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 jennifer lopez love cover
NikNikon
July 27th, 2005, 05:25 PM
Ajp, your too hard on yourself, I think your version turned out great. Gary, how about a psd version for the nikon users, although I may be wasting my time since you've several nice results from those who have posted.
qualified_trash
10-05 02:11 PM
I used to work with someone who is a Canadian citizen (but originally from France). he once told me that every close friend of his applied and got through except for him..........
I think he continues to apply every year.........
I think he continues to apply every year.........
2011 Jennifer Lopez #39;LOVE?
fromnaija
07-25 12:20 PM
You don't sign I-140, your employer does. Only exception - self-petitions.
Anybody knows how USCIS will process un signed I-140 Petition? I filed for Labor substituion and I-140. I forgot to sign the I-140 petition.
May I know the implications of this? What all are the possibilities ? Will they reject the application?
Anybody knows how USCIS will process un signed I-140 Petition? I filed for Labor substituion and I-140. I forgot to sign the I-140 petition.
May I know the implications of this? What all are the possibilities ? Will they reject the application?
more...
ujjvalkoul
07-17 06:45 PM
contribute please.....
Those that are tearing up..u can call IV on the numbers mentioned..I just dd and congratulated the, on a job well done and pledged my contiuing support until all our oissues are resolved
Those that are tearing up..u can call IV on the numbers mentioned..I just dd and congratulated the, on a job well done and pledged my contiuing support until all our oissues are resolved
hpandey
07-09 11:02 AM
In a perfect world you would return your employers 8K and he would give you your last two weeks salary.
But we all know the world is not perfect.
Imagine if instead of you benefitting from the accountant mistake were on the receiving end and you were underpaid by 8K in 2 years. Would you still say that it is the accountant's and company's problem and nothing to do with you .
But we all know the world is not perfect.
Imagine if instead of you benefitting from the accountant mistake were on the receiving end and you were underpaid by 8K in 2 years. Would you still say that it is the accountant's and company's problem and nothing to do with you .
more...
locomotive36
11-04 12:17 PM
Dear Readers,
This topic may be totally off immigration and I am sorry for that.
Kindly request you to take a minute and read about this noble person - Narayanan Krishnan - a selfless real life hero!
Once a rising star, chef now feeds hungry - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/04/01/cnnheroes.krishnan.hunger/)
Please vote for him and make win the CNN Hero prize money which can be used towards his trust.
You can vote at - CNN Heroes - Special Reports from CNN.com (http://heroes.cnn.com/vote.aspx)
Please share the word around with your friends and family!
Thanks a lot... Appreciate your kind gesture!
This topic may be totally off immigration and I am sorry for that.
Kindly request you to take a minute and read about this noble person - Narayanan Krishnan - a selfless real life hero!
Once a rising star, chef now feeds hungry - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/04/01/cnnheroes.krishnan.hunger/)
Please vote for him and make win the CNN Hero prize money which can be used towards his trust.
You can vote at - CNN Heroes - Special Reports from CNN.com (http://heroes.cnn.com/vote.aspx)
Please share the word around with your friends and family!
Thanks a lot... Appreciate your kind gesture!
2010 jennifer lopez love cover art.
GC_Aspirant101
09-28 05:23 PM
i am in the same boat. receipt notice says Jul5 25 .. online september 15 ( I guess it is notice date)
more...
pappu
04-23 10:23 AM
Please make sure your title of the thread is self explanatory.
hair jennifer lopez love cover
morchu
05-12 05:47 PM
Thanks for clarifying this.
OK, I think the easiest way to deal with this is to look at the actual filing receipt for the I-485. If the receipt was for an amount reflecting the old fee schedule, then you need to pay for a new I-765 petition. If you paid the $1010 new filing fee, you would be okay with not paying.
OK, I think the easiest way to deal with this is to look at the actual filing receipt for the I-485. If the receipt was for an amount reflecting the old fee schedule, then you need to pay for a new I-765 petition. If you paid the $1010 new filing fee, you would be okay with not paying.
more...
Hong12
12-15 12:14 AM
Thank you very much for your quick response. That is very sad though I would ask my lawyer to resubmit the application. My original document is with me in order to apply for H1 Visa at the Consular. At this point, I would send the original document back to my lawyer and ask him to do the premium process on my application. Another issue is that he refused to pay for the premium filing fee. He said that he would suggest me to find another lawyer in the case that he had to pay for my premium filing fee. He did not show any responsibilities on anything. Pls advise what I should do.
hot house jennifer lopez love
greencard_fever
09-03 10:25 PM
Jeez! This is a really deplorable situation. USCIS has all the information and they are asking AILA for help? Why not just ask the guys who have their AOS cases pending? It's so unfortunate that this needs to be done.
Well Said..we can help USCIS (Volunteer) to process our Application on time:D:D:D:D
Well Said..we can help USCIS (Volunteer) to process our Application on time:D:D:D:D
more...
house jennifer lopez love album
TeddyKoochu
11-05 09:16 AM
Just Voted, thanks for posting.
tattoo Posted by cover.art at 19:02
snathan
06-05 02:08 PM
My labour got approved on May 23rd .
Is it possible to switch company and use this labour whihc got approved by this company?
Thanks for all your support and sharing for knowledge.
If only Labour is approved and you change employer, you will lose it and have to start from the scrach. Only if your I-140 is approved and its more than six months, you can use the PD.
Is it possible to switch company and use this labour whihc got approved by this company?
Thanks for all your support and sharing for knowledge.
If only Labour is approved and you change employer, you will lose it and have to start from the scrach. Only if your I-140 is approved and its more than six months, you can use the PD.
more...
pictures Cover jennifer lopez love cd
syedajmal
01-29 03:27 PM
Had a friend forward this email. Is this true.
From: Anne Manetas, Deputy Director, NumbersUSA
Date: Wednesday 28JAN09 12:15 p.m. EST
E-Verify Amendments Still In Tact -- Keep Up the Pressure Until Final Vote Today
DEAR FRIENDS,
Please keep phoning your own U.S. Representative (even if he/she usually is pro-illegal-immigration). 202-224-3121
Do NOT make any more calls to the Rule Committee Members (unless they are from your district).
Things are looking good, but we can't be sure until the final vote occurs. Your hard work is definitely paying off.
No amendments to strip the E-Verify language out of the stimulus bill were even filed, which is a huge victory for us. However, since things can change on the Hill at any moment, it is critical that you keep calling your own U.S. Representative to tell them you support the E-Verify language in the bill and hope your Rep. will help ensure that it remains in the bill.
The final vote on the stimulus bill should happen sometime late this afternoon or early this evening.
To be clear, there is currently no amendment to strip the E-Verify language.
Please go to your Action Buffet corkboard and click on the phone note. It will provide talking points to make it easier to make the phone call. And it names your Representative and provides alternative phone numbers to call.
Be sure to keep watching our NumbersUSA home page for updates.
THANKS,
ANNE
From: Anne Manetas, Deputy Director, NumbersUSA
Date: Wednesday 28JAN09 12:15 p.m. EST
E-Verify Amendments Still In Tact -- Keep Up the Pressure Until Final Vote Today
DEAR FRIENDS,
Please keep phoning your own U.S. Representative (even if he/she usually is pro-illegal-immigration). 202-224-3121
Do NOT make any more calls to the Rule Committee Members (unless they are from your district).
Things are looking good, but we can't be sure until the final vote occurs. Your hard work is definitely paying off.
No amendments to strip the E-Verify language out of the stimulus bill were even filed, which is a huge victory for us. However, since things can change on the Hill at any moment, it is critical that you keep calling your own U.S. Representative to tell them you support the E-Verify language in the bill and hope your Rep. will help ensure that it remains in the bill.
The final vote on the stimulus bill should happen sometime late this afternoon or early this evening.
To be clear, there is currently no amendment to strip the E-Verify language.
Please go to your Action Buffet corkboard and click on the phone note. It will provide talking points to make it easier to make the phone call. And it names your Representative and provides alternative phone numbers to call.
Be sure to keep watching our NumbersUSA home page for updates.
THANKS,
ANNE
dresses single from Jennifer Lopez
Canadian_Dream
01-18 05:01 PM
The contrast correct, however the math behind is slightly wrong:
Special Instructions :
If you filed a Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, on July 30, 2007, or after, then no fee is required to file a request for employment authorization on Form I-765. You may file the I-765 concurrently with your I-485, or you may submit the I-765 at a later date. If you file Form I-765 separately, you must also submit a copy of your Form I-797C, Notice of Action, receipt as evidence of the filing of an I-485.
You may be eligible to file this form electronically. Please see the related link "Introduction to Electronic Filing" for more information.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=73ddd59cb7a5d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCR D
So regardless of number of years a family of 3 upon next renewal will pay $2099 (which is still a huge number compares to $2 :) ) once and for all. That's why USCIS thinks it a good business alternative to give out 3 year EAD/AP so that they can cut cost. At the end of the day this change if implemented will be mutually beneficial.
Folks...This is not another Motley Fools Newsletter that promises $1 Million for $100 you invest. This is reality.. Something Green you can lay hands on....and spend it for buying your darling son his favorite bike or diamond ear rings for your lovely wife or a new HDTV system to your living room.
Read below and find it yourselves
A) What does it cost for average family of 3 for EAD and AP renewals?
EAD Renewal Fees Form I-765 - $340
AP - Renewal - $305
Document Mailing/Correspondence - $ 30
Photographs cost - $24
------------------------------------------
Total per person - $699
------------------------------------------
For 3 years, $2097/ person
------------------------------------------
For 3 applicants in a family - $6291
------------------------------------------
Driving Fees Renewal 3 times - $120 per family
If you have a foreign-born son/ daughter - add another $915 for the AP Document fees
New I-9 forms to employer and all other mess $10
Time to do all the document prep work for 3 years - at least 4 hours. For consultants 4 hours is something like $250 income.
B) Contrast this with the effort to participate in the IV Campaign..
Time that will take to write these letters - 30 minutes
Stamp and Envelope Cost - $2
Which is better? Red or Green. Do the math yourselves and see the truth.
Finish the letter and post this weekend itself.... Don't give away your hard earned money to some agency which devised a rule when GCs were coming within 8 months of filing I-485. Let us fight and fix such rules..
Campaign Link http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=16506
Tracking Link http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=16595
Special Instructions :
If you filed a Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, on July 30, 2007, or after, then no fee is required to file a request for employment authorization on Form I-765. You may file the I-765 concurrently with your I-485, or you may submit the I-765 at a later date. If you file Form I-765 separately, you must also submit a copy of your Form I-797C, Notice of Action, receipt as evidence of the filing of an I-485.
You may be eligible to file this form electronically. Please see the related link "Introduction to Electronic Filing" for more information.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=73ddd59cb7a5d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCR D
So regardless of number of years a family of 3 upon next renewal will pay $2099 (which is still a huge number compares to $2 :) ) once and for all. That's why USCIS thinks it a good business alternative to give out 3 year EAD/AP so that they can cut cost. At the end of the day this change if implemented will be mutually beneficial.
Folks...This is not another Motley Fools Newsletter that promises $1 Million for $100 you invest. This is reality.. Something Green you can lay hands on....and spend it for buying your darling son his favorite bike or diamond ear rings for your lovely wife or a new HDTV system to your living room.
Read below and find it yourselves
A) What does it cost for average family of 3 for EAD and AP renewals?
EAD Renewal Fees Form I-765 - $340
AP - Renewal - $305
Document Mailing/Correspondence - $ 30
Photographs cost - $24
------------------------------------------
Total per person - $699
------------------------------------------
For 3 years, $2097/ person
------------------------------------------
For 3 applicants in a family - $6291
------------------------------------------
Driving Fees Renewal 3 times - $120 per family
If you have a foreign-born son/ daughter - add another $915 for the AP Document fees
New I-9 forms to employer and all other mess $10
Time to do all the document prep work for 3 years - at least 4 hours. For consultants 4 hours is something like $250 income.
B) Contrast this with the effort to participate in the IV Campaign..
Time that will take to write these letters - 30 minutes
Stamp and Envelope Cost - $2
Which is better? Red or Green. Do the math yourselves and see the truth.
Finish the letter and post this weekend itself.... Don't give away your hard earned money to some agency which devised a rule when GCs were coming within 8 months of filing I-485. Let us fight and fix such rules..
Campaign Link http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=16506
Tracking Link http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=16595
more...
makeup jennifer lopez love cover
Scythe
11-11 07:21 PM
You gave him $800 in return for a $200 prize?
girlfriend house Jennifer Lopez - Love
meridiani.planum
11-03 01:50 AM
Hi,
My employer applied for my H1b Extension and the case was received on Aug 5th by USCIS. The online status still shows the case to be in "Initial Review". Out of curiosity, I called USCIS and they told me that they can only reveal information abuot the case to my employer. So I called my employer and they gave me a shocking news - They had received an RFE about a month ago and they "forgot" to inform me. They are not revealing me the details of the RFE.
We have to respond to the RFE by Nov 3rd, and since I had a change of project(I did provide the previous client letter when we had originally applied for H1b extension) they are asking me to get a client letter and other proofs within a day!!!! My client is taking its on time and I do not think I will get the client letter to send it in time.
1) What are my options here? Not knowing what the RFE is, being told about the RFE with just 2 days remaining, can I threaten to take any legal action against my employer?
2) Is it my right to get a copy of the RFE?
3) How come the case status did not change on USCIS website?
My current visa expires on Nov 20th. Please advice ASAP!
sorry to say but your employer is useless. by playing around with your H1 petition he is messing around with your legal status in the US. Since he has already proven himself untrustworthy, I would suggest you move on asap: find another job and transfer your H1. Since you already have a client, should be easier to get a transfer done. Also, do the transfer with premium processing even if you have to pay $1k out of your own pocket.
P.S: H1 is his own petition, you are just the beneficiary. You dont have a right to see the RFE and he does not have an obligation to share information about it with you. Thats the legal part. morally and ethically the way he is acting sucks.
My employer applied for my H1b Extension and the case was received on Aug 5th by USCIS. The online status still shows the case to be in "Initial Review". Out of curiosity, I called USCIS and they told me that they can only reveal information abuot the case to my employer. So I called my employer and they gave me a shocking news - They had received an RFE about a month ago and they "forgot" to inform me. They are not revealing me the details of the RFE.
We have to respond to the RFE by Nov 3rd, and since I had a change of project(I did provide the previous client letter when we had originally applied for H1b extension) they are asking me to get a client letter and other proofs within a day!!!! My client is taking its on time and I do not think I will get the client letter to send it in time.
1) What are my options here? Not knowing what the RFE is, being told about the RFE with just 2 days remaining, can I threaten to take any legal action against my employer?
2) Is it my right to get a copy of the RFE?
3) How come the case status did not change on USCIS website?
My current visa expires on Nov 20th. Please advice ASAP!
sorry to say but your employer is useless. by playing around with your H1 petition he is messing around with your legal status in the US. Since he has already proven himself untrustworthy, I would suggest you move on asap: find another job and transfer your H1. Since you already have a client, should be easier to get a transfer done. Also, do the transfer with premium processing even if you have to pay $1k out of your own pocket.
P.S: H1 is his own petition, you are just the beneficiary. You dont have a right to see the RFE and he does not have an obligation to share information about it with you. Thats the legal part. morally and ethically the way he is acting sucks.
hairstyles Jennifer Lopez – Love? (Deluxe
ddeka
07-09 12:35 PM
You can take info pass and get an interim EAD
bobbydalal
08-24 12:05 PM
Hi i just wanna clarify one thing. Ur date is far from being current and they already called u for ur interview is that rite.
vdlrao
01-21 03:20 PM
Person traveling with AP does not require Transit Visa if u dont plan to go outside of Frankfurt airport for what so reason.I had traveled via Frankfurt on 01/07/09.
Please do check with German consulate.
Thank you KKTexas
Please do check with German consulate.
Thank you KKTexas