jcrajput
06-09 11:03 AM
Our I-485 is pending and we have EAD/AP to enter the US back. We are planning to travel to INDIA end of this year and we can use our AP to return. We also have our H1B/H4 visa approval until 10/2010. The question is:
1. Should we stamp our passport with H1B/H4 visas? If yes, does anyone has information about how to take an appointment from US for Mumbai embassy?
2. Is it recommanded to have passport stamped with H1B/H4 even if we have Advance Parole?
Please help. Thanks a lot.
1. Should we stamp our passport with H1B/H4 visas? If yes, does anyone has information about how to take an appointment from US for Mumbai embassy?
2. Is it recommanded to have passport stamped with H1B/H4 even if we have Advance Parole?
Please help. Thanks a lot.
wallpaper house hair Selena Gomez and
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.
chi_shark
09-04 12:12 PM
Tell your friend that it will be more fun to watch grass grow than filing for gc...
just kidding... if he just needs I-140 approved so he can continue to get 3 year H-1 extensions, then its a good idea to start PERM.
One of my good friend asked me this questions yesterday? I did not have an answer for him and wanted to ask if someone could have any suggestions on this.
Thanks you for your time.
His company wants to start his EB2 green card process. He was wondering if this a good time to do this? Is it recommended that he delay this process for 6 months or so? He is currently in his 3rd year of H1B.
Thanks
-M
just kidding... if he just needs I-140 approved so he can continue to get 3 year H-1 extensions, then its a good idea to start PERM.
One of my good friend asked me this questions yesterday? I did not have an answer for him and wanted to ask if someone could have any suggestions on this.
Thanks you for your time.
His company wants to start his EB2 green card process. He was wondering if this a good time to do this? Is it recommended that he delay this process for 6 months or so? He is currently in his 3rd year of H1B.
Thanks
-M
2011 Justin Bieber And Selena Gomez
mmanurker
10-17 03:36 PM
Payroll tax is same as employer tax. There are 2 or 3 components of the taxes that employer pays such as Social security ( employer portion), unemployment tax, Medicare ( employer portion)
also employer will need to pay for payroll company such as ADP a fee to maintain payroll, do filings
Thanks Surabhi......So does my assumption correct in terms of the percent tax an employer pays which is between 8 to 12% depending on the state he is operating which inlcudes all the components you mentioned except the payroll company fee(i,e ADP or intuit or etc)? The reason I ask this is b'coz I am also planning to work on W2.
also employer will need to pay for payroll company such as ADP a fee to maintain payroll, do filings
Thanks Surabhi......So does my assumption correct in terms of the percent tax an employer pays which is between 8 to 12% depending on the state he is operating which inlcudes all the components you mentioned except the payroll company fee(i,e ADP or intuit or etc)? The reason I ask this is b'coz I am also planning to work on W2.
more...
boreal
02-05 06:28 PM
Can you please let me know if you received my email.
Thanks
wow!! IV has been very productive for you NewDoc..Would u like to contribute to IV if you get this post? And Bonus if you can convince some of your friends to join IV and contribute too ...
Thanks
wow!! IV has been very productive for you NewDoc..Would u like to contribute to IV if you get this post? And Bonus if you can convince some of your friends to join IV and contribute too ...
yoda
08-12 06:25 PM
According to my understanding, PIO is like a long term entry visa but it does not allow you to work. You would still need an employment visa.
Only OCI visa holders can work without employment visa.
You may want confirm the details on the Embassy website as they keep changing rules from time to time.
Only OCI visa holders can work without employment visa.
You may want confirm the details on the Embassy website as they keep changing rules from time to time.
more...
andycool
08-28 06:49 AM
Any one get refund from USCIS ??
I sent EAD application on 05/01,was approved on 06/14 and never received to my address,called after 30 days of receiving email,they said card lost in the mail and they suggested to apply replacement card.I applied for replacement card,approved and also received last week and since monday receiving emails saying card production ordered on old one which was mentioned as lost in the email.I just spoke to USCIS representative,he suggested to send a letter to TSC for refund request.
any one sent letter for refund before ? do we have any form for refund ?
How this will work out ?
I dont think USCIS will issue refund ....
I sent EAD application on 05/01,was approved on 06/14 and never received to my address,called after 30 days of receiving email,they said card lost in the mail and they suggested to apply replacement card.I applied for replacement card,approved and also received last week and since monday receiving emails saying card production ordered on old one which was mentioned as lost in the email.I just spoke to USCIS representative,he suggested to send a letter to TSC for refund request.
any one sent letter for refund before ? do we have any form for refund ?
How this will work out ?
I dont think USCIS will issue refund ....
2010 Justin and Selena Kiss and
abhishek101
05-21 12:42 AM
Can you please let me know which service center (Texas or Nebraska) processed yours and your wife's I485 application.
If you don't mind can you please let me know how long it took to receive I-485 receipt notice and Finger print notice (for your wife).
My situation is
Priority date is 08/01/06 (EB2). Becoming current on June 1st 2011. Need to add my wife as dependent to my green card process (she is in US in H4 status now). Texas Service Center is processing my I-485.
Filed at : Nebraska Service Center
For Wife
Filed 485 on March 10, Finger printing May 6th, GC Approved May 9th, GC received May 13th
My Wife was on EAD/OPT based on her student visa (and not on H4)
If you don't mind can you please let me know how long it took to receive I-485 receipt notice and Finger print notice (for your wife).
My situation is
Priority date is 08/01/06 (EB2). Becoming current on June 1st 2011. Need to add my wife as dependent to my green card process (she is in US in H4 status now). Texas Service Center is processing my I-485.
Filed at : Nebraska Service Center
For Wife
Filed 485 on March 10, Finger printing May 6th, GC Approved May 9th, GC received May 13th
My Wife was on EAD/OPT based on her student visa (and not on H4)
more...
valatharv
07-15 08:33 PM
It will be very nice if anyone of you can help to my post.
"father FirstName and lastName reverse"
"father FirstName and lastName reverse"
hair Gissa kiss: Bieber leans into
sdrblr
08-24 11:41 AM
calling a supervisor and he returning the call without HR(or legal's) intervention is little weird. How big is your company?
more...
vicsthedude
04-28 09:15 AM
I travelled back from India on 04/26/09 via Detroit. All I was carrying was PP, AP and EAD.
There were absolutely no issues, wasn't asked a single question on entry.... looks like all
the stories of trouble at POE are baseless.
There were absolutely no issues, wasn't asked a single question on entry.... looks like all
the stories of trouble at POE are baseless.
hot justin bieber selena gomez
eilsoe
10-15 07:25 PM
Has this thread been forgotten?
I'm still waiting to hear what a "dog's clue" is... :P
isn't the paw pring a standard vector shape in PS7? Or did I download it somewhere...?
hm.... never can remember...
I'm still waiting to hear what a "dog's clue" is... :P
isn't the paw pring a standard vector shape in PS7? Or did I download it somewhere...?
hm.... never can remember...
more...
house Justin Bieber amp; Selena Gomez
newlife2
09-19 10:17 PM
Guys, I was just laid off and have efiled i539 3 days after the termination date for a status change to F2. Now working on the application letter. Do you think I should mention the layoff in the letter?
If I do mention it:
Con: The layoff might quickly catch the eyes of the immigration officer and if he want to check my status, he could find out the 3 days OOS.
Pro: My previous job was well paid. By mentioning it, I give the reason that why I want to stay at home as F2 instead of keeping the well paid job.
I guess I will mention it in the letter to explain the whole situation and hope everything will be all right. Let me know if anybody disagrees asap, I will mail out the stuff with in next two days.
If I do mention it:
Con: The layoff might quickly catch the eyes of the immigration officer and if he want to check my status, he could find out the 3 days OOS.
Pro: My previous job was well paid. By mentioning it, I give the reason that why I want to stay at home as F2 instead of keeping the well paid job.
I guess I will mention it in the letter to explain the whole situation and hope everything will be all right. Let me know if anybody disagrees asap, I will mail out the stuff with in next two days.
tattoo Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez
pappu
04-24 07:56 PM
Paapu, I support IV's move and whole-heartedly acknowledge your adept leadership. Please stay encouraged and forgive your fellow brothers, who don't know what is good for them, and be blessed with inner strength for your self-less work.
The most important thing for all of us now is OUR COLLECTIVE SUPPORT TO IV by instant contribution, to accomplish these reforms which can change many lives and careers. I think this the biggest expected reform, bigger than July 2nd filing SUCCESS, thus we should do HIGHEST contribution to pull it to our side. We should think - What I, as an individual, am doing for this peaceful lobbying? Am I doing anything? can I do more? and then we will find ways to help IV and help ourselves. Then we would not think twice to add $100 or $200 which is about 1/10 th cost of your 1 month apt rent - and stop paying rent forever after greencard and saving millions with free job change, multiple jobs, own business, or buying house etc.
Everybody should realise the importance of getting the some relief rather than nothing with further discussion on ROW effect, please!
My $200.00 is on its way.
Thank you very much
The most important thing for all of us now is OUR COLLECTIVE SUPPORT TO IV by instant contribution, to accomplish these reforms which can change many lives and careers. I think this the biggest expected reform, bigger than July 2nd filing SUCCESS, thus we should do HIGHEST contribution to pull it to our side. We should think - What I, as an individual, am doing for this peaceful lobbying? Am I doing anything? can I do more? and then we will find ways to help IV and help ourselves. Then we would not think twice to add $100 or $200 which is about 1/10 th cost of your 1 month apt rent - and stop paying rent forever after greencard and saving millions with free job change, multiple jobs, own business, or buying house etc.
Everybody should realise the importance of getting the some relief rather than nothing with further discussion on ROW effect, please!
My $200.00 is on its way.
Thank you very much
more...
pictures Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez
tdasara
05-29 08:42 AM
This basically is adding insult to injury!
How can one expect a sane professional being stuck with the same job description for 5-10-15 years with little or no pay increase?
Oh, well, that's the law!! So were Jim Crow laws....An unjust law no law at all! Augustine of Hippo
For Christ sake...the PD's are stuck in Windows 2000 era (even Windows 98 era). We have had XP, Vista and now Windows 7 and we are expected to work on Windows 98?
So in case of an RFE, do we plead saying Windows 98/Windows 2000 are obselete no sensible (profitable) business uses it and I have to work on Windows Vista?
How can one expect a sane professional being stuck with the same job description for 5-10-15 years with little or no pay increase?
Oh, well, that's the law!! So were Jim Crow laws....An unjust law no law at all! Augustine of Hippo
For Christ sake...the PD's are stuck in Windows 2000 era (even Windows 98 era). We have had XP, Vista and now Windows 7 and we are expected to work on Windows 98?
So in case of an RFE, do we plead saying Windows 98/Windows 2000 are obselete no sensible (profitable) business uses it and I have to work on Windows Vista?
dresses Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez
ravi98
08-30 08:34 AM
Not only mine. There are many in the same scenario. Its the feeling of being close to the finishline but stll can't cross it. Sudden Influx of anything let it be USCIS is not good.
So close....yet not there... True, it is frustrating to not cross the finish line, at least you can see the finish line unlike many in EB3 I - who don't even know the # of laps they have to run!!
Hang in there.......you will get it!
So close....yet not there... True, it is frustrating to not cross the finish line, at least you can see the finish line unlike many in EB3 I - who don't even know the # of laps they have to run!!
Hang in there.......you will get it!
more...
makeup a bikini-clad Gomez, 18,
surabhi
05-29 08:21 PM
I have been working for a University for the last 3 yrs(2005-2008). The H1 they have is quota exempted and is non transferable. In 2006 a consultant A offered me a job and filed for H1b in the quota it has got approved.But due to certain reasons i have not joined them and still continued it the university job. In 2008 i got an another job oppurtunity with an another consultant B. They filed a H1 transfer from company A to Company B ,showing my university h1 that i am still in status.This H1 application by company B got denied and i have left the university job. Can i join the company A because they have an H1 approved in my name in oct 2006. I contacted consultant A and they still have not cancelled the H1 they have in my name.
Thank you for the help
YOu were in status until you were with the University. Did you start working with Company B pending approval. In that case you MAY be in status while you were working there. You are certainly out of status since your h1b is denied. Make sure you are not accumulating > 180 days.
USCIS denial seem to be consistent with the fact that you cannot transfer from cap-exempt to cap based job. Even though you petitioned from Company A to B, your H1 in use was from the University.
It should be possible to go back to Company A, assuming it is still valid and it has I-94 attached to it. The case is slightly complex, and a paid telephone consultation with a good attorney will be money well spent.
Thank you for the help
YOu were in status until you were with the University. Did you start working with Company B pending approval. In that case you MAY be in status while you were working there. You are certainly out of status since your h1b is denied. Make sure you are not accumulating > 180 days.
USCIS denial seem to be consistent with the fact that you cannot transfer from cap-exempt to cap based job. Even though you petitioned from Company A to B, your H1 in use was from the University.
It should be possible to go back to Company A, assuming it is still valid and it has I-94 attached to it. The case is slightly complex, and a paid telephone consultation with a good attorney will be money well spent.
girlfriend images justin bieber
Macaca
12-15 11:54 AM
Hammond Law Firm in Cincinatti is doing my paper work. I like them a lot.
I think I'll try to find a knowledgeable lawyer who's not too snooty. Someone better than my current company's lawyer who happens to think all information to me should be provided only on a need to know basis..I am in Cincinnati Ohio so please recommend if you know any good names..
I also have an approved I140 with my current company ....can it be used to get a 3 year term when the H1 is transferred ? I still have about 2 years left on my original 6 year term..Thankyou
I think I'll try to find a knowledgeable lawyer who's not too snooty. Someone better than my current company's lawyer who happens to think all information to me should be provided only on a need to know basis..I am in Cincinnati Ohio so please recommend if you know any good names..
I also have an approved I140 with my current company ....can it be used to get a 3 year term when the H1 is transferred ? I still have about 2 years left on my original 6 year term..Thankyou
hairstyles Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez
smuggymba
05-19 01:47 PM
In india we celebrate the bharat pravasi diwas (NRI Day) and PM is in attendance. Remittance to India is a big boost to the economy.
PM should give a hint to Obama on EB issues but I don't expect PM to help me get my GC. Bharat Pravasi diwas is a good way to initiate this dialogue within the NRI community.
PM should give a hint to Obama on EB issues but I don't expect PM to help me get my GC. Bharat Pravasi diwas is a good way to initiate this dialogue within the NRI community.
nixstor
09-17 02:09 PM
Paskal,
That was one thing I was gonna say. I wanted to see how members would react. I am glad you brought it up though. As of now it says IV - Home. We dont need any procedures other than an update on our content.
That was one thing I was gonna say. I wanted to see how members would react. I am glad you brought it up though. As of now it says IV - Home. We dont need any procedures other than an update on our content.
Eberth
10-28 10:00 PM
what sucks?
the page?? (i didnt even finished it :()
or what they did to me ( yeah, that sucks) :(
and i was only going to recieve 200 dlls for that page, i know it WAS my first job , but i've learned the lesson and i'm going to ask the first half of the price at the begining and the other half at the end :evil:
the only thing makes me happy is that i almost make my 100th post :cowboy: :P
the page?? (i didnt even finished it :()
or what they did to me ( yeah, that sucks) :(
and i was only going to recieve 200 dlls for that page, i know it WAS my first job , but i've learned the lesson and i'm going to ask the first half of the price at the begining and the other half at the end :evil:
the only thing makes me happy is that i almost make my 100th post :cowboy: :P