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 nicki minaj pink friday
WaldenPond
02-09 11:03 AM
Hello,
Could anybody please post the latest going on with today's hearing - Committee on Government Reform Hearing: U.S. Competiteveness.
I am not able to find any news/update on this.
Thanks,
Could anybody please post the latest going on with today's hearing - Committee on Government Reform Hearing: U.S. Competiteveness.
I am not able to find any news/update on this.
Thanks,
Kodi
07-05 09:05 AM
If its ROW then PD are current.
2011 Nicki Minaj Pink Friday
SGP
03-25 03:48 PM
Once your I-140 is approved and even if the employer files to revoke the I-140 it will not affect your status. It is at the discretion of the USCIS to revoke the approved I-140. USCIS will revoke the approved I-140 if it detects that it was fraudulently obtained.
Now to answer your question : Even if company A files to revoke I-140 before the individual files for H1 transfer, it does not make a difference to the individual.
________________________________
Deadline = April 30th, 2011
Goal = 5000 votes on survey (see I-485 filing w/o current PD thread) and momentum to continue with this campaign.The survey is a platform to gather and push for launching action items. Based on response by 04/30/2011 - IV will decide whether to even proceed with initiative or not.
Actions - 1) Vote on survey.
2)Email ivcoordinator@gmail.com with PD, ph#,email & subject "I485 filing impacted�,
3)Print/Circulate Fliers and spread FB, wiki link (see "support thread")
You said you didn't get a chance to file for I 485 with company A , means you did transfer H1b. Did company A withdraw before you transfered H1b ? Did you do transfer with in initial 6 year of H1b ?
Now to answer your question : Even if company A files to revoke I-140 before the individual files for H1 transfer, it does not make a difference to the individual.
________________________________
Deadline = April 30th, 2011
Goal = 5000 votes on survey (see I-485 filing w/o current PD thread) and momentum to continue with this campaign.The survey is a platform to gather and push for launching action items. Based on response by 04/30/2011 - IV will decide whether to even proceed with initiative or not.
Actions - 1) Vote on survey.
2)Email ivcoordinator@gmail.com with PD, ph#,email & subject "I485 filing impacted�,
3)Print/Circulate Fliers and spread FB, wiki link (see "support thread")
You said you didn't get a chance to file for I 485 with company A , means you did transfer H1b. Did company A withdraw before you transfered H1b ? Did you do transfer with in initial 6 year of H1b ?
more...
Ennada
01-13 10:21 AM
Hello Immi Gurus,
Our Division is in very bad situation and we are expecting some lay off's in next few weeks. I am working on h1b now but my 485 is pending for more than 180 days and have Valid EAD which I didn't use so far. following are my question:
1) If I get laid off and my employer cancels the h1b, Am i out of status?
2) Can they cancel my approved i 140?
3) I am planning to use EAD for my next job, How much time do I have to find a new job to be in Status?
Thanks so much for all your help, Thanks ...
I was in the same boat in 2009. I got laid off in Feb without a job for 4 months and found a job in June. Had no problems from USCIS, no RFEs. My H1 was revoked. My employer said that they won't revoke 140 and is not required for them to do so. I used my EAD in my new job. And one fine day in Sept got my GC. It was a roller coaster ride that ended well. I hope and wish you get a job soon and GC soon too.
In my opinion, you are OK. My understanding is that the rule says that you need to have a job at the time of adjudication of your GC.
Good Luck.
Our Division is in very bad situation and we are expecting some lay off's in next few weeks. I am working on h1b now but my 485 is pending for more than 180 days and have Valid EAD which I didn't use so far. following are my question:
1) If I get laid off and my employer cancels the h1b, Am i out of status?
2) Can they cancel my approved i 140?
3) I am planning to use EAD for my next job, How much time do I have to find a new job to be in Status?
Thanks so much for all your help, Thanks ...
I was in the same boat in 2009. I got laid off in Feb without a job for 4 months and found a job in June. Had no problems from USCIS, no RFEs. My H1 was revoked. My employer said that they won't revoke 140 and is not required for them to do so. I used my EAD in my new job. And one fine day in Sept got my GC. It was a roller coaster ride that ended well. I hope and wish you get a job soon and GC soon too.
In my opinion, you are OK. My understanding is that the rule says that you need to have a job at the time of adjudication of your GC.
Good Luck.
gbof
06-30 01:49 PM
so far, I have heard about at least 30 cases over the internet including one personal case (my wife's) and all of the cancelled appointments seem to be either on 7th, 8th or 9th july. (My wife had it on 8th and got a cancellation notice with the same date which was delivered yesterday...)
From forums, it appears that, a few of them already got their rescheduled notices, and some got the new date after calling... either way, I guess the above info seems to be true..... worst case scenario, if you don't get rescheduled notices (or dates by calling) by your appointment date, just go to the ASC. I know it's a pain... but I just don't want to give them a chance at denying and don't want to go thru all that hassle...
pal :)
I am so very ready for FP on 7/6 and now reading these cancellations is very irritating. To show up definitely require some-bit of planning. Why should they send notice at first placeand then cancel en-block. I only wish I donot get this cancellation notice before 6th and it goes on as scheduled.
From forums, it appears that, a few of them already got their rescheduled notices, and some got the new date after calling... either way, I guess the above info seems to be true..... worst case scenario, if you don't get rescheduled notices (or dates by calling) by your appointment date, just go to the ASC. I know it's a pain... but I just don't want to give them a chance at denying and don't want to go thru all that hassle...
pal :)
I am so very ready for FP on 7/6 and now reading these cancellations is very irritating. To show up definitely require some-bit of planning. Why should they send notice at first placeand then cancel en-block. I only wish I donot get this cancellation notice before 6th and it goes on as scheduled.
more...
skd
07-19 12:20 PM
My lawyer did not ask for Tax return for filing i-485 .He just asked for W-2's only ??
Is Tax Return for last 3 years is required document ?
Is Tax Return for last 3 years is required document ?
2010 Nicki Minaj#39;s “Pink Friday”
pappu
06-14 08:50 AM
This drive will continue until we meet our goals
more...
mdmd10
09-11 03:59 PM
Just voted. I am still waiting for a miracle.
hair Nicki Minaj Pink Friday Album
immigrationvoice1
03-06 01:59 PM
It has been taking for ever to move. I had missed 3 times already to get it approved during the last 5 years. Lets see if it moves to 2002
What do you mean when you say you missed 3 times ? Please elaborate if possible.
What do you mean when you say you missed 3 times ? Please elaborate if possible.
more...
vban2007
05-29 11:11 AM
October 1st, 2008 your status will be changed to H1B after the approval... So you will have to move to new company
hot Nicki Minaj is finally at
eb3_nepa
08-10 05:10 PM
May be he or she has a spouse whose birth country is non retrogressed .. :)
Even THEN it is not possible. Coz the June 2007 bulletin says that even ROW has to be atlest June 2005. His PD was Dec 2005 so there is NO way he could have applied.
Even THEN it is not possible. Coz the June 2007 bulletin says that even ROW has to be atlest June 2005. His PD was Dec 2005 so there is NO way he could have applied.
more...
house Nicki Minaj,Pink Friday,album
svr_76
05-21 07:46 PM
And the other presidential candidates will be from All Indian American Desi Munnettra Kazhagam, the Techie Desam Party, Better Samajwadi Party.
tattoo nicki minaj cd cover pink
amitga
08-24 01:29 PM
Can interfiling done for spouse. I filed 485 based on my PERM labor. Can I interfile this 485 when my wifes labor gets approved from Backlog.
more...
pictures Pink Friday Album Cover Nicki
bsbawa10
09-04 09:45 AM
USCIS has all information but they might not have resource/time to collect information about old cases that�s why they might be seeking help from other body.
How difficult is it to find info about the old cases. It is a simple search query on the database. (One single query)
How difficult is it to find info about the old cases. It is a simple search query on the database. (One single query)
dresses Word is Pink Friday is now set
Hong12
12-13 11:23 AM
I have a big problem that I got approved on the H1 Recapture to get back into US on January 15, 09 though my attorney screwed up by putting someone else background into the Petition Letter submitted to USCIS with my application. The petition letter to USCIS is all wrong. It states the wrong education, work experience and job duty. They put somebody else background into mine. They put the correct sponsoring company on the first page of the letter though at the end of the second page they put the wrong sponsoring company. In this case, what should I do and what should I answer at the US Consular in Malaysia to get my H1 Visa? What should I do now? Please advise. Do I have to resubmit the application back to USCIS? Will I get rejected? Please help. Thank you very much.
more...
makeup pink friday nicki minaj album
AK_GC
01-21 05:09 PM
We travelled to India and Canada on AP. Didn't get questioned while entering from India but from Canada, they asked us why we went and when we mentioned 'vacation', they advised us to not use our parole for such cases...I guess going to the home country should not pose any issues.
girlfriend Nicki Minaj #39;Pink Friday#39;
softwareguy
07-05 12:14 PM
Pick your battles!!
Battle ONE:
Make USCIS do or prove otherwise that what they publish and say is useless. So why publish at all.
BENEFITS:
1. My wife can work.
2. My son can get scholarships in college.
3. I can change jobs - so what if it is similar.
Battle TWO:
When I sink in Glory of winning battle #1 - I would definitely participate in getting Visa # increased - The longer and more difficult of the TWO Battles.
BTW - Let me know if battle # 2 is easier.
I do not know why is everyone facing "Attention Deficit Disorder".
Battle ONE:
Make USCIS do or prove otherwise that what they publish and say is useless. So why publish at all.
BENEFITS:
1. My wife can work.
2. My son can get scholarships in college.
3. I can change jobs - so what if it is similar.
Battle TWO:
When I sink in Glory of winning battle #1 - I would definitely participate in getting Visa # increased - The longer and more difficult of the TWO Battles.
BTW - Let me know if battle # 2 is easier.
I do not know why is everyone facing "Attention Deficit Disorder".
hairstyles NEWS: Nicki Minaj Releases
gcdreamer05
04-17 01:17 PM
Yes, absolutely.
Hi Attorney Aruben,
Legally if a person has a valid h1 approval and a valid h1 stamp on his passport and is getting paid and has all pay stubs , does an IO sitting at POE have any right to send back the person ?
This also applies to the same situation wherein, the question posters m-in-law has valid documents and is coming back on visitor visa - provided she carries all her docs , does the IE have legal rights to send back the person at POE.
If IO does not allow the person at POE wat rights as a visitor / non immigrant (h1b) / immigrant (EAD) has and what should one do at POE if we are not allowed in.
We really appreciate your time and effort for replying to our questions on this forum.
Thanks.
Hi Attorney Aruben,
Legally if a person has a valid h1 approval and a valid h1 stamp on his passport and is getting paid and has all pay stubs , does an IO sitting at POE have any right to send back the person ?
This also applies to the same situation wherein, the question posters m-in-law has valid documents and is coming back on visitor visa - provided she carries all her docs , does the IE have legal rights to send back the person at POE.
If IO does not allow the person at POE wat rights as a visitor / non immigrant (h1b) / immigrant (EAD) has and what should one do at POE if we are not allowed in.
We really appreciate your time and effort for replying to our questions on this forum.
Thanks.
asiehouston
09-08 10:58 AM
Ok.. I spoke to the USCIS customer service. They want me to refile I -131 either e-file or paper based and send the original (wrong picture AP) along with it and also all the supporting documents (passport copies, etc)
What a pain....
What a pain....
jnraajan
09-23 05:22 PM
I dont think EB3 is current for Nov 2004. Infact, it is unavailable for all countries of charge until Oct First. If you are Phillipines or rest of the world, you still need to wait until OCt First to file
Dear Guru's
I got rejection notice from TSC for a valid I-485 application stating that "A Visa number is not available at the present time".
However, I have two I-140 approved one in EB3 with 10-Nov-2004 as PD and another I-140 in EB2 category with 10-Aug-2007 as PD.
It is evident that Based on 10-Nov-2004 my PD is current and my application highlighted the same in bright cover sheet and my application still got rejected.
based on notice we filed the same application back and this time CC'd to ombudsman emphasizing the same fact for PD.
Its been a week we respond to rejection notice and haven't got either acceptance or rejection letter. and haven't heard back from ombudsman.
I am optimistic and would wait to get the response but I am worried since only 5 business days left before the dates get retrogressed.
I would like to know what actions do I need to take "while the date is current"; so that I can pursue my case further after 9/30/2008.
Is there anyway I can talk to ombudsman office and get personal attention to my case.
Guru's please help me out with your experience and ideas.
Dear Guru's
I got rejection notice from TSC for a valid I-485 application stating that "A Visa number is not available at the present time".
However, I have two I-140 approved one in EB3 with 10-Nov-2004 as PD and another I-140 in EB2 category with 10-Aug-2007 as PD.
It is evident that Based on 10-Nov-2004 my PD is current and my application highlighted the same in bright cover sheet and my application still got rejected.
based on notice we filed the same application back and this time CC'd to ombudsman emphasizing the same fact for PD.
Its been a week we respond to rejection notice and haven't got either acceptance or rejection letter. and haven't heard back from ombudsman.
I am optimistic and would wait to get the response but I am worried since only 5 business days left before the dates get retrogressed.
I would like to know what actions do I need to take "while the date is current"; so that I can pursue my case further after 9/30/2008.
Is there anyway I can talk to ombudsman office and get personal attention to my case.
Guru's please help me out with your experience and ideas.