abhijitp
06-21 09:07 AM
Thanks Raj. No, I do qualify for EB-2 so I would not want to apply under EB-3, but I just don't know if the attorneys filed everything (e.g progressive experience letters) appropriately, if not, what happens? Hopefully an RFE.
If it instead got rejected, so would the I-1485 (AOS) application that depends on it right?
If it instead got rejected, so would the I-1485 (AOS) application that depends on it right?
telenovela zemer e eger. amor sin fin. amor sin fin
meher
12-26 10:50 AM
Today based on the talks with my employer, he told that he will not be able to process my payments. I informed him that i am going to DOL. He has not committed but has said that legally he has to pay only the minimum wage requirement which is the 44000$ only. I am in the process to consult attorney at present.
Dear Internet,
I am not an anti immigrant, but i am a legal immigrant(hope you are also one like me) and trying to get your help. Please don't look at all people with suspicious eyes.
As it has gone this far let me give my Employer Details
Objects Worldwide Incorporation it is based in Virginia.
Address below.
Objects Worldwide Inc.
10316, Wood Road Suite �A�,
Fairfax, VA 22030
http://www.owiusa.com
Dear Internet,
I am not an anti immigrant, but i am a legal immigrant(hope you are also one like me) and trying to get your help. Please don't look at all people with suspicious eyes.
As it has gone this far let me give my Employer Details
Objects Worldwide Incorporation it is based in Virginia.
Address below.
Objects Worldwide Inc.
10316, Wood Road Suite �A�,
Fairfax, VA 22030
http://www.owiusa.com
telenovela zemer e eger. Gasu E. Oct 25, 03:34 PM
gemini23
07-27 03:21 PM
thanks for all the answers.
telenovela zemer e eger. I also e-mailed Apple,
gc_bulgaria
10-09 04:18 PM
http://www.immigration-law.com/
10/08/2007: I-140 Portability After 180 Days of 485 Filing and Service Centers Standard Procedure of Review and Adjudication
When there is a retrogression of visa numbers and anticipated long delays in 485 adjudication due to the massive July VB fiasco 485 filings, it is anticipated that there will be a substantial number of 485 applicants who may have to change employment along the way, either voluntarily or involuntarily, under AC 21 Section 106(c) provision. Accordingly, whether one reports the change of employment proactively or not, one should learn the internal review and adjudication procedures within the Service Center which are adopted by the adjudicators in adjudicating such I-485 applications.
The good material to review on this procedure is the USCIS Standard Operating Procedure for the adjudicators. The SOP states that "If the alien is using the portability provisions of AC21 106(c), the adjudicator must determine that both the ported labor certification and the ported I-140 are still valid under the current employer, especially in regards to the continual payment of the prevailing wage, similar occupation classification, and the employer’s ability to pay the prevailing wage."
(1) Prevailing Wage Payment: The AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer pays the prevailing wage or higher wage for portability. However, the adjudicators review the wage as part of their determination of "continuing validity" of the ported certified labor certification application and I-140 petition. When the applicant stays with the same employer without changing employer, payment of wage less than the prevailing wage should not present any serious issue inasmuch as the employer establishes that the employer was financially able to pay the prevailing wage and is continuously able to pay the prevailing wage until the green card is approved. However, when there is a change of employer who pays less than the prevailing wage, there is no clear-cut rule with reference to this issue. Payment of less than prevailing wage thus potentially can raise two issues when there is a change of employer. One is the adjudicator's argument that there is no continuing validity of the labor certification or I-140 petition. The other is the argument that different wage reflects that the labor certification job and the new job with the new employer are two different occupational classifications.
(2) Similar occupational classification issue: The similarity of the two positions involves not the "jobs" but "occupational classification." Accordingly, the old and new positions do not necessarily have to match exactly in every details, especially specific skill sets. Currently, the USCIS is looking up the Labor Department SOC/OES classifications of occupations. When the two jobs fall under the same occupational classification in the DOL occupational definitions, the two jobs are generally considered "similar" occupational classification. As long as the two jobs belong to a similar occupational classification, the applicant can work for the new employer anywhere in the United States. There is no physical location restrictions.
(3) Employer's financial ability to pay the wage: Again, AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer must prove that the new employer has and will have a financial ability to pay the prevailing wage. However, the adjudicators appear to review the portability case considering the new employer's ability to pay as well as part of review of continuing vality of labor certification and I-140 petition.
Remember that when there is a portability issue, two things can ensue. If one proactively reports the eligibility of portability meeting all the foregoing requirment, the adjudicators are likely to decide the pending I-485 application on the merit. However, if the 485 applicants do not report proactively change of employment and the USCIS somehow obtains information of the alien's change of employment, for instance, by employer's report of termination of employment or withdrawal of I-140 petition or substitution of alien beneficiary, then 485 applicants are likely to be served a notice of intent to deny I-485 applications or in most cases, the adjudicator transfers the I-485 file to the local district office for interview.
In AC 21 106(c) portability situation, the adjudicators also review the issue of the continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition involving the original employer, and are likely to raise similar issues which are described above. However, when the alien ports with the "approved" I-140 petition with a copy of the last paycheck and W-2, the adjudicators rarely revisit the original employer's foregoing issues in determining the 140 portability issue. The issues are raised when the alien ports before the I-140 petition is approved. Under the Yates Memorandum, when the alien ports before I-140 petition is approved, the alien has a burden of proof that the I-140 petition was approvable. Accordingly, inasmuch as I-140 petition was approvable and the alien ports after 180 days of I-485 filing, even if the original employer withdraws the I-140 petition, the pending I-485 will not be affected. Yates Memorandum indicates that in such a circumstance, the adjudicator should adjudicate the pending I-140 petition and if finds approvable, then recognizes 106(c) portability and continues to adjudicate the pending I-485 application. Without doubt, in the foregoing situation, the adjudicator will intensively and carefully review the issue of continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition issues which are specified above, particularly the employer's financial ability to pay the wage, and the applicant will have to overcome tremendous hurdles to deal with the challenges by the USCIS. Accordingly, people should not port before I-140 petition is approved unless they are assured that the original employer will continuously cooperate and support his/her green card process.
10/08/2007: I-140 Portability After 180 Days of 485 Filing and Service Centers Standard Procedure of Review and Adjudication
When there is a retrogression of visa numbers and anticipated long delays in 485 adjudication due to the massive July VB fiasco 485 filings, it is anticipated that there will be a substantial number of 485 applicants who may have to change employment along the way, either voluntarily or involuntarily, under AC 21 Section 106(c) provision. Accordingly, whether one reports the change of employment proactively or not, one should learn the internal review and adjudication procedures within the Service Center which are adopted by the adjudicators in adjudicating such I-485 applications.
The good material to review on this procedure is the USCIS Standard Operating Procedure for the adjudicators. The SOP states that "If the alien is using the portability provisions of AC21 106(c), the adjudicator must determine that both the ported labor certification and the ported I-140 are still valid under the current employer, especially in regards to the continual payment of the prevailing wage, similar occupation classification, and the employer’s ability to pay the prevailing wage."
(1) Prevailing Wage Payment: The AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer pays the prevailing wage or higher wage for portability. However, the adjudicators review the wage as part of their determination of "continuing validity" of the ported certified labor certification application and I-140 petition. When the applicant stays with the same employer without changing employer, payment of wage less than the prevailing wage should not present any serious issue inasmuch as the employer establishes that the employer was financially able to pay the prevailing wage and is continuously able to pay the prevailing wage until the green card is approved. However, when there is a change of employer who pays less than the prevailing wage, there is no clear-cut rule with reference to this issue. Payment of less than prevailing wage thus potentially can raise two issues when there is a change of employer. One is the adjudicator's argument that there is no continuing validity of the labor certification or I-140 petition. The other is the argument that different wage reflects that the labor certification job and the new job with the new employer are two different occupational classifications.
(2) Similar occupational classification issue: The similarity of the two positions involves not the "jobs" but "occupational classification." Accordingly, the old and new positions do not necessarily have to match exactly in every details, especially specific skill sets. Currently, the USCIS is looking up the Labor Department SOC/OES classifications of occupations. When the two jobs fall under the same occupational classification in the DOL occupational definitions, the two jobs are generally considered "similar" occupational classification. As long as the two jobs belong to a similar occupational classification, the applicant can work for the new employer anywhere in the United States. There is no physical location restrictions.
(3) Employer's financial ability to pay the wage: Again, AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer must prove that the new employer has and will have a financial ability to pay the prevailing wage. However, the adjudicators appear to review the portability case considering the new employer's ability to pay as well as part of review of continuing vality of labor certification and I-140 petition.
Remember that when there is a portability issue, two things can ensue. If one proactively reports the eligibility of portability meeting all the foregoing requirment, the adjudicators are likely to decide the pending I-485 application on the merit. However, if the 485 applicants do not report proactively change of employment and the USCIS somehow obtains information of the alien's change of employment, for instance, by employer's report of termination of employment or withdrawal of I-140 petition or substitution of alien beneficiary, then 485 applicants are likely to be served a notice of intent to deny I-485 applications or in most cases, the adjudicator transfers the I-485 file to the local district office for interview.
In AC 21 106(c) portability situation, the adjudicators also review the issue of the continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition involving the original employer, and are likely to raise similar issues which are described above. However, when the alien ports with the "approved" I-140 petition with a copy of the last paycheck and W-2, the adjudicators rarely revisit the original employer's foregoing issues in determining the 140 portability issue. The issues are raised when the alien ports before the I-140 petition is approved. Under the Yates Memorandum, when the alien ports before I-140 petition is approved, the alien has a burden of proof that the I-140 petition was approvable. Accordingly, inasmuch as I-140 petition was approvable and the alien ports after 180 days of I-485 filing, even if the original employer withdraws the I-140 petition, the pending I-485 will not be affected. Yates Memorandum indicates that in such a circumstance, the adjudicator should adjudicate the pending I-140 petition and if finds approvable, then recognizes 106(c) portability and continues to adjudicate the pending I-485 application. Without doubt, in the foregoing situation, the adjudicator will intensively and carefully review the issue of continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition issues which are specified above, particularly the employer's financial ability to pay the wage, and the applicant will have to overcome tremendous hurdles to deal with the challenges by the USCIS. Accordingly, people should not port before I-140 petition is approved unless they are assured that the original employer will continuously cooperate and support his/her green card process.
more...
telenovela zemer e eger. more.
dixie
08-09 11:26 AM
It is true that big businesses are putting a lot of pressure to initiate legal immigration reform, so while there is certainly room for optimism, we cannot sit still and just wait for things to happen. That is what legal immigrants have been doing for generations and we now know the mess that we are in. In contrast, look at the illegal immigrants. They create a lot of sound and fury, and ultimately even though nobody likes illegal immigration, an amnesty(or something close) is almost inevitable every 20 years or so.
IV is the first organization to initiate activism among legal immigrants. We are not that powerful right now, but we have already seen what activism can do. See the dramatic increase in coverage of legal immigration issues in the media. I cannot recall anything being published about our plight before. Those who say IV has done is ineffective should remember that a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.IV has taken that important first step.
I don't know.
My friend same something that it makes sense;
Don't expect to see any real improvement throughout the Pres. Bush Administration. Remember politicians do shows. Even the current SKIL bill seems to be way unilateral and that would not be welcome by American voters either. I think until lawmakers truly stop listening to lobbysts and bring a true balanced bill to the table, we will see lots of "shows", but no real result.
It may happen someday, but I don't count on it necessarily in 2007.
IV is the first organization to initiate activism among legal immigrants. We are not that powerful right now, but we have already seen what activism can do. See the dramatic increase in coverage of legal immigration issues in the media. I cannot recall anything being published about our plight before. Those who say IV has done is ineffective should remember that a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.IV has taken that important first step.
I don't know.
My friend same something that it makes sense;
Don't expect to see any real improvement throughout the Pres. Bush Administration. Remember politicians do shows. Even the current SKIL bill seems to be way unilateral and that would not be welcome by American voters either. I think until lawmakers truly stop listening to lobbysts and bring a true balanced bill to the table, we will see lots of "shows", but no real result.
It may happen someday, but I don't count on it necessarily in 2007.
telenovela zemer e eger. more.
moonrah
05-16 05:34 PM
called ...
more...
telenovela zemer e eger. ejemplos de resume
qualified_trash
08-30 09:33 AM
you can travel until the Expiry date stamped on your Visa in your passport allows you to reenter.
For example, if your visa expires on 15th March 2007, you better be here on 14th :-)) and when you leave after that, you will need to have the visa revalidated at a consulate/embassy, which, I think you are aware of based on your post.
For example, if your visa expires on 15th March 2007, you better be here on 14th :-)) and when you leave after that, you will need to have the visa revalidated at a consulate/embassy, which, I think you are aware of based on your post.
telenovela zemer e eger. Enter+shikari+logo
tp976
04-30 05:38 PM
thanks Jai. You are right, its probly all luck. BTW , which service center is your case pending at
more...
telenovela zemer e eger. nokia c3 golden white.
Redeye
12-12 04:12 PM
I know one of my friend is EB2 PD 1999, stuck in namecheck.
Thanks
Thanks
telenovela zemer e eger. more salman khan family.
namm80
01-10 04:42 PM
So, this would mean anyone stuck in name check should never receive FP--correct? I don't think that's the case...i know of a lot of people who get FP notices every 15 (or is it 18?) months or so and are stuck in name checks forever.
The two processes Name check & FP are parallel, not sequential.
I have myself not rcvd FP - July 2nd filer NSC-CSC-NSC transfer victim :-). My way of looking at things is that CSC transferred I-485 to NSC in late September. So my I-485 is queued after an August 17th filer. August 17th filers have rcvd their FPs recently (Bay Area, CA), so it should not be that far away. (BTW, I am not dying to get FP done, i just want to shorten my stay-alert-for-FP window and get it over with it)
USCIS works in strange ways...i may be using logic that's beyond their IQ :)
Take it easy...
Applied July 23rd NSC. Receipt notice July 23rd and again another receipt September once my case went to CSC and back to NSC.
Got AP and EAD issued from CA (laguna Niguel USCIS) though not without headaches (RFE on AP)
took infopass appointment last week and officer said FPs havent been issued because Background check still not cleared for me (wife cleared but she will not get FP notice until mine is cleared). This is possibly the same reason you have not received yours. looks like i am stuck for the long haul in name check clearance.
good luck to you!
The two processes Name check & FP are parallel, not sequential.
I have myself not rcvd FP - July 2nd filer NSC-CSC-NSC transfer victim :-). My way of looking at things is that CSC transferred I-485 to NSC in late September. So my I-485 is queued after an August 17th filer. August 17th filers have rcvd their FPs recently (Bay Area, CA), so it should not be that far away. (BTW, I am not dying to get FP done, i just want to shorten my stay-alert-for-FP window and get it over with it)
USCIS works in strange ways...i may be using logic that's beyond their IQ :)
Take it easy...
Applied July 23rd NSC. Receipt notice July 23rd and again another receipt September once my case went to CSC and back to NSC.
Got AP and EAD issued from CA (laguna Niguel USCIS) though not without headaches (RFE on AP)
took infopass appointment last week and officer said FPs havent been issued because Background check still not cleared for me (wife cleared but she will not get FP notice until mine is cleared). This is possibly the same reason you have not received yours. looks like i am stuck for the long haul in name check clearance.
good luck to you!
more...
telenovela zemer e eger. wallpaper games 3d. wallpaper
patelkirti
04-17 08:55 AM
Hi All,
I am an aspiring US immigrant, and currently work with a desi-like employer who has not been paying me for last 3 months. I have resigned and started working at a new employer, using portability options. I will also contact DOL and report this to get my money back, however, DOL may not be able to recover it if the employer files for bankruptcy. I donot care much about money now, as its not too much and my new job increment covers it.
Here are my questions
1) Is there a way i can report this misdoing to USCIS directly. Is there any phone number/contact info to report frauds on I-140s and I-485s as he is holding some employees hostage (not allowing them to move out because of this situation where your money is stuck and so is your immigration).
2) What else should i do to make this injustice visible? I will work with DOl and get my money back.
3) I am thinking of reporting this directly to the I-140 processing centers. Is this is a good idea?
PK
I am an aspiring US immigrant, and currently work with a desi-like employer who has not been paying me for last 3 months. I have resigned and started working at a new employer, using portability options. I will also contact DOL and report this to get my money back, however, DOL may not be able to recover it if the employer files for bankruptcy. I donot care much about money now, as its not too much and my new job increment covers it.
Here are my questions
1) Is there a way i can report this misdoing to USCIS directly. Is there any phone number/contact info to report frauds on I-140s and I-485s as he is holding some employees hostage (not allowing them to move out because of this situation where your money is stuck and so is your immigration).
2) What else should i do to make this injustice visible? I will work with DOl and get my money back.
3) I am thinking of reporting this directly to the I-140 processing centers. Is this is a good idea?
PK
telenovela zemer e eger. I know
iamgsprabhu
04-20 04:36 PM
I am now confused, do we have to pay for the EAD renewal fee, has some thing changed ? let me know the fee for renewal.
FYI: My 485 receipt date is Aug 12 2007.
FYI: My 485 receipt date is Aug 12 2007.
more...
telenovela zemer e eger. cheese pizza jesus. cheese
qasleuth
07-17 11:35 AM
If you are serious about discussing issues like this, I would suggest you take opinions/bias out of your arguments.
All of your below listed biases are classic anti-immigrant groups' slogans.
"unskilled/low skill immigrants cause higher unemployment", "unskilled/low skilled immigration == jobs not created, remain uneployed", "DV / Family based immigration brings in unskilled/low skilled immigrants"
If you want a healthy discussion, do some research and provide data to support your assertions or ask for data before you make assertions. This thread will quickly turn into a bash fest against so called "unskilled" workers.
And, how do you define "unskilled/low skilled" ? as compared to what ? A Java programmer ?
I agree as well as dis-agree.
numberUSA give this argument for all the immigration communities which I am sure is from a different perspective (xenophobic or race). They just don't want any immigrants no matter what.
I am talking only about this crisis and merely from economic point of view. About choosing based upon what is good for the economy and what is not.
Thanks,
M.
All of your below listed biases are classic anti-immigrant groups' slogans.
"unskilled/low skill immigrants cause higher unemployment", "unskilled/low skilled immigration == jobs not created, remain uneployed", "DV / Family based immigration brings in unskilled/low skilled immigrants"
If you want a healthy discussion, do some research and provide data to support your assertions or ask for data before you make assertions. This thread will quickly turn into a bash fest against so called "unskilled" workers.
And, how do you define "unskilled/low skilled" ? as compared to what ? A Java programmer ?
I agree as well as dis-agree.
numberUSA give this argument for all the immigration communities which I am sure is from a different perspective (xenophobic or race). They just don't want any immigrants no matter what.
I am talking only about this crisis and merely from economic point of view. About choosing based upon what is good for the economy and what is not.
Thanks,
M.
telenovela zemer e eger. more.
kondur_007
05-12 08:14 PM
CIS have been targeting reducing processing times for applications including I-485 (for I-485 they want it to be <180 days). Which they are doing, based on their definition of pending (non retrogressed approvable application). They can easily achieve this, give retrogressed countries/categories bare minimum and they process all other applications as quickly as possible. Which explains all of the following..
EB3 made unavailable (they have used all the visa numbers)
EB2-India move way back (they have used all the visa numbers)
EB1 and EB2 quick approvals (for all current categories) average down to 200 days
There were around 3000 visas for EB2-1 and EB3-I , considering 1.2 dependent this means GC for no more than 1400 families in each category. The math is simple getting that many applications processed in first 6-8 months was not difficult.
To add to the woes we have following, which add to the problem, but are not the primary problem.
Labor substitution
EB3-EB2 jumps
Very old name-check cases
Primary problem is 7% country cap, they way things are if CIS gets enough cases in EB1 and EB2 (none retrogressed categories), then they will be reluctant to issue GC to EB2-I and EB3-I above the minimum (7% quota), since that do not count in their definition of pending cases.
Right on point. To your list, you can add EB1-C cases.
At this time there is no way to predict the actual numbers of these...only next three visa bulletins will tell us the actual impact.
My guess (it is only a GUESS...can't be a prediction as there are no numbers to crunch...) is EB2 I will move forward to at least 2005 or 2006 (may be more) till the end of this fiscal year.
In any case, EB3 I is going to be very tough to be in...unless CIR has something nicer to offer to those waiting in that category...
EB3 made unavailable (they have used all the visa numbers)
EB2-India move way back (they have used all the visa numbers)
EB1 and EB2 quick approvals (for all current categories) average down to 200 days
There were around 3000 visas for EB2-1 and EB3-I , considering 1.2 dependent this means GC for no more than 1400 families in each category. The math is simple getting that many applications processed in first 6-8 months was not difficult.
To add to the woes we have following, which add to the problem, but are not the primary problem.
Labor substitution
EB3-EB2 jumps
Very old name-check cases
Primary problem is 7% country cap, they way things are if CIS gets enough cases in EB1 and EB2 (none retrogressed categories), then they will be reluctant to issue GC to EB2-I and EB3-I above the minimum (7% quota), since that do not count in their definition of pending cases.
Right on point. To your list, you can add EB1-C cases.
At this time there is no way to predict the actual numbers of these...only next three visa bulletins will tell us the actual impact.
My guess (it is only a GUESS...can't be a prediction as there are no numbers to crunch...) is EB2 I will move forward to at least 2005 or 2006 (may be more) till the end of this fiscal year.
In any case, EB3 I is going to be very tough to be in...unless CIR has something nicer to offer to those waiting in that category...
more...
telenovela zemer e eger. border collie puppies.
chanduv23
03-05 10:02 AM
As per my understanding here is how it is supposed to work
- One ONLY has to say whether he/she is Authorized to work for any employer in an unrestricted manner
- One ONLY has to say if he/she has a security clearance
- One ONLY has to say if he/she needs a visa sponsership now or in future
- Certain jobs may need that one has to be a US Citizen (not sure about this) - but there must be a valid reason as to why the job needs a US Citizen
Once an employment is offered, the employee has upto 72 hours from the day of joining to provide proof of work authorization and complete the i 9 form. The authorization must be original and the employer must verify this and take a copy and place it in the employee's folder.
Desi3933 or IV Attorneys - please pass on your comments.
This is very important because - due to economy, a lot of employers are coming up with arbitrary rules and applying arbitrary filters and will continue to do so as long as it is not challenged.
- One ONLY has to say whether he/she is Authorized to work for any employer in an unrestricted manner
- One ONLY has to say if he/she has a security clearance
- One ONLY has to say if he/she needs a visa sponsership now or in future
- Certain jobs may need that one has to be a US Citizen (not sure about this) - but there must be a valid reason as to why the job needs a US Citizen
Once an employment is offered, the employee has upto 72 hours from the day of joining to provide proof of work authorization and complete the i 9 form. The authorization must be original and the employer must verify this and take a copy and place it in the employee's folder.
Desi3933 or IV Attorneys - please pass on your comments.
This is very important because - due to economy, a lot of employers are coming up with arbitrary rules and applying arbitrary filters and will continue to do so as long as it is not challenged.
telenovela zemer e eger. cute love wallpapers with
.jpg "cute love wallpapers with")
sounakc
07-29 01:09 PM
why dallas why not chicago lock box
more...
telenovela zemer e eger. fast car wallpaper. fast cars
sac-r-ten
11-10 02:43 PM
i renewed mine in Apr 2006 in Washington DC and they gave it for 10 yrs. My stamped H1B was expiring in Oct 2007.
telenovela zemer e eger. more.
dpp
01-07 08:25 PM
B. Provisions in Cases of Revocation of the Approved Form I-140
Subject: Guidance for Processing Form I-485 in Accordance with Section 106(c) of AC21
As discussed above, if an alien is the beneficiary of an approved Form I-140 and is also the beneficiary of a Form I-485 that has been pending 180 days or longer, then the approved Form I-140 remains valid with respect to a new offer of employment under the flexibility provisions of �106(c) of AC21.
Accordingly, if the employer withdraws the approved Form I-140 on or after the date that the Form I-485 has been pending 180 days, the approved Form I-140 shall remain valid under the provisions of �106(c) of AC21. It is expected that the alien will have submitted evidence to the office having jurisdiction over the pending Form I-485 that the new offer of employment is in the same or similar occupational classification as the offer of employment for which the petition was filed. Accordingly, if the underlying approved Form I-140 is withdrawn, and the alien has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the adjudicating officer must issue a Notice of Intent to Deny the pending Form I-485. See 8 CFR 103.2(b)(16)(i). If the evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment submitted in response to the Notice of Intent to Deny is timely filed and it appears that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, the BCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485. If the applicant responds to the Notice of Intent to Deny, but has not established that the new offer of employment is in the same or similar occupation, the adjudicating officer may immediately deny the Form I-485. If the alien does not respond or fails to timely respond to the Notice of Intent to Deny, the adjudicating officer may immediately deny the Form I-485.
If approval of the Form I-140 is revoked or the Form I-140 is withdrawn before the alien’s Form I-485 has been pending 180 days, the approved Form I-140 is no longer valid with respect to a new offer of employment and the Form I-485 may be denied. If at any time the BCIS revokes approval of the Form I-140 based on fraud, the alien will not be eligible for the job flexibility provisions of �106(c) of AC21 and the adjudicating officer may, in his or her discretion, deny the attached Form I-485 immediately. In all cases an offer of employment must have been bona fide, and the employer must have had the intent, at the time the Form I-140 was approved, to employ the beneficiary upon adjustment. It should be noted that there is no requirement in statute or regulations that a beneficiary of a Form I-140 actually be in the underlying employment until permanent residence is authorized. Therefore, it is possible for an alien to qualify for the provisions of �106(c) of AC21 even if he or she has never been employed by the prior petitioning employer or the subsequent employer under section 204(j) of the Act.
Subject: Guidance for Processing Form I-485 in Accordance with Section 106(c) of AC21
As discussed above, if an alien is the beneficiary of an approved Form I-140 and is also the beneficiary of a Form I-485 that has been pending 180 days or longer, then the approved Form I-140 remains valid with respect to a new offer of employment under the flexibility provisions of �106(c) of AC21.
Accordingly, if the employer withdraws the approved Form I-140 on or after the date that the Form I-485 has been pending 180 days, the approved Form I-140 shall remain valid under the provisions of �106(c) of AC21. It is expected that the alien will have submitted evidence to the office having jurisdiction over the pending Form I-485 that the new offer of employment is in the same or similar occupational classification as the offer of employment for which the petition was filed. Accordingly, if the underlying approved Form I-140 is withdrawn, and the alien has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the adjudicating officer must issue a Notice of Intent to Deny the pending Form I-485. See 8 CFR 103.2(b)(16)(i). If the evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment submitted in response to the Notice of Intent to Deny is timely filed and it appears that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, the BCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485. If the applicant responds to the Notice of Intent to Deny, but has not established that the new offer of employment is in the same or similar occupation, the adjudicating officer may immediately deny the Form I-485. If the alien does not respond or fails to timely respond to the Notice of Intent to Deny, the adjudicating officer may immediately deny the Form I-485.
If approval of the Form I-140 is revoked or the Form I-140 is withdrawn before the alien’s Form I-485 has been pending 180 days, the approved Form I-140 is no longer valid with respect to a new offer of employment and the Form I-485 may be denied. If at any time the BCIS revokes approval of the Form I-140 based on fraud, the alien will not be eligible for the job flexibility provisions of �106(c) of AC21 and the adjudicating officer may, in his or her discretion, deny the attached Form I-485 immediately. In all cases an offer of employment must have been bona fide, and the employer must have had the intent, at the time the Form I-140 was approved, to employ the beneficiary upon adjustment. It should be noted that there is no requirement in statute or regulations that a beneficiary of a Form I-140 actually be in the underlying employment until permanent residence is authorized. Therefore, it is possible for an alien to qualify for the provisions of �106(c) of AC21 even if he or she has never been employed by the prior petitioning employer or the subsequent employer under section 204(j) of the Act.
telenovela zemer e eger. corazones rotos poemas
rangaswamy
10-25 04:30 PM
Mine still says pending even though i received it 2 weeks ago....
but my spouses status was spot on through the process..
but my spouses status was spot on through the process..
harikris
12-05 09:56 PM
Hi maverick_iv and smuggymba - thanks to you both. between you two, all my Qs are answered.
I will mail the app and then go visit the embassy after 10 days - i think that will be more effective.
Thanks.
I will mail the app and then go visit the embassy after 10 days - i think that will be more effective.
Thanks.
gc_in_30_yrs
11-21 06:59 PM
In the context of Premium processing of H1B�s, I-140, EAD�s etc can we press our demands to newly elected Dems to have I-485 premium processing by paying extra $$$ to USCIS?
"Premium GC processing" will work as follows:
Pre-processing Condition/Base Rules:
If your I-140 is approved & you have filed I-485 and your I-485 is pending for more than 575 or 600 days (whats ever USCIS website says of # days..) is mentioned against your case#.....
...THEN pay USCIS e.g. $1000 or $0000 & get your "GC" !!!
USCIS will assign temporary VISA# for such "Premium Paid GC" and when VISA# will be available that VISA# will be assigned to your " Premium Paid GC"..
Premium Paid GC - Few base Rules:
Before issuing " Premium Paid GC ", USCIS will ensure/check their existing GC process along with following additional checks:
1. Pre- adjudicated:
Your case is Pre-adjudicated, I-140 approved, file is complete & case is waiting ONLY for Visa# availability
2. Income Tax & W2�s:
Applicant pays Income Tax, files W2�s for say 3-4 years
3. EAD�s more than 3:
I 485 applicants are repeatedly applying for EAD's for more than 2 to 3 years
4. Check Legal entry in USA:
Copy of I-94 to ensure that I-485 applicant is �Legally� entered in USA
5. Security Threat/Name Check:
Name check is complete & applicant is NO longer a "Threat" to National security, if Name check is NOT done, expedite it to FBI. If Name Check is not completed by FBI, request I-485 applicant to submit �Local� Police station �Clearance records� from all the �Address� where he/she stayed in USA (address specified in Labor). If a person is here for more than say 4-5 years, have clean �Police clearance record� and law abiding �Legal� Tax payer, how he/she can be threat to National Security?
6. FP:
Finger Printing at least once (NOT over by 15 months etc..)
7. Biometric:
I-485 applicants Biometric 2 (or 1,2,3) has been done at least one time
8. H1B/H4 extensions:
I-485 Primary applicant (his/her derivative) are completed their H1B extension more than 6 years and repeatedly extending H1/H4�s (to say enough, he/she is here for more than 6 years legally)
After applying this Basic Thumb Rules, issue " Premium GC" to applicant & assign VISA# later whenever VISA# is available.
I am sure ash0210 will get a job in USCIS to write rules for issuing GCs.
Just kidding. I like your analogy.
"Premium GC processing" will work as follows:
Pre-processing Condition/Base Rules:
If your I-140 is approved & you have filed I-485 and your I-485 is pending for more than 575 or 600 days (whats ever USCIS website says of # days..) is mentioned against your case#.....
...THEN pay USCIS e.g. $1000 or $0000 & get your "GC" !!!
USCIS will assign temporary VISA# for such "Premium Paid GC" and when VISA# will be available that VISA# will be assigned to your " Premium Paid GC"..
Premium Paid GC - Few base Rules:
Before issuing " Premium Paid GC ", USCIS will ensure/check their existing GC process along with following additional checks:
1. Pre- adjudicated:
Your case is Pre-adjudicated, I-140 approved, file is complete & case is waiting ONLY for Visa# availability
2. Income Tax & W2�s:
Applicant pays Income Tax, files W2�s for say 3-4 years
3. EAD�s more than 3:
I 485 applicants are repeatedly applying for EAD's for more than 2 to 3 years
4. Check Legal entry in USA:
Copy of I-94 to ensure that I-485 applicant is �Legally� entered in USA
5. Security Threat/Name Check:
Name check is complete & applicant is NO longer a "Threat" to National security, if Name check is NOT done, expedite it to FBI. If Name Check is not completed by FBI, request I-485 applicant to submit �Local� Police station �Clearance records� from all the �Address� where he/she stayed in USA (address specified in Labor). If a person is here for more than say 4-5 years, have clean �Police clearance record� and law abiding �Legal� Tax payer, how he/she can be threat to National Security?
6. FP:
Finger Printing at least once (NOT over by 15 months etc..)
7. Biometric:
I-485 applicants Biometric 2 (or 1,2,3) has been done at least one time
8. H1B/H4 extensions:
I-485 Primary applicant (his/her derivative) are completed their H1B extension more than 6 years and repeatedly extending H1/H4�s (to say enough, he/she is here for more than 6 years legally)
After applying this Basic Thumb Rules, issue " Premium GC" to applicant & assign VISA# later whenever VISA# is available.
I am sure ash0210 will get a job in USCIS to write rules for issuing GCs.
Just kidding. I like your analogy.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий