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 world world map outline
gchopes
11-05 07:37 PM
What happens if primary 485 gets approved and spouse 485 not filed due to PD not being current or the primary missed the short time given to file spouse 485?
NKR
08-14 04:46 PM
Please note that, this is no more the issue of not-paying me at all-- He cleverly cleared recently the amount which is stated on my LCA H1. What he is actually withholding, is the difference of this and the actual salary (percentage) that was agreed upon, at that time.
Then I am afraid you have no case. If the vendor has paid your employer and he is not paying you after you told them you are quitting then it is unethical, but legal, sometimes I wonder how do they even feed their family and clothe them with all this ill gotten money.
Then I am afraid you have no case. If the vendor has paid your employer and he is not paying you after you told them you are quitting then it is unethical, but legal, sometimes I wonder how do they even feed their family and clothe them with all this ill gotten money.
2011 world map outline labeled.
vdesai_8
03-29 12:25 PM
Thanks for sharing!
more...
gsc999
09-18 06:44 PM
I suggest we keep the old name. Lets spend any resources in achieving "core strategic" issues. Per my understanding name change doesn't make that list.
This is a volunteer organization and we should shy away from increasing unnecessary work for the volunteers.
Also, this legal vs illegal issue was a trap devised by the some of the right-wing politicians to divide the immigrants. If we do that we are buying into that. We have gained enough momentum and recognition among the media and politicians by now so that they are now familiar with our vision.
We are looking for friends lets not create unnecessary enemies.
This is a volunteer organization and we should shy away from increasing unnecessary work for the volunteers.
Also, this legal vs illegal issue was a trap devised by the some of the right-wing politicians to divide the immigrants. If we do that we are buying into that. We have gained enough momentum and recognition among the media and politicians by now so that they are now familiar with our vision.
We are looking for friends lets not create unnecessary enemies.
aadimanav
12-20 07:08 PM
Nonsense.
...........her case got approved in mistake and doesnt want to draw attention to that fact. So she is trying to divert attention by saying "oh, we got our GC by expedite request, but I wont tell you what the expedite request was"........ problems.
If someone "doesn't want to draw attention" then why would (s)he login to and mention the Approval Date?
...........her case got approved in mistake and doesnt want to draw attention to that fact. So she is trying to divert attention by saying "oh, we got our GC by expedite request, but I wont tell you what the expedite request was"........ problems.
If someone "doesn't want to draw attention" then why would (s)he login to and mention the Approval Date?
more...
nk2006
05-29 03:35 PM
Hi,
I am ready to send my EAD/AP renewal forms - not sure where to send is it NSC or TSC. My I485 is currently pending at TSC. All my previous applications have receipt numbers starting with SRC.
My lawyer (actually para-legal) mentioned that she will send them to NSC - I am not sure since she screwed it up once before.
Please let me know if we have to send EAD/AP renewals to same service center where our I-485 is currently pending or it does not matter.
Thanks a lot.
- nk
I am ready to send my EAD/AP renewal forms - not sure where to send is it NSC or TSC. My I485 is currently pending at TSC. All my previous applications have receipt numbers starting with SRC.
My lawyer (actually para-legal) mentioned that she will send them to NSC - I am not sure since she screwed it up once before.
Please let me know if we have to send EAD/AP renewals to same service center where our I-485 is currently pending or it does not matter.
Thanks a lot.
- nk
2010 WORLD MAP OUTLINE COUNTRIES
bala50
07-26 10:25 PM
any idea when will this be taken up?
No idea when the amendment will be taken up. But the bill is currently being debated in senate.
No idea when the amendment will be taken up. But the bill is currently being debated in senate.
more...
bskrishna
01-02 11:47 AM
I am in the same boat..all the transfer cases are taking a longer time to get FP notices.
hair draw a rough outline as to
kshitijnt
10-07 02:50 PM
So, you can keep driving in Maryland with your Ohio license as long as it's valid but you cannot get a Maryland drivers license because of some stupid notes written on the Ohio license?
This is really frustrating to see how some states target (segregate?) the legal immigrants.
Until someone sues nothing is going to happen. Most americans are scared of only one thing, lawsuit.
This is really frustrating to see how some states target (segregate?) the legal immigrants.
Until someone sues nothing is going to happen. Most americans are scared of only one thing, lawsuit.
more...
lonedesi
08-04 04:29 PM
I have made changes and posted separate letters on http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20657
Please post your comments on that thread
Please post your comments on that thread
hot Black White Outline World Map
krishna_brc
07-11 05:47 PM
Thanks a lot for your valuable input.
But I beleive all the input you mentioned, would be applicable for all kind of employer (Bigger or smaller) and get the RFE for ability to pay. I would like to know if you join the real small emplyer (about 35 employee) would it necessarly cause any other postential issue and/or must be a chance of getting the RFE as joining the such a small employer?
Please let me know.
Thanks for all your input in advance.
I believe as long as you are getting paid a salary which is greater or equal to what was mentioned in Labor/140 you should be fine.
There will not be question of Ability to Pay as you will getting paid at the time of RFE and size of the company doesn't matter.
But I beleive all the input you mentioned, would be applicable for all kind of employer (Bigger or smaller) and get the RFE for ability to pay. I would like to know if you join the real small emplyer (about 35 employee) would it necessarly cause any other postential issue and/or must be a chance of getting the RFE as joining the such a small employer?
Please let me know.
Thanks for all your input in advance.
I believe as long as you are getting paid a salary which is greater or equal to what was mentioned in Labor/140 you should be fine.
There will not be question of Ability to Pay as you will getting paid at the time of RFE and size of the company doesn't matter.
more...
house world map north america usa
sky7
07-28 10:02 AM
I was reading some latest info about I140 & I140 Premium Processing at
http://www.murthy.com/bulletin.html
it stated
In order to be eligible for the three-year extension, the H1B worker must be the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition and the case must be subject to retrogression (nonavailability of visa numbers).
So say I got approved I140, but since i am as of now..not subject to retrogression (I am not from India/China, my EB2 is current - PD 9/2002), then I won't be eligible for 3-yr H1B extension???? :eek:
Anyone knows?
Thanks..
http://www.murthy.com/bulletin.html
it stated
In order to be eligible for the three-year extension, the H1B worker must be the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition and the case must be subject to retrogression (nonavailability of visa numbers).
So say I got approved I140, but since i am as of now..not subject to retrogression (I am not from India/China, my EB2 is current - PD 9/2002), then I won't be eligible for 3-yr H1B extension???? :eek:
Anyone knows?
Thanks..
tattoo map World+map+outline+
sam_hoosier
03-11 04:50 PM
I too work for my wife. Example of work, doing laundry, taking kid to his day care, grocery , cleaning etc... The specific answers are below
1. Can "A" work for his wife and also get paid in check?
- I get nothing, why should you?.
2. Can "A" have a second job in his wife's company and retain his original job?
- Come on man, her majesty's service has to be your first job.
3. Can "A" have a different occupation anywhere else on EAD not related to his original job role? and then can "A" get paid in check?
- No comments
4. Can "A" work for his wife's company and instead wife gets the check or paid? Is that legal?
- Every thing is legal, till you are caught. See Elliot Spitzer..
5. Can "A"'s wife open a company on EAD and also keep working on her H1B?
- Who is this "A" you are continously referring to. Remind me of Amitabh's song. Ek rahe A , ek rahe B, Ek rahe fateh, ek rahe hum.
6. Can "A" and his wife after EAD work for 2 different jobs if the job description/roles are different?
- No comments
7. Can "A" work as volunteer in his wife's company?
- Come on buddy, you volunteered for the service the day you got married.
8. Can a software analyst working with a software company work as a trainer in a training institute on EAD with I-140 either pending or approved?
-No comments
LOL......:D:D
1. Can "A" work for his wife and also get paid in check?
- I get nothing, why should you?.
2. Can "A" have a second job in his wife's company and retain his original job?
- Come on man, her majesty's service has to be your first job.
3. Can "A" have a different occupation anywhere else on EAD not related to his original job role? and then can "A" get paid in check?
- No comments
4. Can "A" work for his wife's company and instead wife gets the check or paid? Is that legal?
- Every thing is legal, till you are caught. See Elliot Spitzer..
5. Can "A"'s wife open a company on EAD and also keep working on her H1B?
- Who is this "A" you are continously referring to. Remind me of Amitabh's song. Ek rahe A , ek rahe B, Ek rahe fateh, ek rahe hum.
6. Can "A" and his wife after EAD work for 2 different jobs if the job description/roles are different?
- No comments
7. Can "A" work as volunteer in his wife's company?
- Come on buddy, you volunteered for the service the day you got married.
8. Can a software analyst working with a software company work as a trainer in a training institute on EAD with I-140 either pending or approved?
-No comments
LOL......:D:D
more...
pictures blank world map outline
vin13
05-21 04:43 PM
Aha! He may have tricked you. He could have said you will get your GC by July. But did not mention the year.:D
dresses Switzerland Outline Map
sundar99
02-12 01:59 AM
Folks,
Personalised emails will add lot off value, sending mass faxes would create more business for Fellowes in selling more shredder. I woud request u to think again before you guys spam the offices
Personalised emails will add lot off value, sending mass faxes would create more business for Fellowes in selling more shredder. I woud request u to think again before you guys spam the offices
more...
makeup On the map you will be
alien2006
08-23 07:43 AM
The PD shows up on the approval notice of I140. I don't know if it shows up on the 485 as I haven't seen one and won't see one for years. But it makes sense to have the PD on the I140 as once the I140 is approved you can port that PD (if employer does not revoke it)
girlfriend Angola Blank Map: outline-
GCard_Dream
04-06 01:38 PM
Thanks god_bless_you for you response. So it appears that I either have to have a valid H1 or EAD on hand in order to work.
If you are extending the H1B, however, there is a grace period of 200 some day where you can work without a valid H1B while the H1B extension is pending. Isn't there a grace period if you are changing from H1B to EAD? From what you are saying, there isn't.
If you are extending the H1B, however, there is a grace period of 200 some day where you can work without a valid H1B while the H1B extension is pending. Isn't there a grace period if you are changing from H1B to EAD? From what you are saying, there isn't.
hairstyles Arrowall countries blank map aug country To get the world worldmap-outline
99mutd08
06-18 03:50 PM
Nathu lodge is good to stay for 30 rs/night. This is behind the big koorakarkat near the laddoo baba temple. Just across the street from 2 coconut trees and coconut waterwaala.
Nathu lodge...30 Rs/night...lol.....good luck finding that
Nathu lodge...30 Rs/night...lol.....good luck finding that
GKBest
10-30 05:26 PM
We recieved EADs 3 weeks back and I am planning to apply SSN for my wife and kid.
Can anyone let me know what documents are required to show up at SSN office while applying SSN.
Thanks,
Sury
If it is the first time, they might ask for a birth certificate
Can anyone let me know what documents are required to show up at SSN office while applying SSN.
Thanks,
Sury
If it is the first time, they might ask for a birth certificate
Canadian_Dream
03-20 11:41 AM
Most likely SSA typed in wrong I-94 number and hence the verification would have failed from USCIS. Visit the local office again and ask them to verify all the information again. They can tell you the SSN in 2-3 days if everything checks out that should be enough to generate the payroll. The actual card takes 2-4 weeks.
I entered US through Logan on Dec 12th, 2007 and got i94 till Nov 2010.
When I applied for SSN at Norwood SSN office, they told me that the immigration dept have to cross verify my visa details and confirm them back which is still not done. Without SSN, Payroll is not generated. I have to return back to India in next 1 week. Can someone let me know the contact info of immigration people. Is this common thing to happen or i need to fight it out Any input will be appreciated. Thanks
I entered US through Logan on Dec 12th, 2007 and got i94 till Nov 2010.
When I applied for SSN at Norwood SSN office, they told me that the immigration dept have to cross verify my visa details and confirm them back which is still not done. Without SSN, Payroll is not generated. I have to return back to India in next 1 week. Can someone let me know the contact info of immigration people. Is this common thing to happen or i need to fight it out Any input will be appreciated. Thanks
No comments:
Post a Comment