superdude
08-01 04:54 PM
I hope they look at the post mark date. We can not even trust FedEx now. These things do happen. Its very sad to hear this
Response for my RFE on 140 was supposed to be sent in by today. My Law office sent in the resposne using FEDEX overnight yesterday. I come to work in the moring and check the status of FEDEX and it says it is still in transit. I call the fedex office with tracking number and they say there was a big technical problem and hydraulic leak in the plane that was supposed to carry my response. Fedex says they will try to deliver by after mailroom closes today and they are ready to issue a letter stating that its their mistake. Do you guys think my response will be accepted tomorrow or I get a NOID for my 140? My lawyer says that if FEDEX trys to deliver it by today and they fail we should be ok or if they issue NOID we can always rebut back with letter from FEDEX and open a MTR .. any one of you guys have any such experience. I dont want to blame any one here excpet my luck in the whole process.
Any input guys .. I really dont know what to do .. I am almost half paralyzed , I am in 6th year of my H1 and ends in december ..and my PD is Sep 2004 .
Guys any input is appreciated ..
Response for my RFE on 140 was supposed to be sent in by today. My Law office sent in the resposne using FEDEX overnight yesterday. I come to work in the moring and check the status of FEDEX and it says it is still in transit. I call the fedex office with tracking number and they say there was a big technical problem and hydraulic leak in the plane that was supposed to carry my response. Fedex says they will try to deliver by after mailroom closes today and they are ready to issue a letter stating that its their mistake. Do you guys think my response will be accepted tomorrow or I get a NOID for my 140? My lawyer says that if FEDEX trys to deliver it by today and they fail we should be ok or if they issue NOID we can always rebut back with letter from FEDEX and open a MTR .. any one of you guys have any such experience. I dont want to blame any one here excpet my luck in the whole process.
Any input guys .. I really dont know what to do .. I am almost half paralyzed , I am in 6th year of my H1 and ends in december ..and my PD is Sep 2004 .
Guys any input is appreciated ..
wallpaper 2006 Ford F150 King Ranch
transpass
07-30 12:37 AM
This particular EB1 gc aspirant has been waiting for his gc even after 2-3 years of his PD becoming current. He don't want EB1 applications to be subjected to the processing times set for EB2/EB3 etc.
His point is, it does not make sense to wait 2-3 years for a GC once his date is current.
I don't think that was what he was implying. He was saying EB1s are lumped with other categories for adjudication purposes. I don't think that's the way CIS handles EB1. If he had waited for 2-3 yrs., his case might be an outlier, but I know several people with EB1 have gotten their GCs within few months of filing...Moreover, it does not have several steps like labor, etc. and it's anyway shorter time frame than other categories, and it's pretty much current all the time...
His point is, it does not make sense to wait 2-3 years for a GC once his date is current.
I don't think that was what he was implying. He was saying EB1s are lumped with other categories for adjudication purposes. I don't think that's the way CIS handles EB1. If he had waited for 2-3 yrs., his case might be an outlier, but I know several people with EB1 have gotten their GCs within few months of filing...Moreover, it does not have several steps like labor, etc. and it's anyway shorter time frame than other categories, and it's pretty much current all the time...
icecreamy
08-30 01:12 PM
We got FP notice today (Aug 30) , the appointment date is Sep 14th.
485 RD - July 2, 2007 (TSC)
485 ND - Aug 17, 2007
EAD approved - Aug 23, 2007
140 LUD - Aug 17, 2007
485 LUD - Aug 19, 2007
485 RD - July 2, 2007 (TSC)
485 ND - Aug 17, 2007
EAD approved - Aug 23, 2007
140 LUD - Aug 17, 2007
485 LUD - Aug 19, 2007
2011 Ford F150 King Ranch Interior.
Macaca
02-09 12:47 PM
(don't hate me, I'm English).
Please don't flame me, I am trying to be honest.
One of my Deans used to have this poster in his office : No Guts, No Glory!
Please don't flame me, I am trying to be honest.
One of my Deans used to have this poster in his office : No Guts, No Glory!
more...
superdude
07-17 10:42 PM
Do you know how long it will take to get GC from date of receipt of 485?
It is a long journey again. We have to wait and see. It depends on the native country also
It is a long journey again. We have to wait and see. It depends on the native country also
snathan
02-11 11:45 AM
applied for H1, was it COS? Did you get new I-94 when your H1 was approved. If yes then you are in H1 status after H1 is approved. Obvisously they denied L1B.
Also if above is true and you are not working for H1 employer then you are probably out of status......
Doesnt the H1 takes effect only if you join them. I dont think just getting approval alone change your status.
Otherwise is there any source for this claim
Also if above is true and you are not working for H1 employer then you are probably out of status......
Doesnt the H1 takes effect only if you join them. I dont think just getting approval alone change your status.
Otherwise is there any source for this claim
more...
wellwishergc
08-02 02:36 PM
I agree with logiclife. Consulting a good lawyer like Rajeev Khanna or Murthy is the best approach to go forward.
Although perm2gc has many of the questions answered correctly, every case may be unique. There may be possibilities that your brother can still come to US. The lawyer may be able to help you with a legal way of going about it.
If I were you, I would spend a couple of hundred dollars and do a paid phone consultation with a lawyer, probably a good one at that. And send questions ahead of time so that the lawyer too does his research before talking to you on the phone.
When you decisions can have a lasting effect on your career, you may not want to rely on advice on forums. Members here are not lawyers.
If you do get advice here, then be aware of the chances that it could be not applicable to your situation.
Good Luck.
Although perm2gc has many of the questions answered correctly, every case may be unique. There may be possibilities that your brother can still come to US. The lawyer may be able to help you with a legal way of going about it.
If I were you, I would spend a couple of hundred dollars and do a paid phone consultation with a lawyer, probably a good one at that. And send questions ahead of time so that the lawyer too does his research before talking to you on the phone.
When you decisions can have a lasting effect on your career, you may not want to rely on advice on forums. Members here are not lawyers.
If you do get advice here, then be aware of the chances that it could be not applicable to your situation.
Good Luck.
2010 2002 Ford F150 King Ranch
joeshmoe
09-04 12:44 PM
joeshmoe,
Congratulations on your GC approval. Enjoy the freedom.
Your approval gives us hope in a way that USCIS is approving I-485 cases even though the PD is not current. Am I right?
You must be right ... I was not anticipating this turn of events whatsoever as I knew what the current PD is in the September Visa Bulletin but maybe they assign me a visa number when they got my application in June.... who knows...
Congratulations on your GC approval. Enjoy the freedom.
Your approval gives us hope in a way that USCIS is approving I-485 cases even though the PD is not current. Am I right?
You must be right ... I was not anticipating this turn of events whatsoever as I knew what the current PD is in the September Visa Bulletin but maybe they assign me a visa number when they got my application in June.... who knows...
more...
lvinaykumar
04-22 03:42 PM
Wow , that is really cool. and really fast Congrats.....and good luck
Today my wifes attorney informed her that her H1 was selected, non masters, non premium process. He also provided her a WAC number
Today my wifes attorney informed her that her H1 was selected, non masters, non premium process. He also provided her a WAC number
hair 2007 Ford F150 King Ranch
augustus
07-09 04:19 PM
You said your employer is agreable, in that case, If you did not get your EAD before your current EAD expires, you can choose to work for free for those days and try to get paid for it after your EAD comes in effect.
Or even if you don't get paid for it, you are building some good will and you are not jeopardizing your job. It will definitely keep you in the good books of this employer.
Or even if you don't get paid for it, you are building some good will and you are not jeopardizing your job. It will definitely keep you in the good books of this employer.
more...
Refugee_New
03-24 02:30 PM
Now everything is queued..... no more cutting lines.
Thanks for the news vinabath. You know what?
Indian cricket team won the world cup last night. They beat West Indies.
Congratulate Kapil, Srikanth, Ravi shastri, Gavaskar, Mohindar Amarnath and other team members.
Thanks for the news vinabath. You know what?
Indian cricket team won the world cup last night. They beat West Indies.
Congratulate Kapil, Srikanth, Ravi shastri, Gavaskar, Mohindar Amarnath and other team members.
hot 2007 Ford F150 King Ranch for
titu1972
10-29 02:06 PM
You got an EAD for your kid? What is the minimum age for a kid to be eligible for an EAD?
The SSN card will contain a restriction saying "authorized for work only" which would mean the kid should have reached the min age for eligibility to work.
Yes... It will say "Work Authorization Only".
The SSN card will contain a restriction saying "authorized for work only" which would mean the kid should have reached the min age for eligibility to work.
Yes... It will say "Work Authorization Only".
more...
house 4WD Ford F150 King Ranch 4x4
rnanchal
02-05 06:27 PM
Received and emailed back
tattoo White Ford F150 King Ranch
ImmInd
06-09 08:36 AM
You do not need Visa to Travel via Germany if you are citizen of Destination Country.
So, Indians do not need visa to travel via Germany when you travel back to Home Country (India).
So, Indians do not need visa to travel via Germany when you travel back to Home Country (India).
more...
pictures 2005 Ford F150 King Ranch Crew
anilsal
07-30 01:36 AM
Unless you screw up something, they will not deny in Canada. But may in the rarest of cases ask you to go to your country of origin to get the visa.
Having a US degree helps. Just appear confident and brush up your English and accent(do not fake it. Just be normal and greet as you do with American friends. Also do not show off.). The VO really like people who seem to have assimilated into the culture.
Having a US degree helps. Just appear confident and brush up your English and accent(do not fake it. Just be normal and greet as you do with American friends. Also do not show off.). The VO really like people who seem to have assimilated into the culture.
dresses COM 2007 King Ranch F150 Crew
intheyan
10-17 08:46 PM
We got our checks cashed. We submited at Nebraska service center on july 2nd by 9.01 am signed by R.micheals. We got our case transfered to Texas and got our checks chased on october 16 th. The receipt started with SRC and it had 13 digits but when I quired my status online it said receipt error. May be thier is some wait time to get updated into thier online case status check.
more...
makeup 2007 Ford F150 King Ranch
GCBy3000
06-14 05:02 PM
yes it is like that all these years, but atleast now I hope them to use their idle and rusty brain.
There are tons of people with approved 140 with 2006/2007 PD. Even if they process they will not be in the position to grant GC to these people due to lack of visa numbers. So I hope they sort it out and process the applications based on PD.
The applications themselves are processed by receipt date but the approval still depends on your PD.Someone correct me if I am wrong...
There are tons of people with approved 140 with 2006/2007 PD. Even if they process they will not be in the position to grant GC to these people due to lack of visa numbers. So I hope they sort it out and process the applications based on PD.
The applications themselves are processed by receipt date but the approval still depends on your PD.Someone correct me if I am wrong...
girlfriend Model: Ford F150 King Ranch
Winner
02-24 11:52 AM
Recently we are seeing lot of people with new id without completing profile they are able to start new thread. What if admin enforced new user to fill the personnel information and then only they can post on this web site. More importantly some key massages\important issues get berried in active forums due to above issue.
Even going further we can put trial period for new users for 15 days .If they have any questions just pay 5-10 $ and get active in forum there answers will be provided by all our valued/all star members (most green as per rank) in this way we get more revenue and members get valued advice.
I’m not sure about "pay to post" idea, but I’ve one more suggestion.
I see many offensive/ill-mannered posts/replies in the forums; this is bound to happen if we let members to be anonymous. I would suggest a verification process in which any new member should provide his phone # and state leader/volunteer can call the person and then grant them access then we can have a healthy debates and discussions.
Now I understand that this will put more burden on the volunteers and state leaders who are spending their personal time to help all of us. I can take care of this task for Texas.
Even going further we can put trial period for new users for 15 days .If they have any questions just pay 5-10 $ and get active in forum there answers will be provided by all our valued/all star members (most green as per rank) in this way we get more revenue and members get valued advice.
I’m not sure about "pay to post" idea, but I’ve one more suggestion.
I see many offensive/ill-mannered posts/replies in the forums; this is bound to happen if we let members to be anonymous. I would suggest a verification process in which any new member should provide his phone # and state leader/volunteer can call the person and then grant them access then we can have a healthy debates and discussions.
Now I understand that this will put more burden on the volunteers and state leaders who are spending their personal time to help all of us. I can take care of this task for Texas.
hairstyles 2007 Ford F150 King Ranch 2007
chanduv23
11-06 09:36 PM
A wonderful initiative. Good luck, once the group grows, plan for seminars, workshops, involve more IV members and energize our community
svgupta
06-15 03:40 PM
Yes.. Leave it blank.. Even my attorney said so...
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment