, in FY’08 and FY’09 visa consumptions will be attributed to BEC mainly. Once this backlog is cleared, the normal consumption (Supply = Demand) should resume. But it will also mean that there will always be 2-3 years wait.
Conclusion:
Suggested Cut-off dates for India as on 10/01/2008: ??? TBD.
Last update:
Time 11.32 AM ET , 05/01/08.
I am planning to write a letter to USCIS and DOS , suggesting the visa cut off dates for India. Kindly help me develop a model. I will send this letter over the weekend and also post over here.
So far I have the following rational (Of course , I will word them properly).
I have grouped applicants in the following groups
BEC, PERM ROW and PERM Non Row Countries. I then will estimate the visa usage by each categories using sources like FLCdata and DHS publications. Along the way I will make some assumption but the results should be realistic.
Facts
1. Per DOL , As of April'06 50K BEC labors were certified. Certification rates were 50% of labor processed (certified, denied or withdrawn).
Per DOL, as of Sep'07 362,000 BEC labor were processed (certified, denied or withdrawn).
2. Per DHS, total EB (2, 3, 4 and 5 only) visas issued in FY’07 were 135,479 and FY’06 was 122,121.
3. FLC data center indicates that between March’05 and Oct’05, ~6000 PERM applications were filled and certified.
4. Per FLC data, 46,340 ROW PERM applications were certified in FY’06 and 47,251 ROW applications were certified in FY’07.
Assumptions
1. Each labor application uses in 2.2 visas.
2. Based on Fact 1 and Fact 2, let us assumed that in total 180,000 BEC labors were certified between March'05 and Sep'07 by BEC.
3. Total BEC visas requirements 180,000*2.2= 396,000
4. NIW applications are negligible.
5. Retrogressed countries account for 50% of visas used.
Calculations
Scenario 1: Visa processing time is Zero
1. BEC visas used in Fy'06 : = 122,121- (46,340)x 2.2 = 20173
2. BEC visas issued in FY'07 : 135,459-(47,251+6000)x2.2=18,306
3. BEC visas remaining as on 10/01/08= 396,000-20,173-18,306= 357,521
Scenario 2: Visa processing time is one year. Note: it affects only the applications certified within the preceding year.
1. BEC visas used in Fy'06 : = 122,121- (46,340)x 2.2 = 20,173
2. BEC visas issued in FY'07 : 135,459-(6000)x2.2=122,259
3. BEC visas (And NOT labor) remaining as on 10/01/08 = 396,000-122,259= 273,741.
What it means:
BEC contained labors from both retrogressed and non-retrogressed countries. Thus, in FY’08 and FY’09 visa consumptions will be attributed to BEC mainly. Once this backlog is cleared, the normal consumption (Supply = Demand) should resume. But it will also mean that there will always be 2-3 years wait.
Conclusion:
Suggested Cut-off dates for India as on 10/01/2008: ??? TBD.
Last update:
Time 11.32 AM ET , 05/01/08.
more...
Waitingnvain
02-08 10:01 AM
I will be in transit through Amsterdam, do I need a transit visa and are there any problems with travelling on Advance Parole.
Thanks
Thanks
2010 Lotus Elise photo at Mellwood
GKBest
10-13 09:41 PM
All 3 - checks cashed on Oct 11. I got the reciept no.s on the back of the checks. When can I expect to recieve the notices? I am planning travel by the end of this month. Is that OK to travel with just the reciept no's or do I need to have the reciept notices with me. Also I have a valid H1 visa till 2009. Advice greatly appreciated.
Are you a July 2nd filer?
Are you a July 2nd filer?
more...
IfYouSeekAmy
01-13 07:48 AM
I like all the faces!!! :p
Ha Ha ;):D:o:):(:confused:
Stop this spreading without proof.
Ha Ha ;):D:o:):(:confused:
Stop this spreading without proof.
hair (Lotus Elise, S1, RHD,)
snathan
05-12 07:07 PM
Yes he can apply EB-2 and claim experience gained from the same company as long as the new job description is 50% different from the current job position.
I don't have MS, my promotion job requirement was BS+7 Years out of which I claimed 2 years from the same company. Attorney had to prepare a document that shows the difference between the future job and the current. I had my labor approved without issues.
Normally you wouldnt have any issues during labor process. The EB2-Eb3 is more scrutinized only during the I-140 approval.
I don't have MS, my promotion job requirement was BS+7 Years out of which I claimed 2 years from the same company. Attorney had to prepare a document that shows the difference between the future job and the current. I had my labor approved without issues.
Normally you wouldnt have any issues during labor process. The EB2-Eb3 is more scrutinized only during the I-140 approval.
more...
CCC
04-10 01:09 PM
I guess Berkeleybee was talking about me....I posted a few theories in another thread regarding PACE act.
I certainly understand the IV has done a lot and am very excited about what you have achieved. Not sure how you view it, but I think posting my view in the forum is also a form of support. It may not be as much as you wanted, but nevertheless it by no mean is saying what you did was wrong, it's just some thing I thought about and I thought it might be worth to bring up. But If this bothers you then I have no problem to shut up.
Not sure why IV chose to lock up live update threading to member only though. Growing number of members is definitely good, but I am not sure about forcing people to register to read. People participant when there is a passion in it, forcing they into it more or less drive the passion away.
Just my 2 cents.
I agree with you atlfp. I have been a member for a few weeks now but i have been reading the threads in IV for a long time. I have contributed 600$ along the way because i believe in what IV is trying to acheive. Not being a member did not stop me from contributing to IV and i signed up because i wanted to read the live updates. I don't think there is anything wrong with doing that either. I think posting suggestions/thoughts/ideas are excellent and atlfp you should not stop doing so.
To Berkeleybee, i have recently noticed that you always ask the people directly or indirectly whether they know more than you. While It may be true that you guys know more than us, because u spend hours upon hours making it your business to know, but that does not mean you would want to curb free speech. We are grateful to each and every IV core member for their extrodinary efforts, but do not admonish us because somebody wishes to express their ideas. Who knows if people propose 100 theories there might be 1 out there that even you guys have not thought about.
Personally if i were a member of the core team, i would not even bother to respond back to the threads where the so called theory holds no water. There are enough people in this forum to speculate for you :-).
Keep up the good work Core Team.. Adios
I certainly understand the IV has done a lot and am very excited about what you have achieved. Not sure how you view it, but I think posting my view in the forum is also a form of support. It may not be as much as you wanted, but nevertheless it by no mean is saying what you did was wrong, it's just some thing I thought about and I thought it might be worth to bring up. But If this bothers you then I have no problem to shut up.
Not sure why IV chose to lock up live update threading to member only though. Growing number of members is definitely good, but I am not sure about forcing people to register to read. People participant when there is a passion in it, forcing they into it more or less drive the passion away.
Just my 2 cents.
I agree with you atlfp. I have been a member for a few weeks now but i have been reading the threads in IV for a long time. I have contributed 600$ along the way because i believe in what IV is trying to acheive. Not being a member did not stop me from contributing to IV and i signed up because i wanted to read the live updates. I don't think there is anything wrong with doing that either. I think posting suggestions/thoughts/ideas are excellent and atlfp you should not stop doing so.
To Berkeleybee, i have recently noticed that you always ask the people directly or indirectly whether they know more than you. While It may be true that you guys know more than us, because u spend hours upon hours making it your business to know, but that does not mean you would want to curb free speech. We are grateful to each and every IV core member for their extrodinary efforts, but do not admonish us because somebody wishes to express their ideas. Who knows if people propose 100 theories there might be 1 out there that even you guys have not thought about.
Personally if i were a member of the core team, i would not even bother to respond back to the threads where the so called theory holds no water. There are enough people in this forum to speculate for you :-).
Keep up the good work Core Team.. Adios
hot Lotus Elise 2011 Wallpaper.
ss777
09-16 10:25 PM
I know a friend who faced exact situation you described here. His lawyer also answered the same way your lawyer replied. He is doing fine with the approved I-140 and the original I-485 (based on first I-140(eventually denied)). He was told USCIS automatically "consolidates the cases". His attorney did not send any request for consolidation or something like that. This happened about an year back and he successfully made an overseas trip and returned on AP. This makes me feel you are OK and your lawyer is correct.
more...
house Lotus Elise S1 - Public - Guest Photography - Lotus Elise - Prestige car
shree772000
08-21 05:41 PM
Usually lawyers refrain from setting these king of dates....I am talking abt resonablely fair ones.
I feel its ur stupid act to know what other people think...You should have asked instead of "Lawyer Says...".
Noone can say when ur perticular case will be adjudicated, and I mean Noone.
I feel its ur stupid act to know what other people think...You should have asked instead of "Lawyer Says...".
Noone can say when ur perticular case will be adjudicated, and I mean Noone.
tattoo lotus elise shop fuel
svgupta
06-15 03:40 PM
Yes.. Leave it blank.. Even my attorney said so...
more...
pictures Youtube Nurburgring Lotus Elise S1 Vs Ferrari F360 | Car Wallpaper
paskal
11-01 11:42 PM
1. there has been a recapture for nurses once already- 50,000 GC
therefore older PD's are likely to have a GC already, this lot is likely to be for newer applicants
2. last time USCIS did this in a way that did not benefit EB3. instead of starting with recapture numbers right away, they first exhausted the regular quota, so all nurses already coming up for GC got numbers from the annual quota, then they gave recapture numbers to people with more recent applications
of course, either way in the longer run it reduces the number of people in line. but it would be nice if everyone that is waiting could benefit, not just nurses. i'm not writing this to oppose nurses relief or anything, just a factual comment. i do wish they had found a different way- exempt nurses from the quota and allow recapture numbers to be used for everyone...
therefore older PD's are likely to have a GC already, this lot is likely to be for newer applicants
2. last time USCIS did this in a way that did not benefit EB3. instead of starting with recapture numbers right away, they first exhausted the regular quota, so all nurses already coming up for GC got numbers from the annual quota, then they gave recapture numbers to people with more recent applications
of course, either way in the longer run it reduces the number of people in line. but it would be nice if everyone that is waiting could benefit, not just nurses. i'm not writing this to oppose nurses relief or anything, just a factual comment. i do wish they had found a different way- exempt nurses from the quota and allow recapture numbers to be used for everyone...
dresses The Elise isn#39;t #39;striking#39;,
purplehazea
05-11 04:36 PM
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5398818
more...
makeup Lotus Car Wallpaper.
mpadapa
08-15 09:19 AM
singhsa3, Thanks for compiling this report. Could you tone down the statement in the below quote.. make it "You have to be in the same position with same job responsibilities for quite a few years....."
It would be nice if you could provide a link to the USCIS Ombudsman report because you are referring to it a lot. This make the report more authentic for the reader.
Employment Based (EB) Green Card (GC) Laws
� You have to be in the same position with same job responsibilities for an indefinite time period, otherwise your GC application will be rejected.
[/B]
It would be nice if you could provide a link to the USCIS Ombudsman report because you are referring to it a lot. This make the report more authentic for the reader.
Employment Based (EB) Green Card (GC) Laws
� You have to be in the same position with same job responsibilities for an indefinite time period, otherwise your GC application will be rejected.
[/B]
girlfriend Lotus Elise S1 | Flickr
ivjobs
11-06 05:11 PM
Some of the IV Members have great entrepreneurial spirit but could not proceed with their dreams of becoming their own boss because of the limitations in maintaining their status and starting a successful business. To address various problems being faced by the Members of IV community who dream to start their own companies, a yahoo group has been formed to help and exchange information/resources/experiences among each other.
Immigration Voice Entrepreneur group is a forum for like minded members of Immigration Voice who have basic interest in Entrepreneurship. The forum intends to help its members through exchange of knowledge and experience in their entrepreneurial endeavors. This is an open forum, please feel free to ask any questions related to start up, issues concerning Maintaining Immigration status and starting business, help in building your existing business, etc.
Please visit the below given yahoo group website to subscribe to forum.
visit Weblink : http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/ivstartup/
or send email to: ivstartup-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Administrators, please if possible make this a sticky so that members can join, actively participate on this thread.
Immigration Voice Entrepreneur group is a forum for like minded members of Immigration Voice who have basic interest in Entrepreneurship. The forum intends to help its members through exchange of knowledge and experience in their entrepreneurial endeavors. This is an open forum, please feel free to ask any questions related to start up, issues concerning Maintaining Immigration status and starting business, help in building your existing business, etc.
Please visit the below given yahoo group website to subscribe to forum.
visit Weblink : http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/ivstartup/
or send email to: ivstartup-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Administrators, please if possible make this a sticky so that members can join, actively participate on this thread.
hairstyles Lotus Elise Desktop Wallpaper
mnq1979
05-21 12:36 PM
well i have not used AC21, jsut changed the employer, so you mean to say i have to send the letter from the employer who originally sponsered me? right?
Anysia
02-26 11:22 PM
To Texcan...the idea of looking for another state taht will accept BSPT is a good idea. Ill explore that solution. I appreciate that.
I have already talked to a lawyer and a lot of possibilities are presented.
1. File an appeal
2. Go back to old employer...hope they'll take me back
3. HAve me work under previous employer as contract to stay with my denied petitioner.
I dont just hang around here..it pays to be informed. A thousand head is better than one. Lawyers dont know evrything...nobody knows everything. As a client, I have to know as much as I can so I can ask the right question. I plan to hire this expensive lawyer that is notably very good...hope he can find other ways. Ive been researching and reading from other sites not just this forum believe me!
I am currently licensed in Illinois. I appreciate those who take time to reply and present ideas/solutions---which means more avenues to explore leading to more ways to solve a problem. Thank you very much!
I have already talked to a lawyer and a lot of possibilities are presented.
1. File an appeal
2. Go back to old employer...hope they'll take me back
3. HAve me work under previous employer as contract to stay with my denied petitioner.
I dont just hang around here..it pays to be informed. A thousand head is better than one. Lawyers dont know evrything...nobody knows everything. As a client, I have to know as much as I can so I can ask the right question. I plan to hire this expensive lawyer that is notably very good...hope he can find other ways. Ive been researching and reading from other sites not just this forum believe me!
I am currently licensed in Illinois. I appreciate those who take time to reply and present ideas/solutions---which means more avenues to explore leading to more ways to solve a problem. Thank you very much!
pappu
07-26 10:34 AM
added to this is also another question that may benefit few people in this situation. If labor is approved by the previous employer , how long will that stay valid. I mean people on 6+ year extensions may need ex employer's labor certificate in order to get one year extension so that they can reaplly with new employer.
Is there a time limit on labor to become void if within a certain time I140 is not filed?
sky7, you shoudl post your question and this question during the call with the lawyer. I am sure a lot of people are in a similar situation as you and such answers with benefit everyone.
Is there a time limit on labor to become void if within a certain time I140 is not filed?
sky7, you shoudl post your question and this question during the call with the lawyer. I am sure a lot of people are in a similar situation as you and such answers with benefit everyone.
