Munna Bhai
01-09 01:01 PM
Mine is Feb 2007 NSC. I-140 got RFE on Oct will be replying sometime this week.
Looks like they may work on May 2007 cases sometime this month occording to NSC progress.
what that RFE was for?? could you please share, if ability to pay, then how much was written on your application and what is your education etc.
Thank you very much.
Looks like they may work on May 2007 cases sometime this month occording to NSC progress.
what that RFE was for?? could you please share, if ability to pay, then how much was written on your application and what is your education etc.
Thank you very much.
love quotes tagalog funny. love quotes tagalog funny.
gopalkrishan
08-03 04:58 PM
Dear Registered OP,
I guess you have accidentally choose IV to post your issue,
the key word search "Frustation" on google might have drove you here,
not your mistake! try this website (http://www.atkins.com/Homepage.aspx) :D
Hi Sanju,
I do realize that IV is a focused forum .. but I thought that since all the members here are stressed with GC process, backlogs and continued frustrations of PD, I would just try to provide them with a moment of smile .. So there was no mistake in my posting on IV ..
More over I posted it under "Interesting Topics" so that I do not hamper any mainstream discussions :) If even this is unacceptable then I will redact my post with due apologies ..
Regards,
Gopal Krishan
I guess you have accidentally choose IV to post your issue,
the key word search "Frustation" on google might have drove you here,
not your mistake! try this website (http://www.atkins.com/Homepage.aspx) :D
Hi Sanju,
I do realize that IV is a focused forum .. but I thought that since all the members here are stressed with GC process, backlogs and continued frustrations of PD, I would just try to provide them with a moment of smile .. So there was no mistake in my posting on IV ..
More over I posted it under "Interesting Topics" so that I do not hamper any mainstream discussions :) If even this is unacceptable then I will redact my post with due apologies ..
Regards,
Gopal Krishan
love quotes tagalog funny. love quotes tagalog funny.
kk_kk
02-19 01:28 PM
I would say go ahead and ask your employer if they can apply another labor in EB2 for the new role. Yes, it is correct that there is a lot of scrutiny these days, but if filed properly and if your compnay has followed all the procedures, your PERM might get approved.
Good Luck
Good Luck
love quotes tagalog funny. love quotes tagalog funny.
GKBest
10-18 10:51 PM
July 3rd filer....LIN# (though I-140 approved at TSC)
Receipt Date: July 3
Notice Date: October 11
EAD Card: Waiting
No FP notice yet
I-140 approved: TSC
Originating Issuer of I-485 and I-765 : NSC
Receipt Date: July 3
Notice Date: October 11
EAD Card: Waiting
No FP notice yet
I-140 approved: TSC
Originating Issuer of I-485 and I-765 : NSC
more...
love quotes tagalog funny. tagalog funny quotes about
HOPE_GC_SOON
05-04 10:49 AM
Hi Immi2006:
thanks for the update and analysis. But My 140 is approved in less than 20 days.. I donot work for MNC. Work for an American owned Company. Not sure, how much time it would take to reach 10/05 priority date for eb2.
Let us hope for the best.. :rolleyes:
Thanks,:)
THose are labour filed.
It is difficult to pull the 140 stats for the same labour. But I did a rough data extract from immigration.com based on what folks have mentioned, it seems like 140 is taking 8 months average presently, RFEs are in 40 % of cases, and also approved 140 seems to be like around 2000 in total for EB2, and EB3 categories for 2005 filings.. which means large numbers are still pending in Texas or Folks have not updated their data.
One thing that emerges clear from the data pattern :
Presently EB2 turn around time for Perm is approx 26 days, EB3 is 41 days average.
140 for EB2 from a MNC = 6 months, 140 for EB2 from a small company 8 months avg.
thanks for the update and analysis. But My 140 is approved in less than 20 days.. I donot work for MNC. Work for an American owned Company. Not sure, how much time it would take to reach 10/05 priority date for eb2.
Let us hope for the best.. :rolleyes:
Thanks,:)
THose are labour filed.
It is difficult to pull the 140 stats for the same labour. But I did a rough data extract from immigration.com based on what folks have mentioned, it seems like 140 is taking 8 months average presently, RFEs are in 40 % of cases, and also approved 140 seems to be like around 2000 in total for EB2, and EB3 categories for 2005 filings.. which means large numbers are still pending in Texas or Folks have not updated their data.
One thing that emerges clear from the data pattern :
Presently EB2 turn around time for Perm is approx 26 days, EB3 is 41 days average.
140 for EB2 from a MNC = 6 months, 140 for EB2 from a small company 8 months avg.
love quotes tagalog funny. day emo. Rouse him tagalog
asiandude2
05-17 10:12 PM
Ammendment 4005 to CIR by Cornyn under the SKIL ACT states that:
(b) LABOR CERTIFICATIONS.--Section 212(a)(5)(A)(ii) (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(5)(A)(ii)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subclause (I);
(2) by striking the period at the end of sub- clause (II) and inserting ``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
(III) is a member of the professions and has a master's degree or higher from an accredited United States university or has been awarded medical specialty certification based on post-doctoral training and experience in the United States.''.
We already know that following people are exempt from obtaining Labor Certifications for Green Card Processing:
(I) is a member of the teaching profession, or
(II) has exceptional ability in the sciences or the arts.
If this Cornyn amendment passes does it mean that people with "a master's degree or higher from an accredited United States university or has been awarded medical specialty certification based on post-doctoral training and experience in the United States.'' will also be exempt from obtaining LC for Green card processing.
(b) LABOR CERTIFICATIONS.--Section 212(a)(5)(A)(ii) (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(5)(A)(ii)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subclause (I);
(2) by striking the period at the end of sub- clause (II) and inserting ``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
(III) is a member of the professions and has a master's degree or higher from an accredited United States university or has been awarded medical specialty certification based on post-doctoral training and experience in the United States.''.
We already know that following people are exempt from obtaining Labor Certifications for Green Card Processing:
(I) is a member of the teaching profession, or
(II) has exceptional ability in the sciences or the arts.
If this Cornyn amendment passes does it mean that people with "a master's degree or higher from an accredited United States university or has been awarded medical specialty certification based on post-doctoral training and experience in the United States.'' will also be exempt from obtaining LC for Green card processing.
more...
love quotes tagalog funny. tagalog love quotes tumblr.
eastindia
02-01 01:15 PM
Donate to the Haiti earthquake fund. They need your help.
love quotes tagalog funny. love quotes tagalog funny.
a_yaja
06-25 10:34 AM
I though such contracts are illegal in US?....It is employment at will.....that means they can kick you out anytime or you can leave anytime....maybe someone can clarify
It is "at will". But employers can have what is known as a "termination" clause. This clause can be anything (as long as it is legal):
- You cannot quit and join a competitor within 2 yrs
- You have to return all money paid for relocation if you quit within one yr
- You have to pay all costs associated with GC processing if you quit within 2 yrs
It looks like "2 yrs" is the max. time allowed by the law.
As long as the terms are reasonable, it will stand in the court of law. However, stuff like "you cannot do any programming for 2 yrs after quitting" will not hold in the court of law, because the agreement is preventing you from earning a livelyhood - which is illegal.
It is "at will". But employers can have what is known as a "termination" clause. This clause can be anything (as long as it is legal):
- You cannot quit and join a competitor within 2 yrs
- You have to return all money paid for relocation if you quit within one yr
- You have to pay all costs associated with GC processing if you quit within 2 yrs
It looks like "2 yrs" is the max. time allowed by the law.
As long as the terms are reasonable, it will stand in the court of law. However, stuff like "you cannot do any programming for 2 yrs after quitting" will not hold in the court of law, because the agreement is preventing you from earning a livelyhood - which is illegal.
more...
love quotes tagalog funny. love quotes tagalog part 2.
rajivkane
05-21 09:52 AM
HI!
I have two I-140(both approved) & want to port earlier priority date of 10/21/2003(EB-3 Classification) to my other approved I-140(EB2 Class-priority date 11/14/2005). My EB-3 I-140 was not approved at the time of filling I-485 in July'2007. Both my lawyer & me have written couple of letters to USCIS to do this but still nothing is done. We received a reply to one of my letter asking us to file I-824 "requesting an amended approval notice with retention of earlier priority date". Both I-140 are from the same employer & I am still with them. My questions are 1) do I need to file I-824 or this will be eventually done by USCIS by reminder letters? (2) Will filling I-824 will harm my case in anyway? (3) What "reason for request" to choose on I-824 when filling- as none of the existing ones fit my case( can I say "see attached" & mention ""requesting an amended approval notice with retention of earlier priority date" on anither sheet of paper? (if any one has this experience please guide me) (4) how long does it take to get this done whether we file I-824 or otherwise?(5)Any good lawyer for this?
Some more :
Murhy.com has following:
"However, we at the Murthy Law Firm see cases in which either the I-140 petition with the earlier priority date was not approved until after the I-485 filing or the option was overlooked. In those situations, NSC suggests that the Application for Action on Approved Petition (Form I-824) can be used in order to obtain proof of the change of the priority date. Form I-824 is not required in order to make the request for retention or change of priority date, but it gives a mechanism to obtain a decision and proof that the request was granted"
Some of the questions based on above:
(1) Do I require to file I-824 based on this since my EB-3 I-140 was approveD after I filed my I-485 based on EB-2.
(2) If yes, can I file I-842 or my employer need to file since this is "application for action" on I-140 petititon?
(3)Why only NSC requires this? Is this law or someone's whim?
(4) I am already waiting for nearly six month's now- based on porting I am current past six months & we already have sent two letters from my lawyer & two from my side for this.
Please guide.
Regards,
Raj
I have two I-140(both approved) & want to port earlier priority date of 10/21/2003(EB-3 Classification) to my other approved I-140(EB2 Class-priority date 11/14/2005). My EB-3 I-140 was not approved at the time of filling I-485 in July'2007. Both my lawyer & me have written couple of letters to USCIS to do this but still nothing is done. We received a reply to one of my letter asking us to file I-824 "requesting an amended approval notice with retention of earlier priority date". Both I-140 are from the same employer & I am still with them. My questions are 1) do I need to file I-824 or this will be eventually done by USCIS by reminder letters? (2) Will filling I-824 will harm my case in anyway? (3) What "reason for request" to choose on I-824 when filling- as none of the existing ones fit my case( can I say "see attached" & mention ""requesting an amended approval notice with retention of earlier priority date" on anither sheet of paper? (if any one has this experience please guide me) (4) how long does it take to get this done whether we file I-824 or otherwise?(5)Any good lawyer for this?
Some more :
Murhy.com has following:
"However, we at the Murthy Law Firm see cases in which either the I-140 petition with the earlier priority date was not approved until after the I-485 filing or the option was overlooked. In those situations, NSC suggests that the Application for Action on Approved Petition (Form I-824) can be used in order to obtain proof of the change of the priority date. Form I-824 is not required in order to make the request for retention or change of priority date, but it gives a mechanism to obtain a decision and proof that the request was granted"
Some of the questions based on above:
(1) Do I require to file I-824 based on this since my EB-3 I-140 was approveD after I filed my I-485 based on EB-2.
(2) If yes, can I file I-842 or my employer need to file since this is "application for action" on I-140 petititon?
(3)Why only NSC requires this? Is this law or someone's whim?
(4) I am already waiting for nearly six month's now- based on porting I am current past six months & we already have sent two letters from my lawyer & two from my side for this.
Please guide.
Regards,
Raj
love quotes tagalog funny. love quotes tagalog text.
kisana
04-10 12:13 PM
Hi I am planning for self filing EAD. I want to do e-file, but I heard that that if you are e-filing you need to go for finger printing. At the same time I also heard that no matter whether you go for e-filing or sending application to USCIS, if your finger printing is expired than you may need to go for the finger printing. Please suggest the best way to file for the EAD(I-765 form).
Als one more thing "Which USCIS Office?" section which date I need to put there.
Als one more thing "Which USCIS Office?" section which date I need to put there.
more...
love quotes tagalog funny. funny quotes tagalog. funny
radosav
10-04 01:47 PM
I-485 RD July 27 at Texas
I-140 AD May 25, 06 at Texas, LUD on I-140 July 28, 07
all checks (for I-485 & I-765) cashed Oct 3, 07 at California
Both I-485 cases transfered back to Texas on Oct 2, 07
I-765 shows received date as Oct 1, 07 and will stay at California. Does that mean I need to count 11 weeks from that date? And not from the date when packet was received in July?
I-140 AD May 25, 06 at Texas, LUD on I-140 July 28, 07
all checks (for I-485 & I-765) cashed Oct 3, 07 at California
Both I-485 cases transfered back to Texas on Oct 2, 07
I-765 shows received date as Oct 1, 07 and will stay at California. Does that mean I need to count 11 weeks from that date? And not from the date when packet was received in July?
love quotes tagalog funny. love quotes tagalog funny.
return_to_india
01-19 05:34 PM
Is $500 what your wife pays from her pocket (and employer pays the rest) or is this the actual cost of buying insurance?
In the former case, expect the actual cost under COBRA to be significantly higher.
I think you mixed part of reply with "chaks7" info.
I pay $500 . Don't know how much the employer pays.
In the former case, expect the actual cost under COBRA to be significantly higher.
I think you mixed part of reply with "chaks7" info.
I pay $500 . Don't know how much the employer pays.
more...
love quotes tagalog funny. love quotes tagalog funny.
cox
June 19th, 2005, 04:27 AM
In the words of William F. Buckley Jr..... some of my first instincts are reprehensible! Glad you finally got CS2....How are you liking it so far? (It IS out of the box isn't it?)
It is out and installed. I loaded up the rainbow picture, did an adjustment layer, but don't seem to be making changes that really improve the shot. I'll try some more later, but I have to go, the sun is about to rise :)
It is out and installed. I loaded up the rainbow picture, did an adjustment layer, but don't seem to be making changes that really improve the shot. I'll try some more later, but I have to go, the sun is about to rise :)
love quotes tagalog funny. love quotes tagalog part 2.
sanjay
01-09 04:12 PM
why i got red?????? I am saying it is going to be current.
I gave you a green now. So, you have only one red left. LOL people are taking humor seriously.
I gave you a green now. So, you have only one red left. LOL people are taking humor seriously.
more...
love quotes tagalog funny. love quotes tagalog funny.
pappusheth
05-02 12:02 AM
Should not be an issue. Dont forget to give the approval notice to the IO. Otherwise you will be given only till Aug 2009.
Thanks snathan. I do plan to carry I-797. When you say "you will be given till Aug 2009", what are you referring to?
Thanks snathan. I do plan to carry I-797. When you say "you will be given till Aug 2009", what are you referring to?
love quotes tagalog funny. love quotes tagalog funny.
webm
05-21 05:33 PM
thank you for giving me confidence...did u do e-file?
It's a Paper filing..
It's a Paper filing..
more...
love quotes tagalog funny. love quotes tagalog funny.
WillIBLucky
11-17 01:56 PM
That brings up a good point, why do you think all the PDs are moving except India?
Is there really that many applicants from India than China
The problem is even CIS layed off many people since 2004 and now are left with few people to work on. The left out people are not "like Indians in USA" kind of people.
And further more they cannot offshore processing to India as well. So what do they do......hmm lets retrogress Indians. Its working for them.
Is there really that many applicants from India than China
The problem is even CIS layed off many people since 2004 and now are left with few people to work on. The left out people are not "like Indians in USA" kind of people.
And further more they cannot offshore processing to India as well. So what do they do......hmm lets retrogress Indians. Its working for them.
love quotes tagalog funny. love quotes tagalog funny.
walking_dude
10-26 09:57 AM
Pakal, you just made an offer no state chapter can refuse :)
Trust me, IN guys, it will get you more members. I got a couple of members to attend by calling them. Not all the members are active on the forums, though they are interested in doing the volunteer work. Even if the numbers that add up after those 30-40 calls is small, it does publicize the existence of the chapter to other members; who most probably will join once they start seeing the chapter stable and working for a few months (think of it as a publicity campaign ).
You guys followup with Paskal, he can help you run a Newsletter to reach all registered IN members. Keep it supplemental to calling the members (and not as a subsitute).
We ( MI chapter) recently had our meet. If you guys are interested PM me. I can provide you more details on what worked, and how we did preparations for it.
Hi,
I suggest you guys bump this thread periodically and keep it on the front page.
Lynne, I can provide you some help with info on IV members in IN.
Please pm/e mail me. Thanks for your effort!
Trust me, IN guys, it will get you more members. I got a couple of members to attend by calling them. Not all the members are active on the forums, though they are interested in doing the volunteer work. Even if the numbers that add up after those 30-40 calls is small, it does publicize the existence of the chapter to other members; who most probably will join once they start seeing the chapter stable and working for a few months (think of it as a publicity campaign ).
You guys followup with Paskal, he can help you run a Newsletter to reach all registered IN members. Keep it supplemental to calling the members (and not as a subsitute).
We ( MI chapter) recently had our meet. If you guys are interested PM me. I can provide you more details on what worked, and how we did preparations for it.
Hi,
I suggest you guys bump this thread periodically and keep it on the front page.
Lynne, I can provide you some help with info on IV members in IN.
Please pm/e mail me. Thanks for your effort!
love quotes tagalog funny. love quotes tagalog funny.
sukhyani
10-16 02:01 PM
speaking of SKIL Act, I dont know why I feel pretty optimistic that it might get passed during the lame duck session of Congress. Since December last year (Budget Reconciliation) we have seen House and Senate not agreeing on provisions favorable to us. This time both the chambers have identical bills favoring us. Let's keep our fingures crossed...
gc_bulgaria
10-09 04:18 PM
http://www.immigration-law.com/
10/08/2007: I-140 Portability After 180 Days of 485 Filing and Service Centers Standard Procedure of Review and Adjudication
When there is a retrogression of visa numbers and anticipated long delays in 485 adjudication due to the massive July VB fiasco 485 filings, it is anticipated that there will be a substantial number of 485 applicants who may have to change employment along the way, either voluntarily or involuntarily, under AC 21 Section 106(c) provision. Accordingly, whether one reports the change of employment proactively or not, one should learn the internal review and adjudication procedures within the Service Center which are adopted by the adjudicators in adjudicating such I-485 applications.
The good material to review on this procedure is the USCIS Standard Operating Procedure for the adjudicators. The SOP states that "If the alien is using the portability provisions of AC21 106(c), the adjudicator must determine that both the ported labor certification and the ported I-140 are still valid under the current employer, especially in regards to the continual payment of the prevailing wage, similar occupation classification, and the employer’s ability to pay the prevailing wage."
(1) Prevailing Wage Payment: The AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer pays the prevailing wage or higher wage for portability. However, the adjudicators review the wage as part of their determination of "continuing validity" of the ported certified labor certification application and I-140 petition. When the applicant stays with the same employer without changing employer, payment of wage less than the prevailing wage should not present any serious issue inasmuch as the employer establishes that the employer was financially able to pay the prevailing wage and is continuously able to pay the prevailing wage until the green card is approved. However, when there is a change of employer who pays less than the prevailing wage, there is no clear-cut rule with reference to this issue. Payment of less than prevailing wage thus potentially can raise two issues when there is a change of employer. One is the adjudicator's argument that there is no continuing validity of the labor certification or I-140 petition. The other is the argument that different wage reflects that the labor certification job and the new job with the new employer are two different occupational classifications.
(2) Similar occupational classification issue: The similarity of the two positions involves not the "jobs" but "occupational classification." Accordingly, the old and new positions do not necessarily have to match exactly in every details, especially specific skill sets. Currently, the USCIS is looking up the Labor Department SOC/OES classifications of occupations. When the two jobs fall under the same occupational classification in the DOL occupational definitions, the two jobs are generally considered "similar" occupational classification. As long as the two jobs belong to a similar occupational classification, the applicant can work for the new employer anywhere in the United States. There is no physical location restrictions.
(3) Employer's financial ability to pay the wage: Again, AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer must prove that the new employer has and will have a financial ability to pay the prevailing wage. However, the adjudicators appear to review the portability case considering the new employer's ability to pay as well as part of review of continuing vality of labor certification and I-140 petition.
Remember that when there is a portability issue, two things can ensue. If one proactively reports the eligibility of portability meeting all the foregoing requirment, the adjudicators are likely to decide the pending I-485 application on the merit. However, if the 485 applicants do not report proactively change of employment and the USCIS somehow obtains information of the alien's change of employment, for instance, by employer's report of termination of employment or withdrawal of I-140 petition or substitution of alien beneficiary, then 485 applicants are likely to be served a notice of intent to deny I-485 applications or in most cases, the adjudicator transfers the I-485 file to the local district office for interview.
In AC 21 106(c) portability situation, the adjudicators also review the issue of the continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition involving the original employer, and are likely to raise similar issues which are described above. However, when the alien ports with the "approved" I-140 petition with a copy of the last paycheck and W-2, the adjudicators rarely revisit the original employer's foregoing issues in determining the 140 portability issue. The issues are raised when the alien ports before the I-140 petition is approved. Under the Yates Memorandum, when the alien ports before I-140 petition is approved, the alien has a burden of proof that the I-140 petition was approvable. Accordingly, inasmuch as I-140 petition was approvable and the alien ports after 180 days of I-485 filing, even if the original employer withdraws the I-140 petition, the pending I-485 will not be affected. Yates Memorandum indicates that in such a circumstance, the adjudicator should adjudicate the pending I-140 petition and if finds approvable, then recognizes 106(c) portability and continues to adjudicate the pending I-485 application. Without doubt, in the foregoing situation, the adjudicator will intensively and carefully review the issue of continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition issues which are specified above, particularly the employer's financial ability to pay the wage, and the applicant will have to overcome tremendous hurdles to deal with the challenges by the USCIS. Accordingly, people should not port before I-140 petition is approved unless they are assured that the original employer will continuously cooperate and support his/her green card process.
10/08/2007: I-140 Portability After 180 Days of 485 Filing and Service Centers Standard Procedure of Review and Adjudication
When there is a retrogression of visa numbers and anticipated long delays in 485 adjudication due to the massive July VB fiasco 485 filings, it is anticipated that there will be a substantial number of 485 applicants who may have to change employment along the way, either voluntarily or involuntarily, under AC 21 Section 106(c) provision. Accordingly, whether one reports the change of employment proactively or not, one should learn the internal review and adjudication procedures within the Service Center which are adopted by the adjudicators in adjudicating such I-485 applications.
The good material to review on this procedure is the USCIS Standard Operating Procedure for the adjudicators. The SOP states that "If the alien is using the portability provisions of AC21 106(c), the adjudicator must determine that both the ported labor certification and the ported I-140 are still valid under the current employer, especially in regards to the continual payment of the prevailing wage, similar occupation classification, and the employer’s ability to pay the prevailing wage."
(1) Prevailing Wage Payment: The AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer pays the prevailing wage or higher wage for portability. However, the adjudicators review the wage as part of their determination of "continuing validity" of the ported certified labor certification application and I-140 petition. When the applicant stays with the same employer without changing employer, payment of wage less than the prevailing wage should not present any serious issue inasmuch as the employer establishes that the employer was financially able to pay the prevailing wage and is continuously able to pay the prevailing wage until the green card is approved. However, when there is a change of employer who pays less than the prevailing wage, there is no clear-cut rule with reference to this issue. Payment of less than prevailing wage thus potentially can raise two issues when there is a change of employer. One is the adjudicator's argument that there is no continuing validity of the labor certification or I-140 petition. The other is the argument that different wage reflects that the labor certification job and the new job with the new employer are two different occupational classifications.
(2) Similar occupational classification issue: The similarity of the two positions involves not the "jobs" but "occupational classification." Accordingly, the old and new positions do not necessarily have to match exactly in every details, especially specific skill sets. Currently, the USCIS is looking up the Labor Department SOC/OES classifications of occupations. When the two jobs fall under the same occupational classification in the DOL occupational definitions, the two jobs are generally considered "similar" occupational classification. As long as the two jobs belong to a similar occupational classification, the applicant can work for the new employer anywhere in the United States. There is no physical location restrictions.
(3) Employer's financial ability to pay the wage: Again, AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer must prove that the new employer has and will have a financial ability to pay the prevailing wage. However, the adjudicators appear to review the portability case considering the new employer's ability to pay as well as part of review of continuing vality of labor certification and I-140 petition.
Remember that when there is a portability issue, two things can ensue. If one proactively reports the eligibility of portability meeting all the foregoing requirment, the adjudicators are likely to decide the pending I-485 application on the merit. However, if the 485 applicants do not report proactively change of employment and the USCIS somehow obtains information of the alien's change of employment, for instance, by employer's report of termination of employment or withdrawal of I-140 petition or substitution of alien beneficiary, then 485 applicants are likely to be served a notice of intent to deny I-485 applications or in most cases, the adjudicator transfers the I-485 file to the local district office for interview.
In AC 21 106(c) portability situation, the adjudicators also review the issue of the continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition involving the original employer, and are likely to raise similar issues which are described above. However, when the alien ports with the "approved" I-140 petition with a copy of the last paycheck and W-2, the adjudicators rarely revisit the original employer's foregoing issues in determining the 140 portability issue. The issues are raised when the alien ports before the I-140 petition is approved. Under the Yates Memorandum, when the alien ports before I-140 petition is approved, the alien has a burden of proof that the I-140 petition was approvable. Accordingly, inasmuch as I-140 petition was approvable and the alien ports after 180 days of I-485 filing, even if the original employer withdraws the I-140 petition, the pending I-485 will not be affected. Yates Memorandum indicates that in such a circumstance, the adjudicator should adjudicate the pending I-140 petition and if finds approvable, then recognizes 106(c) portability and continues to adjudicate the pending I-485 application. Without doubt, in the foregoing situation, the adjudicator will intensively and carefully review the issue of continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition issues which are specified above, particularly the employer's financial ability to pay the wage, and the applicant will have to overcome tremendous hurdles to deal with the challenges by the USCIS. Accordingly, people should not port before I-140 petition is approved unless they are assured that the original employer will continuously cooperate and support his/her green card process.
GCAmigo
07-23 04:41 PM
My PERM was filed last November & Audit was replied in Feb'08.. still no no news..
No comments:
Post a Comment