harish
08-20 07:53 PM
Application was mailed on 06/25/07 to NSC, but my case got transfered to TSC. My receipt number begins with SRC....
485 RD: 06/26/2007
485 ND: 08/06/2007
FP ND: Waiting..........
FP Date: Waiting.........
FP ND: Aug 14th 2007
FP Notice Received Date: Aug 20th 2007
FP Date: Sep 4th 2007
485 RD: 06/26/2007
485 ND: 08/06/2007
FP ND: Waiting..........
FP Date: Waiting.........
FP ND: Aug 14th 2007
FP Notice Received Date: Aug 20th 2007
FP Date: Sep 4th 2007
wallpaper Blog Site Ricardo Quaresma
pd_recapturing
08-24 02:49 PM
I did exactly the same thing. I had a EB3 May 2004 I-140 approved and I applied 485 with this. during the first quarter of this year, I applied a new labor in EB2 and got it approved in 2 months. I applied I-140 EB2 in premium on 29th June and got it approved. Now my lawyer is going to interfile this new I-140 with my existing pending 485.
First of all, dont worry with your old 140 while applying new one. They would not touch your old 140. The only issue right now is that there is no PP of 140 so you might need to wait up to one year to see 140 approved and that might kill the purpose.Just pray that they start PP soon.
First of all, dont worry with your old 140 while applying new one. They would not touch your old 140. The only issue right now is that there is no PP of 140 so you might need to wait up to one year to see 140 approved and that might kill the purpose.Just pray that they start PP soon.
willigetgc?
01-26 01:56 PM
CIR (aka mass amnesty) was not doable in the past, and is not now and wont be in future. They could not do it even when democratic party was in power in congress (high tide of democratic party). It is impossible now with GOP in control.
It si pure lip seervice by Sen Reid
If this bill was introduced, we need to meet with lawmaker offices and put pressure on them. Our responsibility is to do our part and leave the outcome to prayers, But not even trying should not be an option. What are we going to loose?
It si pure lip seervice by Sen Reid
If this bill was introduced, we need to meet with lawmaker offices and put pressure on them. Our responsibility is to do our part and leave the outcome to prayers, But not even trying should not be an option. What are we going to loose?
2011 ricardo quaresma hairstyle.
ChainReaction
01-30 11:25 AM
Can we also post the number of enrolled members on the web site along with the contribution?
more...
.jpg "Ricardo Quaresma.")
sajimm
08-16 11:21 PM
Me and my wife took the chest X-ray and didn�t take the TB skin test. Doctor has checked the �not taken� check box for the skin test and �negative� under the X-ray section in the medical report.
Wondering this is going to get us in trouble
Anyone else in the same situation?
PD 2003 April EB3
485 applied - June 27th, Receipt and FP notice received.
Wondering this is going to get us in trouble
Anyone else in the same situation?
PD 2003 April EB3
485 applied - June 27th, Receipt and FP notice received.
Since1997
07-20 01:08 PM
From the website http://www.immigration-law.com/Canada.html we can see that there are only 140000 GCs ...
1. Year Cap: 140000 (for EB)
2. India Limit: 7% = 9800 ONLY
3 Now imagine how many years it will take to cover up the number like 750000.
==========================
Originally Posted by andy garcia
Last year the top 5 countries in EB got all these visas:
Total EB ****** 159,081
Philippines ***** 23,733
India ********* 17,169
Korea ******** 10,886
China ******** 9,484
Mexico ****** 8,864
The actual limit is 7% of the total EB plus FB which is:
(140,000 + 226,000) * .07 = 25,620
==============================
1. Year Cap: 140000 (for EB)
2. India Limit: 7% = 9800 ONLY
3 Now imagine how many years it will take to cover up the number like 750000.
==========================
Originally Posted by andy garcia
Last year the top 5 countries in EB got all these visas:
Total EB ****** 159,081
Philippines ***** 23,733
India ********* 17,169
Korea ******** 10,886
China ******** 9,484
Mexico ****** 8,864
The actual limit is 7% of the total EB plus FB which is:
(140,000 + 226,000) * .07 = 25,620
==============================
more...
mihird
09-26 04:29 PM
Ur missing the point.
The number after the letter, which stands for the classification category is pretty much irrelevant for the purpose of determining the maximum period of stay. You might notice that in many publications USCIS addresses visitors to the US as being in B, H or L status, omitting the #.
As long as your wife maintains her H4 status properly (providing you maintain your H1 status) and as long as she possess necessary travel documents she is free to enter and exit the country.
As far as I understand she will not have any legal problem obtaining an H1 visa after staying out of the country for a year, as long as the visa # is available, she has a job offer etc.
But I do not believe that her H status clock will reset if she leaves the country for a year, then enter in H4 status (which is still a derivative and tied to your principal H status clock). Therefore she will not be able to change her status to that of H1.
Again, it's a pretty complicated matter and you might want to consult an experienced lawyer.
Once you leave the US for 366 days, your H clock is reset. Now, you enter back on a H4, your H clock starts ticking down again..you should be able to do the H4->H1 change of status (once a H visa # is available) and exit and re-enter on a H1 visa and get new time on your H1 of [6 years - minus the time spent on H4]. Again, I am not an attorney, I am just saying this from what seems logical to me..
The number after the letter, which stands for the classification category is pretty much irrelevant for the purpose of determining the maximum period of stay. You might notice that in many publications USCIS addresses visitors to the US as being in B, H or L status, omitting the #.
As long as your wife maintains her H4 status properly (providing you maintain your H1 status) and as long as she possess necessary travel documents she is free to enter and exit the country.
As far as I understand she will not have any legal problem obtaining an H1 visa after staying out of the country for a year, as long as the visa # is available, she has a job offer etc.
But I do not believe that her H status clock will reset if she leaves the country for a year, then enter in H4 status (which is still a derivative and tied to your principal H status clock). Therefore she will not be able to change her status to that of H1.
Again, it's a pretty complicated matter and you might want to consult an experienced lawyer.
Once you leave the US for 366 days, your H clock is reset. Now, you enter back on a H4, your H clock starts ticking down again..you should be able to do the H4->H1 change of status (once a H visa # is available) and exit and re-enter on a H1 visa and get new time on your H1 of [6 years - minus the time spent on H4]. Again, I am not an attorney, I am just saying this from what seems logical to me..
2010 Ricardo Quaresma - Cristiano
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...
Krilnon
01-01 11:49 PM
Are you considering actually stopping people from creating something in AS1? As you probably know anyway, AS2 is compiled to AS1 anyway, so a decision to limit entrants to only AS2 and AS3 would be totally arbitrary. :P
Besides, most people who claim to be using AS2 just use AS1 with type annotations…
Anyway, thanks for clarifying the background options. :)
Besides, most people who claim to be using AS2 just use AS1 with type annotations…
Anyway, thanks for clarifying the background options. :)
hair Re: Ricardo Quaresma
lsuk
07-21 07:17 PM
EAD is usually issued only for one year but USCIS has the option to issue EADs for a longer period of time based on this regulation:
"DHS on July 30, 2004 published an interim regulation that amends 8 CFR sec. 274a3. USCIS now has authority to issue EADs for periods greater than one year. This regulation recognizes the system is overburdened. However, USCIS has not implemented this reform probably due to the potential revenue loss."
Source: "Immigration and Nationality Law Handbook 2007 Edition", published by AILA
This can be done without changing the law. If USCIS is afraid to lose its revenue they can change for 2 or 3 years ahead. I believe this may be a good choice for people whose visa number will not be available for several years. Any comments?
"DHS on July 30, 2004 published an interim regulation that amends 8 CFR sec. 274a3. USCIS now has authority to issue EADs for periods greater than one year. This regulation recognizes the system is overburdened. However, USCIS has not implemented this reform probably due to the potential revenue loss."
Source: "Immigration and Nationality Law Handbook 2007 Edition", published by AILA
This can be done without changing the law. If USCIS is afraid to lose its revenue they can change for 2 or 3 years ahead. I believe this may be a good choice for people whose visa number will not be available for several years. Any comments?
more...
kirupa
01-02 08:42 PM
Sure, feel free to. As long as it is something that you did (no 3rd party code, etc.), then it is all good.
:)
:)
hot Ricardo Quaresma.
tapukakababa
03-11 02:01 PM
Anyone with real experience and have been through this.. please help me?
more...
house Ricardo Quaresma
seahawks
06-10 01:27 AM
http://www.murthy.com/news/UDisster.html
It is possible but I don't know the time line.
It is possible but I don't know the time line.
tattoo Ricardo Quaresma - Cristiano
mdmd10
09-14 07:58 PM
Just got approval emails for both me and my spouse.
more...
pictures Ricardo Quaresma
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.
dresses Ricardo Quaresma - Cristiano
gcny2006
05-28 03:35 PM
Talking abt running this site. I think IV should enforce a mandatory $15 per year for access to this site. In interest of full disclosure - I have been a free loader myself for a very long time but have realized its pointless if you are not helping the cause. The people who are visiting this site have one thing in common - They have a BIG problem and if they cannot make a SMALL contribution towards solving that problem this community has no use for them.
more...
makeup Ricardo Quaresma - Cristiano
andycool
07-03 12:58 PM
First thing is stop issuing student visa
last year around 700,000 student visas were issued , why issue move visas .....because international students pay 200% tuition ;) :D:eek:
thanks
last year around 700,000 student visas were issued , why issue move visas .....because international students pay 200% tuition ;) :D:eek:
thanks
girlfriend Quaresma+inter
gotgc?
09-16 06:13 PM
Hi,
Here is my case specifics:
--------------------------
1. Filed PERM EB3 LC - PD:01/2006 - Approved.
2. Filed EB3 I-140 using LC Sub from my company(company's policy..) - 06/2006 - was pending
3. Filed I-485 using pending LC Sub I-140 - 07/2007
4. Second I-140 Filed - 01/2008 based on my original PERM LC.
5. Second I-140 - Approved - 02/2008
6. Attorney sent AILA Request last month on my pending I-140. Got AILA Response as below
"Talked with the I-140 senior officer this afternoon about this case. We both reviewed the I-140 and the issue with the substitution of the labor cert. It appears that the individual that had the labor cert originally, adjusted off of it. Therefore, we can not substitute it again for the individual listed below. I believe that he has one I-140 already approved and will have to stay with that priority date. Have a good weekend."
7. Based on this, my attorney told me that my first I-140 will be denied soon; but she said that my AOS will continue to be active based on my approved I-140.
8. As my attorney said, Today, I got an CRIS email saying that my LC Sub I-140 is denied.
I have couple of questions now:
1. I am worried about my I-485 since my wofe is working on EAD. My understanding is that if your I-140 is denied, then your I-485 is denied too. But, my lawyer says that since I have an approved I140, they will use that and she is quoting the AILA Response email also. Is it true? or she is just convincing me with her lies.
2. I can continue to check the status of my I-485. But, how can I verify my AOS is now tied with my approved I-140? Interestingly, my AP Renewal is approved yesterday and notice mailed (a day before my I-140 denial)
Please let me know guys. Your help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
Here is my case specifics:
--------------------------
1. Filed PERM EB3 LC - PD:01/2006 - Approved.
2. Filed EB3 I-140 using LC Sub from my company(company's policy..) - 06/2006 - was pending
3. Filed I-485 using pending LC Sub I-140 - 07/2007
4. Second I-140 Filed - 01/2008 based on my original PERM LC.
5. Second I-140 - Approved - 02/2008
6. Attorney sent AILA Request last month on my pending I-140. Got AILA Response as below
"Talked with the I-140 senior officer this afternoon about this case. We both reviewed the I-140 and the issue with the substitution of the labor cert. It appears that the individual that had the labor cert originally, adjusted off of it. Therefore, we can not substitute it again for the individual listed below. I believe that he has one I-140 already approved and will have to stay with that priority date. Have a good weekend."
7. Based on this, my attorney told me that my first I-140 will be denied soon; but she said that my AOS will continue to be active based on my approved I-140.
8. As my attorney said, Today, I got an CRIS email saying that my LC Sub I-140 is denied.
I have couple of questions now:
1. I am worried about my I-485 since my wofe is working on EAD. My understanding is that if your I-140 is denied, then your I-485 is denied too. But, my lawyer says that since I have an approved I140, they will use that and she is quoting the AILA Response email also. Is it true? or she is just convincing me with her lies.
2. I can continue to check the status of my I-485. But, how can I verify my AOS is now tied with my approved I-140? Interestingly, my AP Renewal is approved yesterday and notice mailed (a day before my I-140 denial)
Please let me know guys. Your help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
hairstyles http://www.ricardo-quaresma.
rdehar
07-20 12:26 PM
Guys, I have been posting this message as a reply on a few threads, I just want to bump up to a separate thread.
This should come as a reality check for all filers (PD 1995 or PD 2007), all victims of BEC, all guys who are getting married soon and chose not to file I-485, nurses, engineers, physicians and all those who are losing hair from hyper-tension:
1. The BEC has vowed to clear all backlog by Sep '07 ( I myself got out of it just-in-time, in May '07, after spending 3 years );
2. USCIS has already announced that this year's GC quota is finished, meaning there will be no more I-485s approvals before next year's quota starts (Oct '07);
3. Filing I-485 does not equate to approval, USCIS cannot approve I-485 without forward movement of dates and filer's PD falling into that range. However, a I-485 application can be pre-adjudicated ( citation needed );
4. Almost everyone who can apply for I-485, will apply. This means USCIS has all the data ( all the numbers ) to work with and make a very accurate forward movement of dates from now on. Thus far, they have been making random guesses ( because of labor substitution among other factors? );
5. Once bitten twice shy, it is highly unlikely that USCIS will make dates 'C' ( for over-subscribed categories/countries EB2 and EB3 for China, India, Mexico and Philippines ) for next few years. They can, however, make forward movement in an orderly fashion. Remember: dates are already 'U' for everyone;
6. Whenever USCIS moves dates forward, people who could not apply now will be eligible to apply I-485 and/or I-140. These include all people who are still stuck in BEC heck. Older PD always had golden value and will continue to have golden value;
7. EAD and AP are, however, not dependent on PD. This intermittent relief is a blessing for people with recent PD, which pre-PERM filers never dreamed of;
Please draw your own conclusion(s).
By the way,
*. RIP 'Labor Substitution'. Thank God it is gone. Good riddance. Rules of game just got a lot fairer !!
This should come as a reality check for all filers (PD 1995 or PD 2007), all victims of BEC, all guys who are getting married soon and chose not to file I-485, nurses, engineers, physicians and all those who are losing hair from hyper-tension:
1. The BEC has vowed to clear all backlog by Sep '07 ( I myself got out of it just-in-time, in May '07, after spending 3 years );
2. USCIS has already announced that this year's GC quota is finished, meaning there will be no more I-485s approvals before next year's quota starts (Oct '07);
3. Filing I-485 does not equate to approval, USCIS cannot approve I-485 without forward movement of dates and filer's PD falling into that range. However, a I-485 application can be pre-adjudicated ( citation needed );
4. Almost everyone who can apply for I-485, will apply. This means USCIS has all the data ( all the numbers ) to work with and make a very accurate forward movement of dates from now on. Thus far, they have been making random guesses ( because of labor substitution among other factors? );
5. Once bitten twice shy, it is highly unlikely that USCIS will make dates 'C' ( for over-subscribed categories/countries EB2 and EB3 for China, India, Mexico and Philippines ) for next few years. They can, however, make forward movement in an orderly fashion. Remember: dates are already 'U' for everyone;
6. Whenever USCIS moves dates forward, people who could not apply now will be eligible to apply I-485 and/or I-140. These include all people who are still stuck in BEC heck. Older PD always had golden value and will continue to have golden value;
7. EAD and AP are, however, not dependent on PD. This intermittent relief is a blessing for people with recent PD, which pre-PERM filers never dreamed of;
Please draw your own conclusion(s).
By the way,
*. RIP 'Labor Substitution'. Thank God it is gone. Good riddance. Rules of game just got a lot fairer !!
ajju
04-16 10:41 PM
While at J1-visa, my employer applied for H1B for me. After 3-months of no response from uscis, we sent a check for $1000 for 'premium processing'. My H1B was approved 4 days after check was mailed out. A week after approval Uscis 'REFUNDED' the check with a note the 'case was approved in regular process' hence the refund.
You can hope to get the refund and if not write to uscis and they are honest about these things.
Your premium fees arrived after your H1 approval.. otherwise its not refundable... Since he/she applied EAD/AP and after one week, 485 got approved.. They are mostly like deny the EAD/AP benefits saying you don't qualify... But its always good to call USCIS first hand and discuss the issue with customer rep to explain the situation...
USCIS # (800) 375-5283
You can hope to get the refund and if not write to uscis and they are honest about these things.
Your premium fees arrived after your H1 approval.. otherwise its not refundable... Since he/she applied EAD/AP and after one week, 485 got approved.. They are mostly like deny the EAD/AP benefits saying you don't qualify... But its always good to call USCIS first hand and discuss the issue with customer rep to explain the situation...
USCIS # (800) 375-5283
smsthss
12-18 05:59 PM
I also got 2 soft LUD'S on both mine and my wife's 485. First LUD on 12/15 and second on 12/18. But the case status remains the same "This case is now pending at the office to which it was transferred". My I-140 got approved on dec 6th. Seems like some kind of update is being done on I-485's. Might be FP notices as i have not received my FP notice yet. Not sure..Anybody seen the same pattern ??
No comments:
Post a Comment