purplehazea
05-11 12:50 PM
800 989 TALK - I confirmed it
wallpaper Tiffany amp; Co. plans to open 70
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.
goel_ar
11-19 08:28 AM
Hi ,
What number I can call at? When I call them- they told me I have to come in person to get status as they can't give it over phone for non-US citizens.
Thanks,
AG
What number I can call at? When I call them- they told me I have to come in person to get status as they can't give it over phone for non-US citizens.
Thanks,
AG
2011 Tiffany amp; Co.
Kevin Sadler
May 2nd, 2005, 07:50 AM
Nice shots, Anders. And you're right on track with your thinking about getting wheel spin to really enhance the photos mixed in with a combination of panning shots as well. There is something about wheel spin and motion that really adds to an image. Cox's pic is a great example and dan13 has some good ones in his gallery too. So the question is how much? Just enough is the answer. One of my buddies is a professional auto racing photographer. He's had mag covers and they fly him around to different tracks, even to Japan. So he's the real deal and very good and his published pans are flawless. But he says it's still trial and error and every track condition is different and it still takes a bunch to get a good one. Now he can get dialed in a lot quicker than most of us, but you get the point. Keep slowing it down until you get it. :) Hope that helps a little. Later, Kevin
more...
akhilmahajan
04-23 09:43 AM
I dont think there is any such practise...........
i think the lawyer or your company who filed it, will get all the communication from USCIS...........
so just keep on trying.............
i am not a pro at it, but will like to say, never give up trying.........
i think the lawyer or your company who filed it, will get all the communication from USCIS...........
so just keep on trying.............
i am not a pro at it, but will like to say, never give up trying.........
Almond
01-27 12:54 AM
Ah, thank you for posting this, I have been checking that link desperately forever and it hadn't changed. Question to those who know better, if my Notice Date is May 15, and the "processing time frame" for I-485's is July 19, what does that mean for me? Am I stuck in some kind of check or something? Thanks in advance.
more...
vnsriv
09-28 09:41 AM
1. My EAD application status at USCIS website got changed to,
Current Status: Approval notice sent.
this morning. My heartfelt thanks to ImmigrationVoice activists for this.
My spouse's EAD application status still shows as,
Current Status: Case received and pending.
In my case, my spouse's application is the derivative application of mine. Any incidence of spouse's EAD case getting stuck while the primary's application going through?
2. Also, Is EAD approval anyway related/tied to I-485 Application? In that case, it is understandable for my spouse not to see her status changed. Because, her I-485 Applications status is shown as,
Current Status: Fingerprint fee rejected and notice mailed; case in suspense.
though we both have already finished our finger printing. Our attorney says, its USCIS's mistake and he has already sent $70(once again) towards her fingerprinting fees to be on the safer side.
Any information would be helpful.
Thanks,
You asked a question
1)
Any incidence of spouse's EAD case getting stuck while the primary's application going through?
So it means the people who visited don't have an answer for this or they are not aware of any such incident. Eventually someone will respond to your query
2) You send this query yesterday only 7 pm EST. So be patient
All the best !
Current Status: Approval notice sent.
this morning. My heartfelt thanks to ImmigrationVoice activists for this.
My spouse's EAD application status still shows as,
Current Status: Case received and pending.
In my case, my spouse's application is the derivative application of mine. Any incidence of spouse's EAD case getting stuck while the primary's application going through?
2. Also, Is EAD approval anyway related/tied to I-485 Application? In that case, it is understandable for my spouse not to see her status changed. Because, her I-485 Applications status is shown as,
Current Status: Fingerprint fee rejected and notice mailed; case in suspense.
though we both have already finished our finger printing. Our attorney says, its USCIS's mistake and he has already sent $70(once again) towards her fingerprinting fees to be on the safer side.
Any information would be helpful.
Thanks,
You asked a question
1)
Any incidence of spouse's EAD case getting stuck while the primary's application going through?
So it means the people who visited don't have an answer for this or they are not aware of any such incident. Eventually someone will respond to your query
2) You send this query yesterday only 7 pm EST. So be patient
All the best !
2010 Tiffany amp; Co Fancy Charm
pd_recapturing
09-04 10:33 AM
I-485 with EB2 PD Sep 06 send on July 18. Once I receive the RN, I will apply for I-140 with EB2 PD March 2003 and request to transfer my pending I-485 application to the newly filed I-140 petition since my PD is current in September.
So your new I-140 has not been approved. Would you wait for it to get approved or you will request interfiling while applying 140?
So your new I-140 has not been approved. Would you wait for it to get approved or you will request interfiling while applying 140?
more...
SirDuke
01-04 10:02 AM
Are Tweening Engines ok to use? TweenLite for instance?
hair Tiffany amp; Co Cupcake Charm
ravi2patel
07-24 08:41 AM
If the new company has a "succession of interest" clause in its take over, basically where it "succeeds to the interests and conditions of the previous company", including it's immigration interests such as your employment based immigrant visa application, you should be able to continue with your application. I guess you would have to include a "succession of interest" document with your application.
I had to do the same thing with my company when it was taken over. However, this happened during labor certification stage so I dont know if it would be different for I-485. Please c nsult with an attorney though, maybe even three or four different ones and give them the exact details of the takeover.
Hi..what is "succession of interest" document...is it the actual 'merger' contract ?
Other problem i have is getting hold of an attorny as all are busy with the aug.17th deadliners...let me know any good ones in central,NJ area. Thanks
I had to do the same thing with my company when it was taken over. However, this happened during labor certification stage so I dont know if it would be different for I-485. Please c nsult with an attorney though, maybe even three or four different ones and give them the exact details of the takeover.
Hi..what is "succession of interest" document...is it the actual 'merger' contract ?
Other problem i have is getting hold of an attorny as all are busy with the aug.17th deadliners...let me know any good ones in central,NJ area. Thanks
more...
deepakjain
02-24 11:19 AM
I was on the same boat in NOV at mumbai consulate, had an EAD and AP but went for stamping.
My attorney told me to wait until I get through the admin processing rather then using my AP. I did not cross question him on this and after 3 weeks I received an e-mail from the consulate to submit my passport and get my visa stamped.
Best of Luck,
Deepak
This is how the e-mail will be : take a print which should show your e-mail address as provided on the visa application form....
Dear Sir/Madam,
This is to inform you that the administrative process for your US non-immigrant visa application has been completed.
You DO NOT require scheduling another appointment. Please visit the VFS office with your yellow pending letter, passport and yellow envelope. YOU do not need to come to the CONSULATE.
Please carry a copy of this email for ready reference.
Thank you
Regards
Mumbai NIV / AO
My attorney told me to wait until I get through the admin processing rather then using my AP. I did not cross question him on this and after 3 weeks I received an e-mail from the consulate to submit my passport and get my visa stamped.
Best of Luck,
Deepak
This is how the e-mail will be : take a print which should show your e-mail address as provided on the visa application form....
Dear Sir/Madam,
This is to inform you that the administrative process for your US non-immigrant visa application has been completed.
You DO NOT require scheduling another appointment. Please visit the VFS office with your yellow pending letter, passport and yellow envelope. YOU do not need to come to the CONSULATE.
Please carry a copy of this email for ready reference.
Thank you
Regards
Mumbai NIV / AO
hot Buy Discount Tiffany amp; Co.
Catherine
11-04 02:06 AM
Help!
I divorced my husband after 14 months of marriage. I have a green card with conditional residency (the I-751 90 day 'window' to remove conditions starts Sept 2010). My husband was abusive mentally and physically, I have no contact with him.
I cannot prove the abuse definitively as I covered it up at the time (no photos or police reports, only my testimony and perhaps that of the counselors we saw together). The advice I have received on how to proceed has been conflicting; some say wait and apply during the 90 day window to remove the conditions and it MIGHT be ok; some say I need to file now and prove the abuse.
I have no money for a lawyer as my husband also stole most of my money and I just got laid off as well. Any ideas?!? Does anyone know if it is riskier to try and prove the abuse or how hard that is and if I'm more likely to lose my green card that way? Is there any way at all do to this without thousands to spend on a lawyer?
Many thanks in advance for all help and advice.
P.S. I've tried the local bar association, legal aid and a thousand other options, all of which have either been dead-ends or given me yet more conflicting info.
I divorced my husband after 14 months of marriage. I have a green card with conditional residency (the I-751 90 day 'window' to remove conditions starts Sept 2010). My husband was abusive mentally and physically, I have no contact with him.
I cannot prove the abuse definitively as I covered it up at the time (no photos or police reports, only my testimony and perhaps that of the counselors we saw together). The advice I have received on how to proceed has been conflicting; some say wait and apply during the 90 day window to remove the conditions and it MIGHT be ok; some say I need to file now and prove the abuse.
I have no money for a lawyer as my husband also stole most of my money and I just got laid off as well. Any ideas?!? Does anyone know if it is riskier to try and prove the abuse or how hard that is and if I'm more likely to lose my green card that way? Is there any way at all do to this without thousands to spend on a lawyer?
Many thanks in advance for all help and advice.
P.S. I've tried the local bar association, legal aid and a thousand other options, all of which have either been dead-ends or given me yet more conflicting info.
more...
house While Tiffany and Company
rsb
06-29 02:11 PM
Thanks logiclife for you detailed answer.
tattoo Tiffany amp; Co
Milind123
07-27 12:31 PM
Instead of starting a new thread. I would appreciate if someone answers a few questions regarding Check details that we send out to USCIS.
Went to lawyers office last week and signed all the applications. I made out onc check in the amount of $745 ($395 I-485 + $170 I-131 (AP) + $180 I-765 (EAD)) Payble to U.S Citizenship and Immigration Service. Now when I see the forms online it says the checks should be payable to Department of Homeland Security. Should I ask the lawyer to hold on to the application and send new checks.
Also , should I write three separate checks for $395 $170 $180. Just to make sure if there is an error in say Advanced payroll application, USCIS will keep the two check and send me back the Advanced Parol application.
Went to lawyers office last week and signed all the applications. I made out onc check in the amount of $745 ($395 I-485 + $170 I-131 (AP) + $180 I-765 (EAD)) Payble to U.S Citizenship and Immigration Service. Now when I see the forms online it says the checks should be payable to Department of Homeland Security. Should I ask the lawyer to hold on to the application and send new checks.
Also , should I write three separate checks for $395 $170 $180. Just to make sure if there is an error in say Advanced payroll application, USCIS will keep the two check and send me back the Advanced Parol application.
more...
pictures The Tiffany amp; Co.
grupak
08-10 11:17 PM
Hi, my I-485 approval might be close according to current processing time. I have moved within the same city. I wonder whether change of address at this time will cause any delay:
1. how likely due to change of address, my I-485 processing will be affected and got delayed?
2. how likely I will get a REF due to change of address?
3. Is it better to make an effort to keep the old address?
Thanks.
One option is to change the address at USCIS and also put a hold on your mail for 30 days (max allowed) at the Post Office. Picking up held mail should be easy since you are in same city.
1. how likely due to change of address, my I-485 processing will be affected and got delayed?
2. how likely I will get a REF due to change of address?
3. Is it better to make an effort to keep the old address?
Thanks.
One option is to change the address at USCIS and also put a hold on your mail for 30 days (max allowed) at the Post Office. Picking up held mail should be easy since you are in same city.
dresses The early company opened as a
ss1026
04-08 06:10 PM
Hi,
EAD cleared Oct 2007,Fp done Oct, 2007, AP dec12, 2008, recevd jan 12008
No LUDS since sep 19, 2007
db
How does one find out if they had any LUD on their case. Looks like this is a indicator if the case was worked on.
EAD cleared Oct 2007,Fp done Oct, 2007, AP dec12, 2008, recevd jan 12008
No LUDS since sep 19, 2007
db
How does one find out if they had any LUD on their case. Looks like this is a indicator if the case was worked on.
more...
makeup the cheapest Tiffany amp; Co
gotgc?
09-16 06:48 PM
Yesterday my employer received notice that my co-workers I-140 was denied and when she went home she received denial notice for her I-485 too. She filed EB2 concurrent.
Hi,
I agree...I am not sure whether your co-worker had another approved I-140... My lawyer said that if I dont have my other I-140 approved, my I-485 would be denied too..since I have that, she is saying that my AOS will continue to be active based on the other I-140...i want to confirm that whether its true and how can I verify that?
Gurus..please share your thoughts....
Hi,
I agree...I am not sure whether your co-worker had another approved I-140... My lawyer said that if I dont have my other I-140 approved, my I-485 would be denied too..since I have that, she is saying that my AOS will continue to be active based on the other I-140...i want to confirm that whether its true and how can I verify that?
Gurus..please share your thoughts....
girlfriend Tiffany amp; co Star Lariat
abimanyu
09-11 07:10 AM
My significant other's labor processing begain in DEC 2002, the application was made in Jan 2003, and it reached the Dallas BEC on July 2003, here labor was certified on Aug 2006, and we received notice from the lawyers day before yesterday. Now the next wait begins, for PD to become current.
It took 3 years for the 1st stage processing, maybe it will take another 6 years to complete the 2nd and 3rd stage processing. If this trend continues I might be ready to retire by the time the GC arrives.:)
After reading this, I was not sure whether that 140K included the Labour backlogs. I know the BECs have been a lot more active lately and have been pumping out approvals/denials more rapidly.
If infact 140K backlogs do include them, then perhaps that would be a good thing, since atleast then we can perhaps begin to get our arms around this and understand how long our waits will actually be.
One thing is for sure they have definitely stepped up the speed of things at the USCIS with other filings after retrogression hit.
It took 3 years for the 1st stage processing, maybe it will take another 6 years to complete the 2nd and 3rd stage processing. If this trend continues I might be ready to retire by the time the GC arrives.:)
After reading this, I was not sure whether that 140K included the Labour backlogs. I know the BECs have been a lot more active lately and have been pumping out approvals/denials more rapidly.
If infact 140K backlogs do include them, then perhaps that would be a good thing, since atleast then we can perhaps begin to get our arms around this and understand how long our waits will actually be.
One thing is for sure they have definitely stepped up the speed of things at the USCIS with other filings after retrogression hit.
hairstyles tiffany and co.
prom2
11-05 12:32 PM
Finally I got mail from USCIS on 11/04 saying my AP is approved. But the message says it is approved on 10/17. I didn't know why they took so many days to update the status? Is it normal?
Application Type: I131, APPLICATION FOR USCIS TRAVEL DOCUMENT
Current Status: Approval notice sent.
On October 17, 2007, we mailed you a notice that we have approved this I131 APPLICATION FOR USCIS TRAVEL DOCUMENT. Please follow any instructions on the notice. If you move before you receive the notice, call customer service.
Mine was the same, I receive email on 11/04 and notice sent on 10/17.
Good luck.
Application Type: I131, APPLICATION FOR USCIS TRAVEL DOCUMENT
Current Status: Approval notice sent.
On October 17, 2007, we mailed you a notice that we have approved this I131 APPLICATION FOR USCIS TRAVEL DOCUMENT. Please follow any instructions on the notice. If you move before you receive the notice, call customer service.
Mine was the same, I receive email on 11/04 and notice sent on 10/17.
Good luck.
thomachan72
03-10 07:10 AM
If they take the trouble of selecting multiple applications from the same employer, I dont doubt that anybody with multiple applications (even from different employers) will get either rejected or get questions.
vnsriv
04-07 04:50 PM
Friends I have a Question. I went to my home country couple of months back, but somehow forgot to surender my I-94 at the port of exit. When I came back, at the POE(Newark)I was not asked any questions, and they issued me a new I-94. Yesterday someone told me that this could potentially affect my I-485 adversely OR whenever I travel to my home country again, they might cause problems during my re-entry. Just wanted to know what should be my action plan.
Should I correct the records with USCIS, by sending them the I-94(Along with proof that I went to my home country).
OR should I just say quiet and forget about this mistake?
Gurus- Please Help
Looks like you have pending of adjustment(I-485). At the time of filing I-485, you must have provided the photocopies of latest I-94. So relax. You don't have to resend unless you get an RFE on I-485 which is rare. I haven't heard anyone getting an RFE on missing I-94. They have no proof that you did not submit your I-94. Again, this is my own opinion and not a legal advice
Best of luck
Should I correct the records with USCIS, by sending them the I-94(Along with proof that I went to my home country).
OR should I just say quiet and forget about this mistake?
Gurus- Please Help
Looks like you have pending of adjustment(I-485). At the time of filing I-485, you must have provided the photocopies of latest I-94. So relax. You don't have to resend unless you get an RFE on I-485 which is rare. I haven't heard anyone getting an RFE on missing I-94. They have no proof that you did not submit your I-94. Again, this is my own opinion and not a legal advice
Best of luck
No comments:
Post a Comment