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 herpes pictures men.
raysaikat
05-07 11:10 AM
Thank you so much Raysaikat ! The below is the explanation for 22 C.F.R. � 62.42. Do you think it's applicable for my case ? Thanks again.
� 62.42 Transfer of program .
62.42(a)
(a) Program sponsors may, pursuant to the provisions set forth in this section, permit an exchange visitor to transfer from one designated program to another designated program.
62.42(b)
(b) The responsible officer of the program to which the exchange visitor is transferring:
(1) Shall verify the exchange visitor's visa status and program eligibility;
(2) Execute the Form DS-2019; and
(3) Secure the written release of the current sponsor.
62.42(c)
(c) Upon return of the completed Form DS-2019, the responsible officer of the program to which the exchange visitor has transferred shall provide:
(1) The exchange visitor his or her copy of the Form DS-2019; and
(2) A notification copy of such form to the Department of State.
I did read the CFR before posting my previous reply. The passage above does not define what may be construed as a transfer; it merely describes the process.
How did you move from U. of colorado to VCU?
It may be the case that defining your proposed change as "transfer" or a "new program" is up to the discretion of the international advisor at VCU, and the first time s/he considered the move as a "transfer" and s/he is considering the new/proposed change as a "new program". It may also be the case that since you are not changing the school, s/he is not defining it as a "transfer". You need to speak with the advisor at VCU and ask to explain the reason s/he is considering the new/proposed change as a "new program" instead of a "transfer", and ask him/her to refer you to the applicable legal definition language (e.g., section number in CFR).
In any case, it is the international advisor at VCU who has to approve your paperwork; so you cannot get around him/her.
� 62.42 Transfer of program .
62.42(a)
(a) Program sponsors may, pursuant to the provisions set forth in this section, permit an exchange visitor to transfer from one designated program to another designated program.
62.42(b)
(b) The responsible officer of the program to which the exchange visitor is transferring:
(1) Shall verify the exchange visitor's visa status and program eligibility;
(2) Execute the Form DS-2019; and
(3) Secure the written release of the current sponsor.
62.42(c)
(c) Upon return of the completed Form DS-2019, the responsible officer of the program to which the exchange visitor has transferred shall provide:
(1) The exchange visitor his or her copy of the Form DS-2019; and
(2) A notification copy of such form to the Department of State.
I did read the CFR before posting my previous reply. The passage above does not define what may be construed as a transfer; it merely describes the process.
How did you move from U. of colorado to VCU?
It may be the case that defining your proposed change as "transfer" or a "new program" is up to the discretion of the international advisor at VCU, and the first time s/he considered the move as a "transfer" and s/he is considering the new/proposed change as a "new program". It may also be the case that since you are not changing the school, s/he is not defining it as a "transfer". You need to speak with the advisor at VCU and ask to explain the reason s/he is considering the new/proposed change as a "new program" instead of a "transfer", and ask him/her to refer you to the applicable legal definition language (e.g., section number in CFR).
In any case, it is the international advisor at VCU who has to approve your paperwork; so you cannot get around him/her.
WeShallOvercome
07-31 06:28 PM
My I-485(with G-28) was filed by our company lawyer and company did not let us file EAD. I'm filing EAD on my own after USCIS made it clear with FAQ2 that they will accept EAD applications without the I-485 Receipt notice.
My questions is, Can I be sure the receipt notice for the EAD will come to me and not to the lawyer by any chance? I don't have any intention of using EAD but don't want my employer/lawyer know that I have filed it.
Thanks
My questions is, Can I be sure the receipt notice for the EAD will come to me and not to the lawyer by any chance? I don't have any intention of using EAD but don't want my employer/lawyer know that I have filed it.
Thanks
2011 men#39;s basketball team,
abhijitp
07-19 12:57 PM
Thanks for clarifying milind70.
Abhijip - We all want to help here but please don't provide confusing info.
As for the original poster, he can still apply for AOS if he gets the receipt. I got mine from TSC on July 13 and they got the I140 on July 6. It wasn't labor subst though.
Hang in there another week. Can you verify if they cashed the check ?? They print the receipt# on the back.
Sorry... I did not know you could file concurrently before PERM came into play. So, does the original poster have to wait for the I-140 receipt? Only then can he apply for AOS using that receipt number? What if he applied for I-140 ONCE more, only this time concurrently along with a I-485? I think you can submit multiple I-140's ... just that you could only premium-process (BTW, no Premium Processing through this month anyways!) the one I-140 that goes out with the original "Labor certification approval".
Abhijip - We all want to help here but please don't provide confusing info.
As for the original poster, he can still apply for AOS if he gets the receipt. I got mine from TSC on July 13 and they got the I140 on July 6. It wasn't labor subst though.
Hang in there another week. Can you verify if they cashed the check ?? They print the receipt# on the back.
Sorry... I did not know you could file concurrently before PERM came into play. So, does the original poster have to wait for the I-140 receipt? Only then can he apply for AOS using that receipt number? What if he applied for I-140 ONCE more, only this time concurrently along with a I-485? I think you can submit multiple I-140's ... just that you could only premium-process (BTW, no Premium Processing through this month anyways!) the one I-140 that goes out with the original "Labor certification approval".
more...
kumar1
12-26 12:48 PM
Context is very important here. IRS has its own rules, USCIS has got its own and then universities have their own set of rules. I have had a lot of fight with university to get in-state tution fee on H-4 visa. So please explain your context and I can shed some more light on this topic (based on my own experience).
rahulpatel
08-14 02:35 PM
I worked for my employer at this vendor. At the time, my employer agreed on paper to give me a specified amount but only after the vendor pays. Vendor has been giving him troubles as regards my pay, so my employer made me wait frustratingly for months to give me pay. Just recently only after much trouble he released part of the amount. But now he learnt that he might have to go to court about the vendor. As a result, now he is denying me MY remaining pay!! I already waited for 4 months now, and can NOT take this strain anymore. My friends advised me to take this issue to Court or DOL. But my employer threatens that I will have no case.
Is that so?? Am I really required to wait like this months/years long if it takes that long for my employer to settle his matter with vendor?? Can an employer actually follow these kind of practice? Please provide your experienced advises.
Also kindly let me know how can I proceed if I want to file a DOL complaint?
Is that so?? Am I really required to wait like this months/years long if it takes that long for my employer to settle his matter with vendor?? Can an employer actually follow these kind of practice? Please provide your experienced advises.
Also kindly let me know how can I proceed if I want to file a DOL complaint?
more...
shreekhand
04-28 07:34 PM
Go Utah! ... Go Texas !
2010 giving herpes to men shes
nortam1
09-15 02:04 PM
Can't see them. Already refreshed and deleted cookies.
Anyway, can anyone tell me what's the processing date for EAD I485 based at NSC?
Anyway, can anyone tell me what's the processing date for EAD I485 based at NSC?
more...
trump_gc
08-12 06:19 AM
What if no birth certificate was available and we had submitted a non-availability certificate...will that lead into a RFE?
hair herpes look like on men,
austingc
12-24 10:32 PM
H1b extensions can be done based on approved Labor alone. You need i140 only if you need 3 year extensions.
You mentioned the extension filed is based on approved labor. You I140 status does not matter for 1 year renewals. This is my own experience.
Best of luck on your 140
Cheeers !
Varumo_varatho,
Your 140 is filed based on your labor and it is denied now. How will USCIS allow you to extend your H1B with a denied I-140? Technically once you filed I-140 then the labor has no value and you have to take action based on I-140. The rule is you can extend your H1B based on your pending labor or pending I-140 or approved I-140. That means once you file I-140 then do not hold your breath to file an H1B extension based on your labor.
Can you tell us your personal experience that how you got your H1B extended with your I-140 denial?
If you don�t know anything please do not give your 2 cents here. Nobody asked your wrong opinion and no one is longing for you to post some false information here.
I would suggest you to change your screen name to Thriyumo_Thriyatho
You mentioned the extension filed is based on approved labor. You I140 status does not matter for 1 year renewals. This is my own experience.
Best of luck on your 140
Cheeers !
Varumo_varatho,
Your 140 is filed based on your labor and it is denied now. How will USCIS allow you to extend your H1B with a denied I-140? Technically once you filed I-140 then the labor has no value and you have to take action based on I-140. The rule is you can extend your H1B based on your pending labor or pending I-140 or approved I-140. That means once you file I-140 then do not hold your breath to file an H1B extension based on your labor.
Can you tell us your personal experience that how you got your H1B extended with your I-140 denial?
If you don�t know anything please do not give your 2 cents here. Nobody asked your wrong opinion and no one is longing for you to post some false information here.
I would suggest you to change your screen name to Thriyumo_Thriyatho
more...
hemya
12-20 10:57 PM
My wife is applying for graduate school and they asked for her Alien registration Number. Should she give the one on her 485?
She is presently on H-4
She is presently on H-4
hot Where manly men seem to spend
rajuram
11-04 09:19 PM
I don't think that is possible......unless you filed it and it got returned...
Situation - During the month of July, I filed my 485 when all categories were current. Got my receipt too. Missed wife's application because her papers were not ready. Now priority dates have retrogressed again.
Saving grace - Our H1/H4 are in order with many long years left on them.
Question - Can I file my wife 485 now as a dependent, even though "my" PD is not current yet. The core point is that, does the concept of PD applies to the dependent 485 applications too?
Situation - During the month of July, I filed my 485 when all categories were current. Got my receipt too. Missed wife's application because her papers were not ready. Now priority dates have retrogressed again.
Saving grace - Our H1/H4 are in order with many long years left on them.
Question - Can I file my wife 485 now as a dependent, even though "my" PD is not current yet. The core point is that, does the concept of PD applies to the dependent 485 applications too?
more...
house TONGUE HERPES PHOTOS
indianabacklog
07-30 08:59 PM
The priority date for children who might age out is fixed at the time of your I140 filing. So if you I140 took six months to approve this can be taken off the age of the child when the labor priority date becomes current. So even if you file when a child is 20 and a half and you have to wait for two years for the date to become current, unless the I140 took 1 and a half years their age will be over 21 when the green card can be processed so they age out of derivative status.
Good luck to those who are facing this. I do understand your anxiety since my son aged out while I was waiting three and half years for my labor cert. It would seem that this 'black hole' in the employment based process is non existent to the people who can change it.
Not sure what the future holds for such children, maybe there is some greater plan which we are not aware of yet.
I do see one advantage they cannot be called up for military service (for the USA) on a non-immigrant visa whereas they can if they have a green card. While I understand fighting is a noble cause I would not want my son to fight for our country of origin either.
Good luck to those who are facing this. I do understand your anxiety since my son aged out while I was waiting three and half years for my labor cert. It would seem that this 'black hole' in the employment based process is non existent to the people who can change it.
Not sure what the future holds for such children, maybe there is some greater plan which we are not aware of yet.
I do see one advantage they cannot be called up for military service (for the USA) on a non-immigrant visa whereas they can if they have a green card. While I understand fighting is a noble cause I would not want my son to fight for our country of origin either.
tattoo HERPES SYMPTOMS IN BLACK MEN
rkm
07-17 06:52 PM
Just made payment $100.00
Thank you
Thank you
more...
pictures 19% of men) and far more
reverendflash
10-28 10:29 PM
OR do some pro-bono sites for people who will reach a lot of people (and help out some needful people at the same time)...
such as churchs, community groups, that kind of thing... then place a subtle ad on each of these sites, and then of course on your portfolio...
They never need know how old you are...
I certainly don't tell them I'm 40... :P
Rev:elderly:
such as churchs, community groups, that kind of thing... then place a subtle ad on each of these sites, and then of course on your portfolio...
They never need know how old you are...
I certainly don't tell them I'm 40... :P
Rev:elderly:
dresses herpes symptoms men
trips2010
08-27 07:36 PM
Any one get refund from USCIS ??
I sent EAD application on 05/01,was approved on 06/14 and never received to my address,called after 30 days of receiving email,they said card lost in the mail and they suggested to apply replacement card.I applied for replacement card,approved and also received last week and since monday receiving emails saying card production ordered on old one which was mentioned as lost in the email.I just spoke to USCIS representative,he suggested to send a letter to TSC for refund request.
any one sent letter for refund before ? do we have any form for refund ?
How this will work out ?
I sent EAD application on 05/01,was approved on 06/14 and never received to my address,called after 30 days of receiving email,they said card lost in the mail and they suggested to apply replacement card.I applied for replacement card,approved and also received last week and since monday receiving emails saying card production ordered on old one which was mentioned as lost in the email.I just spoke to USCIS representative,he suggested to send a letter to TSC for refund request.
any one sent letter for refund before ? do we have any form for refund ?
How this will work out ?
more...
makeup pictures of herpes in men
Munna Bhai
05-08 10:31 AM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/06/wchina06.xml
Atleast home countries recognize our potential.
Atleast home countries recognize our potential.
girlfriend Herpes+symptoms+in+men+
malibuguy007
10-15 03:26 PM
Sorry to add to the confusion and I had replied to the same question in another thread, but my lawyer told me I can be on H1 and do additional work on EAD since H1 is a dual intent visa. He also told me that nothing needs to be informed to the immigration authorities once I start using my EAD. I know this is contrary to what everyone said in the comments above, but this is the reply I got talking personally to my lawyer.
hairstyles Genital Herpes In Men
webm
05-29 03:47 PM
I didn't file G-28 form since I was filing myself. Isn't G-28 only required if some one else is representing you?
I've got the receipt notices for EAD as well. Will see what happens next.
In this case you don't need G-28.
I've got the receipt notices for EAD as well. Will see what happens next.
In this case you don't need G-28.
crystal
03-28 11:02 AM
I think it is not fully functional yet. When I search on Country it results in nothing. Good start it is.
nomorelogins
01-28 08:52 PM
@nozerd,
could you please explain the logic/rules.
The logic is that if both parents are Indians even if kid is born in US and travels on US passport as kid they have until the age of 18 to choose.
could you please explain the logic/rules.
The logic is that if both parents are Indians even if kid is born in US and travels on US passport as kid they have until the age of 18 to choose.
0 comments:
Post a Comment