ksircar
07-30 08:39 PM
As far as I know your son is safe as I485 has already been filed. I had a similar situation with my daughter, she became 21 only yesterday, but I filed her I485 on June 25 and according to my attorney, she should be fine.
wallpaper polo shirt template back. polo
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.
santb1975
09-30 09:59 PM
I got back after my weekend. I will look at the Yahoo groups
2011 t shirt template back.
sandiboy
08-20 09:01 PM
Received FP Notice in mail today
485 RD: Jul 2 2007
485 ND: Aug 7 2007
FP ND : Aug 14 2007
FP Date: Aug 28 2007
485 RD: Jul 2 2007
485 ND: Aug 7 2007
FP ND : Aug 14 2007
FP Date: Aug 28 2007
more...
gg_ny
08-31 08:12 PM
Dear friends
I'm very excited to say that I got my green card approved. Thank you for all of your support.
babu
We received our confirmatory emails and web status updates in the last two days. My PD is Dec 2004 and 485 RD is Aug 05, NIW EB2 India. My name was stuck at FBI from Nov 05 until maybe mid-Aug 07.
This proves that the 60K visa numbers are not over yet. Next year's ombudsman report will say how many of these would go waste but CIS is still processing AOS applns and hopefully will do until Sept 30. I think they are considering every category is C and going by RD and/or preadjudication status after namecheck, FP clearances.
IV is a core part of my current immigrant status. Having personally met a few core members when the struggle and the group were younger and tumbling while learning to take early steps, it is heartening to see where the organization stands now and going to walk the line on 18th :-). I see this as a perfect example of grassroot level organization and activity, the spirit of which lives in this country but has gone missing or dormant in countries from which IV members have come.
I have friends who are suffering their way thru the GC process. When I think about them, I could only mutter,"thank God, there is IV".
I'm very excited to say that I got my green card approved. Thank you for all of your support.
babu
We received our confirmatory emails and web status updates in the last two days. My PD is Dec 2004 and 485 RD is Aug 05, NIW EB2 India. My name was stuck at FBI from Nov 05 until maybe mid-Aug 07.
This proves that the 60K visa numbers are not over yet. Next year's ombudsman report will say how many of these would go waste but CIS is still processing AOS applns and hopefully will do until Sept 30. I think they are considering every category is C and going by RD and/or preadjudication status after namecheck, FP clearances.
IV is a core part of my current immigrant status. Having personally met a few core members when the struggle and the group were younger and tumbling while learning to take early steps, it is heartening to see where the organization stands now and going to walk the line on 18th :-). I see this as a perfect example of grassroot level organization and activity, the spirit of which lives in this country but has gone missing or dormant in countries from which IV members have come.
I have friends who are suffering their way thru the GC process. When I think about them, I could only mutter,"thank God, there is IV".
andy garcia
02-23 11:05 AM
Here is e.g. for 2002 again this excludes schedule A here is the breakdown for india
EB1 - 3K
EB2 - 21K
EB3 - 17.5K
EB4 - 0.3K
EB5 - 0
EB Total - 41K
Am I missing something?
You are missing this:
The large number of LPRs in the EB in 2005 was primarily due to the AC21 Act of 2000, which recaptured 130,107 unused EB visa numbers from 1999 and 2000 to be made available to 1st, 2nd, and 3rd preference EB immigrants once the annual limit had been reached. Approximately 94,000 of those recaptured visa numbers were used in 2005. None of these visas were used in 2006. In addition, the REAL ID Act of 2005 recaptured 50,000 unused EB visas, 5,125 of which were used in 2005. In 2006, 33,341 of these visas were used, exceeding the 2006 employment preference limit of 143,949. The majority of the visa numbers recaptured by the REAL ID Act were issued to individuals whose country of origin was the Philippines (57 percent) or India (22 percent).
EB1 - 3K
EB2 - 21K
EB3 - 17.5K
EB4 - 0.3K
EB5 - 0
EB Total - 41K
Am I missing something?
You are missing this:
The large number of LPRs in the EB in 2005 was primarily due to the AC21 Act of 2000, which recaptured 130,107 unused EB visa numbers from 1999 and 2000 to be made available to 1st, 2nd, and 3rd preference EB immigrants once the annual limit had been reached. Approximately 94,000 of those recaptured visa numbers were used in 2005. None of these visas were used in 2006. In addition, the REAL ID Act of 2005 recaptured 50,000 unused EB visas, 5,125 of which were used in 2005. In 2006, 33,341 of these visas were used, exceeding the 2006 employment preference limit of 143,949. The majority of the visa numbers recaptured by the REAL ID Act were issued to individuals whose country of origin was the Philippines (57 percent) or India (22 percent).
more...
ryan
01-26 03:18 PM
Hi Friends, I searched through some of the prior posts and did not find the answer. I am not looking for cities to live in from the point of view of job, taxes, weather, desi population, desi amenties such as movies, restaurants etc...
Please, don't take this wrong way. I assume you moved to the US to seek the positives this land has to offer your children, whilst holding on to certain cultures / values from your hometown. Hence, I don't understand why you would relocate to the other side of the planet and seek the best place for "Indian" children to live?! I would reckon, it is probably your hometown, in India.
Very few get to have the cake and eat it too.
I have lived in 4 states, in the 8 years I have lived in this country. I have NEVER faced racism or discrimination of any sort. No place is perfect. However, this country does stand head and shoulders above a lot of places. Try and fit in.
Please, don't take this wrong way. I assume you moved to the US to seek the positives this land has to offer your children, whilst holding on to certain cultures / values from your hometown. Hence, I don't understand why you would relocate to the other side of the planet and seek the best place for "Indian" children to live?! I would reckon, it is probably your hometown, in India.
Very few get to have the cake and eat it too.
I have lived in 4 states, in the 8 years I have lived in this country. I have NEVER faced racism or discrimination of any sort. No place is perfect. However, this country does stand head and shoulders above a lot of places. Try and fit in.
2010 Back White T-Shirt Template
shivarajan
01-23 01:41 AM
in for a contribution!
more...
rahul98
07-17 07:07 PM
Great job IV..I am proud to be a part of IV.
Contributed $100...
Order Details - Jul 17, 2007 16:16 GMT-07:00
Google Order #10xxxxxxxxxxx3
Contributed $100...
Order Details - Jul 17, 2007 16:16 GMT-07:00
Google Order #10xxxxxxxxxxx3
hair black t shirt template back
sanju_dba
09-14 02:01 PM
I like the idea. But I wonder if this legal...
Good question,
What are the raffle laws of each state? | rafflefaq.com (http://rafflefaq.com/united-states-raffle-laws/) talks about the regulations, I am not sure which state to look for.
Good question,
What are the raffle laws of each state? | rafflefaq.com (http://rafflefaq.com/united-states-raffle-laws/) talks about the regulations, I am not sure which state to look for.
more...
cabal
07-09 09:38 AM
There is no drives even in a 1000 mile radius from where I live, hope this guy gets what he wants, looks like this guy has lots of support, lots of money. Can we do the same for all such people in India, there are probably hundreds of thousands of people in India who are in this situation who have no help like this guy. We should take our mind away from DOS and USCIS for a while and do some better things like this.
You can actually get registered at your local hospital and if you are from South East Asia, they waive the nominal fees they otherwise charge. Note: There are no fees charged during the drives. People please go out and get yourselves registered. Thanks!
You can actually get registered at your local hospital and if you are from South East Asia, they waive the nominal fees they otherwise charge. Note: There are no fees charged during the drives. People please go out and get yourselves registered. Thanks!
hot t shirt template back and front. T-SHIRT DESIGN TEMPLATE (FRONT
vinay@ocean
06-09 12:39 AM
Thanks a lot for the VISA issue....
Cant i travel via germany to india with stolen visa issue ?
Cant i travel via germany to india with stolen visa issue ?
more...
house shirt template back. Polo Shirt Template Back. Polo Shirt Template Back.
GC_1000Watt
12-19 12:08 AM
Hi All,
One of my friend is in a bad situation, I am posting on behalf of him,
He is having H1B from Company A, company even filed labor, he got a project all was going well , his project with client got over on September 15th 2009. He was on bench since then, his recruiting guys tried hard marketing him and atlast after 3 mnths found a project and when the time has come for paper work, today,HR from client called and told him that his company A's HR responded them saying his H1 was cancelled on September 15th as soon as his project got over with his previous client. My friend was not intimated about this not even the recruiter and was in assumption that company is still supporting him ..He is in shock and helpless..
Now the question is its more than 90 days since Sept 15th, what is the current situation what can he do? (has 2 offers in hand and no h1)..wat are the options he left with? Anything can be done? Can he stay and apply a new H1 or transfer? Pleas advise, Gurus appreciate your quick response.
Thanks in Advance
AJ
Talk to a good immigration lawyer...preferably Murthy law firm.
I believe H1B transfer is out of question now. You can ask a company to file a new H1B visa coz I believe there are still some visa numbers available.
I am not a lawyer and hence please consult with experienced immigration attorney.
Hopefully new year will come with good news for you. :)
One of my friend is in a bad situation, I am posting on behalf of him,
He is having H1B from Company A, company even filed labor, he got a project all was going well , his project with client got over on September 15th 2009. He was on bench since then, his recruiting guys tried hard marketing him and atlast after 3 mnths found a project and when the time has come for paper work, today,HR from client called and told him that his company A's HR responded them saying his H1 was cancelled on September 15th as soon as his project got over with his previous client. My friend was not intimated about this not even the recruiter and was in assumption that company is still supporting him ..He is in shock and helpless..
Now the question is its more than 90 days since Sept 15th, what is the current situation what can he do? (has 2 offers in hand and no h1)..wat are the options he left with? Anything can be done? Can he stay and apply a new H1 or transfer? Pleas advise, Gurus appreciate your quick response.
Thanks in Advance
AJ
Talk to a good immigration lawyer...preferably Murthy law firm.
I believe H1B transfer is out of question now. You can ask a company to file a new H1B visa coz I believe there are still some visa numbers available.
I am not a lawyer and hence please consult with experienced immigration attorney.
Hopefully new year will come with good news for you. :)
tattoo t shirt template back. t
varadan73
12-12 01:00 PM
What if i leave it just like that?
more...
pictures polo shirt design template
rajenk
04-21 01:37 PM
First of Change the subject of this thread. This is confusing to state that your I485 is already denied.
To your question:
1. NO you cannot continue to work on EAD once your I-485 is denied. EAD is based on the pending I-485, once that is denied there is no basis for EAD to be valid. You are out of status immediately after the denial.
2. Opening MTR takes months, if you are lucky then it might be quick.
Now a question to you.
1. Why do you think your I-485 will get denied? I assume you have all the documents supporting your legal status in US and on job. If so you should not be worried.
The safe bet:
That is the reason why people maintain dual status with H1/L1. That helps in these kind of situations.
Just my thoughts, better consult with a lawyer if you are in such a situation.
Good luck.
Raj
To your question:
1. NO you cannot continue to work on EAD once your I-485 is denied. EAD is based on the pending I-485, once that is denied there is no basis for EAD to be valid. You are out of status immediately after the denial.
2. Opening MTR takes months, if you are lucky then it might be quick.
Now a question to you.
1. Why do you think your I-485 will get denied? I assume you have all the documents supporting your legal status in US and on job. If so you should not be worried.
The safe bet:
That is the reason why people maintain dual status with H1/L1. That helps in these kind of situations.
Just my thoughts, better consult with a lawyer if you are in such a situation.
Good luck.
Raj
dresses black t shirt template back.
raysaikat
01-10 10:08 AM
No I am not a research fellow. Just Telecomm Engineer who has Master's Degree from US. I just interpreted Research Item in 221G Green Document as my Thesis work and explained it in the research statement along with the other documents.
D
That probably was unnecessary and may triggered the additional check due to export control of high end researches.
D
That probably was unnecessary and may triggered the additional check due to export control of high end researches.
more...
makeup shirt template back. t shirt
nk2006
09-25 11:02 AM
Good find - shows the plight of legal immigrants.
A bit of nitpicking - actually the chart is underestimating the time for EmploymentBased / skilled immigrants wait - says 11-16 years to get citizenship sort of suggesting 16 years is the worst case scenario to get citizenship. Its a bit underestimate especially for people coming from India/China. I have seen many people (including me) on these forums who entered US "legally" ten years ago and still waiting for GC with no idea when they would finally get it. Some of them might finally get citizenship 20 years after entering the country "legally".
On the whole it shows the reality of legal immigration and its waiting times.
A bit of nitpicking - actually the chart is underestimating the time for EmploymentBased / skilled immigrants wait - says 11-16 years to get citizenship sort of suggesting 16 years is the worst case scenario to get citizenship. Its a bit underestimate especially for people coming from India/China. I have seen many people (including me) on these forums who entered US "legally" ten years ago and still waiting for GC with no idea when they would finally get it. Some of them might finally get citizenship 20 years after entering the country "legally".
On the whole it shows the reality of legal immigration and its waiting times.
girlfriend t shirt template back and
gc_in_30_yrs
10-15 02:46 PM
No LUD Update for my case after FP. but, LUD does not matter. Read LogicLife's post, you will get peace of mind.
:)
:)
hairstyles polo shirt template back. polo
kirupa
01-01 09:02 PM
I've updated the guidelines to reflect these two issues.
I put the gradient as a color thing, but I'll clarify in the guidelines that background colors are cool.
glos - AS2 is fine as well :)
I put the gradient as a color thing, but I'll clarify in the guidelines that background colors are cool.
glos - AS2 is fine as well :)
camarasa
07-23 11:26 PM
Take alternative opnion from good Attorney and take a chance.
"Taking a chance" would obviously depend on the alternative opinion - surely. If the independant lawyer says no way you must start again, it wouldn't be taking a chance, it would just be stupid.
"Taking a chance" would obviously depend on the alternative opinion - surely. If the independant lawyer says no way you must start again, it wouldn't be taking a chance, it would just be stupid.
kanakabyraju
08-31 01:34 PM
I filed AOS during July 07 fiasco. It has been more than 15 months since the first fingerprint but I have not yet received 2nd fingerprint notice. I noticed a SLUD in May/09 but no notice. Anybody else out there who filed in July but don't have second fingerprint notice yet?
Best thing is to apply AP online. I did the same and got the FP notice 2nd time. Planning to do it again this year end.
kanaka
Best thing is to apply AP online. I did the same and got the FP notice 2nd time. Planning to do it again this year end.
kanaka
No comments:
Post a Comment