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
wallpaper Amazing Olympic Wallpapers
lee.cook
May 26th, 2007, 08:39 AM
Hello,
I was thinking off purchasing a Rocket Blower from Jessops and also a small brush.
http://jessops.com/Store/s32860/0/Cleaning--and--Maintenance/Jessops/Rocket-Blower/details.aspx?&IsSearch=y&pageindex=1&comp=n
http://jessops.com/Store/s7812/0/Cleaning--and--Maintenance/Jessops/Blower-Brush-(Small)/details.aspx?&comp=n (http://jessops.com/Store/s7812/0/Cleaning--and--Maintenance/Jessops/Blower-Brush-%28Small%29/details.aspx?&comp=n)
Is the Rocket blower similar to the Bulb?
Can anybody recommend these products, thank you.
I was thinking off purchasing a Rocket Blower from Jessops and also a small brush.
http://jessops.com/Store/s32860/0/Cleaning--and--Maintenance/Jessops/Rocket-Blower/details.aspx?&IsSearch=y&pageindex=1&comp=n
http://jessops.com/Store/s7812/0/Cleaning--and--Maintenance/Jessops/Blower-Brush-(Small)/details.aspx?&comp=n (http://jessops.com/Store/s7812/0/Cleaning--and--Maintenance/Jessops/Blower-Brush-%28Small%29/details.aspx?&comp=n)
Is the Rocket blower similar to the Bulb?
Can anybody recommend these products, thank you.
nixstor
09-17 02:09 PM
Paskal,
That was one thing I was gonna say. I wanted to see how members would react. I am glad you brought it up though. As of now it says IV - Home. We dont need any procedures other than an update on our content.
That was one thing I was gonna say. I wanted to see how members would react. I am glad you brought it up though. As of now it says IV - Home. We dont need any procedures other than an update on our content.
2011 Torch olympics 2010 wallpaper
godbless
04-16 11:41 AM
Bump.
more...
joydiptac
06-01 04:53 PM
Just provide the information that they have asked for. They are about to make a decision on your case. i.e. Whether to preadjudicate or not.
So that when the numbers are available yours will be ready to send the card. :)
So that when the numbers are available yours will be ready to send the card. :)
akhilmahajan
04-30 10:44 AM
see we got some hope..........
thanks a lot for the update...........
thanks a lot for the update...........
more...
mikkisu
07-20 12:39 PM
:-)
2010 Winter Olympic Wallpaper
amitjoey
06-18 01:53 PM
Please post your contributions on the funding drive.
more...
Munna Bhai
11-09 09:21 AM
I am collecting all the documents and I will do premium processing but would like to get clarification regarding the rule.
I heard that " Labour should be filed 365 days before, whether approved or not" and that will automatically allow you to have 1 year extension.
Is this correct?
-M
I heard that " Labour should be filed 365 days before, whether approved or not" and that will automatically allow you to have 1 year extension.
Is this correct?
-M
hair Olympic Games Wallpaper
MYGCBY2010
07-27 02:41 PM
You really do not need your labor certificate. You do not need the A# as it is optional. Leave it blank.
You however need to have the 140 petition number. Ask your employer for the number. Tel him you would like to have it for tracking purposes.
What document contains information about my job requirements? Will I-140 have all those information... Also, as per my employer I-140 is approved and I am not sure if they would give that Petition Number?.. What other option I have to get this information. Would really appreciate if any one could help me out.
You however need to have the 140 petition number. Ask your employer for the number. Tel him you would like to have it for tracking purposes.
What document contains information about my job requirements? Will I-140 have all those information... Also, as per my employer I-140 is approved and I am not sure if they would give that Petition Number?.. What other option I have to get this information. Would really appreciate if any one could help me out.
more...
cooldude
08-03 10:32 PM
What about I-131. That is 7/1/2007. Its confusing
hot Official Olympic Wallpaper
bodhi_tree
12-15 11:20 AM
I think I'll try to find a knowledgeable lawyer who's not too snooty. Someone better than my current company's lawyer who happens to think all information to me should be provided only on a need to know basis..I am in Cincinnati Ohio so please recommend if you know any good names..
I also have an approved I140 with my current company ....can it be used to get a 3 year term when the H1 is transferred ? I still have about 2 years left on my original 6 year term..Thankyou
I also have an approved I140 with my current company ....can it be used to get a 3 year term when the H1 is transferred ? I still have about 2 years left on my original 6 year term..Thankyou
more...
house Winter olympics 2010-wallpaper
Phaedra
05-30 06:45 PM
Thanks a lot for the information.
I am just concerned about the fact that I do not have a job and have been unemployed for more than the 90 day OPT period. I'm not sure what my status is,given such a scenario.
Thanks!
I am just concerned about the fact that I do not have a job and have been unemployed for more than the 90 day OPT period. I'm not sure what my status is,given such a scenario.
Thanks!
tattoo and olympic Wallpapers of
eb2_hope
08-22 06:55 PM
I support this..I call every second day .....
more...
pictures Olympic Wallpapers
sathishav
02-18 10:16 PM
Which state are you from? Do they insist on Passport? In NC, if you have a valid drivers licence, all you need is a valid I797. They don't insist on the passport.
This is true at least as of Oct/nov 2010.
As the other member said, I have had no luch with phone/email from our embassy. Going in person "may" help, but since you mailed your application, they processing may be different.
won't hurt, if you go and check though.
This is true at least as of Oct/nov 2010.
As the other member said, I have had no luch with phone/email from our embassy. Going in person "may" help, but since you mailed your application, they processing may be different.
won't hurt, if you go and check though.
dresses Olympic wallpapers Free
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
more...
makeup BBC - Olympic
zvezdast
07-02 05:50 PM
There is hope....
girlfriend Olympic Symbol PSP Local
spdy_mn
08-10 11:00 AM
now i hear that"The Address Printed On your checks Must Match the adress given in work sheets[in 485]"
Please Help
From where?
Please Help
From where?
hairstyles Winter Olympics Wallpapers
Scythe
10-28 10:03 PM
Hey - you don't build houses with tables so why would you use them on buttons?
Is this an inside joke? I'm missing the part where anybody said anything about using tables on buttons.
Is this an inside joke? I'm missing the part where anybody said anything about using tables on buttons.
rbalaji5
03-02 08:02 PM
Thanks all for the very useful informations. Yes - I called the DI office today. As per their instruction, booked the infopass appointment for SFO. I will update the result soon.
As Informed I went SFO Local CBP/USCIS office through infopass appointment. The IO said that they did it as per the law. Also they suggested me to go U.S- Mexico border to get the new I-94 by paying $6.
As per their advise, I went to San Ysidro, (Tijuana) US - Mexico border. Crossed the border by walk, came back to U.S and got the new I-94 by explaining the situation. IO at POE understood the problem and gave the new I-94 without any issue.
As Informed I went SFO Local CBP/USCIS office through infopass appointment. The IO said that they did it as per the law. Also they suggested me to go U.S- Mexico border to get the new I-94 by paying $6.
As per their advise, I went to San Ysidro, (Tijuana) US - Mexico border. Crossed the border by walk, came back to U.S and got the new I-94 by explaining the situation. IO at POE understood the problem and gave the new I-94 without any issue.
desi3933
05-04 03:46 PM
It has to be approved before you can start to work. You can go with premium processing so its approved within a couple of weeks.
Incorrect!
Since he/she has been on H1 visa status before, he/she can start work after filing for new H-1B.
_______________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
Incorrect!
Since he/she has been on H1 visa status before, he/she can start work after filing for new H-1B.
_______________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
No comments:
Post a Comment