pbuckeye
09-02 02:04 PM
[B]
I am 100% sure , H4 visa holders cannot work in any position which pays them. It is a violation of the visa.
Does that also apply to a case where the person is employed in another country and getting paid there? What about a case where the H4 holder travels to their home country and works for 3 months at a local company and gets paid for it?
Correct me if I am wrong but I would think the rule only applies if you work and earn money in the US.
I am 100% sure , H4 visa holders cannot work in any position which pays them. It is a violation of the visa.
Does that also apply to a case where the person is employed in another country and getting paid there? What about a case where the H4 holder travels to their home country and works for 3 months at a local company and gets paid for it?
Correct me if I am wrong but I would think the rule only applies if you work and earn money in the US.
wallpaper birthday poems for grandpa
pkv
02-08 08:17 PM
Thanks all of you for your responses.
But I'm still not clear about one thing... which center I should file EAD application with?
I'm in California, My I-140 was approved by Texas service center.
I-485 was filed with Nebraska but transfered to texas service center.
Now my I-485 is pending with Texas service center.
Thanks again...
But I'm still not clear about one thing... which center I should file EAD application with?
I'm in California, My I-140 was approved by Texas service center.
I-485 was filed with Nebraska but transfered to texas service center.
Now my I-485 is pending with Texas service center.
Thanks again...
Krilnon
01-01 11:49 PM
Are you considering actually stopping people from creating something in AS1? As you probably know anyway, AS2 is compiled to AS1 anyway, so a decision to limit entrants to only AS2 and AS3 would be totally arbitrary. :P
Besides, most people who claim to be using AS2 just use AS1 with type annotations…
Anyway, thanks for clarifying the background options. :)
Besides, most people who claim to be using AS2 just use AS1 with type annotations…
Anyway, thanks for clarifying the background options. :)
2011 Grandpa#39;s Poems
ujjvalkoul
07-17 06:45 PM
contribute please.....
Those that are tearing up..u can call IV on the numbers mentioned..I just dd and congratulated the, on a job well done and pledged my contiuing support until all our oissues are resolved
Those that are tearing up..u can call IV on the numbers mentioned..I just dd and congratulated the, on a job well done and pledged my contiuing support until all our oissues are resolved
more...
yestogc
06-30 01:37 PM
You can have 2 H1B active at one time, but one should be fulltime and other which we call as concurrent H1B (part time).
As per my understanding Concurrent one does not fall under quota since it is a part time one and needs to be approved before you can start working unlike h1B transfer where you can work as soon as transfer is filed w/o waiting for approval.
The underlying H1B or the concurrent H1B does not protect you on status, so if you loose status on your fulltime h1B job then you cannot jump on this to save your status.
As per my understanding Concurrent one does not fall under quota since it is a part time one and needs to be approved before you can start working unlike h1B transfer where you can work as soon as transfer is filed w/o waiting for approval.
The underlying H1B or the concurrent H1B does not protect you on status, so if you loose status on your fulltime h1B job then you cannot jump on this to save your status.
kiranraheja
08-12 03:51 PM
Hi Billu/anyone,
Did anyone try this Dish Network iptv service? Its expensive and has a contract attached so wanted to know if I should go ahead with it.
Thanks.
Did anyone try this Dish Network iptv service? Its expensive and has a contract attached so wanted to know if I should go ahead with it.
Thanks.
more...
mkiv
05-21 12:34 PM
You must send the letter from your original employer if you have not used AC21.
2010 Grandparents in India
amitjoey
06-18 01:53 PM
Please post your contributions on the funding drive.
more...
WeShallOvercome
07-23 04:26 PM
You cannot file EAD/AP without the Receipt notice. Since u will be filing it urself anyways(no layer fee involved), y dont u file it with just stating the 485File number in the covering letter, also attach the prints of the checks cashed.
I would say its worth giving a shot.
[You may also state any lame reason that u/employer/lawyer have misplaced the receipt notice in the covering letter ...try this at ur own risk]
Thanks pa_Arora
That's what I'm planning to do in the end. Just waiting for my case to be receipted. Aa friend suggested putting a copy of the FP notice as it looks just like I-485 RN and has all the information in it.
I would say its worth giving a shot.
[You may also state any lame reason that u/employer/lawyer have misplaced the receipt notice in the covering letter ...try this at ur own risk]
Thanks pa_Arora
That's what I'm planning to do in the end. Just waiting for my case to be receipted. Aa friend suggested putting a copy of the FP notice as it looks just like I-485 RN and has all the information in it.
hair chasers
matreen
10-13 04:16 PM
My case reached USCIS on July, 12th and still waiting; nothing have been received yet...
I have called my lawyer she is also frustraited and said we have to wait as CIS is making some changes.
I understand it's really frustrating as people started receiving who filed in August....it seems to me CIS is not following proper channel and everything is messed up.
Lets hope for the best....
M
I have called my lawyer she is also frustraited and said we have to wait as CIS is making some changes.
I understand it's really frustrating as people started receiving who filed in August....it seems to me CIS is not following proper channel and everything is messed up.
Lets hope for the best....
M
more...
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.
hot GRANDPA POEMS - Page 7
masala dosa
05-12 09:43 AM
Great Job.I heard your call & I think you tried your best to explain our issues.I'm sure that something will surely change for the legal community in coming months.We have taken enough s..... till now.
Once again, nice job buddy
Keep up the spirits,we will get there
Thanks
GCcomesoon
I cannot open the audio file on internet explorer/Windows media player
can anyone tell me why?
Once again, nice job buddy
Keep up the spirits,we will get there
Thanks
GCcomesoon
I cannot open the audio file on internet explorer/Windows media player
can anyone tell me why?
more...
house Grandpa, or Dad to enjoy
HV000
11-17 11:26 AM
This shows how ignorant U.S. Senate is!! Only now they will recognize the most important festival of the 3rd Largest religion in the world!!!
U.S. wasted NO time in recognizing Jewish festivals!!
U.S. wasted NO time in recognizing Jewish festivals!!
tattoo Famous Grandfather Poems
Kapils573
06-15 03:11 PM
I believe it is the number which is assigned to you when your I-140 is approved. It is mentioned on your I -140 approval notice. and it is used to fill your AR-11 form
more...
pictures grandfather poem
actaccord
01-26 11:46 AM
Pls start the effort to team up and meet the lawmakers.
dresses poems for grandparents.
averagedesi
09-08 01:21 AM
When is your infopass appt?
more...
makeup Happy+irthday+grandpa+poems;
learning01
05-11 01:03 PM
Audio Link (http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=3) on Internet and Click on Listen.
A while ago, it used to be that the stream was cut off after one hour. Off late, I am not listening. Also check your local public radio. In CO it is www.cpr.org
For funding reasons, NPR has veered away from its middle of the road position in the last 5 years. Thus, in my view, it lost neutrality and my listenership.
can we listen to this program online?
A while ago, it used to be that the stream was cut off after one hour. Off late, I am not listening. Also check your local public radio. In CO it is www.cpr.org
For funding reasons, NPR has veered away from its middle of the road position in the last 5 years. Thus, in my view, it lost neutrality and my listenership.
can we listen to this program online?
girlfriend Poems weren#39;t the only way
shivarajan
02-11 03:37 PM
my advice (from my experience)..if u do USPS Priority (India postal employee deliver it for sure), and chances r high that u may receive it in OPENED, MISSING, LOST (part of docs) state (we had this multiple times from different locations)
Strongly suggest NOT to use Priority unless u have had firsthand good experience!
Using USPS express was little different, fast, and prompt (guess they use some special delivery layer) :mad:
Strongly suggest NOT to use Priority unless u have had firsthand good experience!
Using USPS express was little different, fast, and prompt (guess they use some special delivery layer) :mad:
hairstyles poems for grandparents. poems
nousername
08-20 09:13 PM
May be this will help you:
1. At POE there is a possibility they might give you the I-94 till December'09 only as that is when your PP expires. If this happens you will have to worry about filling for your H1 extension in November v/s in June, 2010 to get an updated I-94.
2. To best of my knowledge if you have a valid visa stamp on your passport then the Indian PP office needs to return the renewed PP in 24-48 hours.. My dad had something like this a while back, not sure if they changed the rules. Have someone from your family in India inquire about it.
In short get your PP renewed either before you leave or in India, don't wait to come back on an expiring PP.
I'm planning to travel to India next month. My passport expires in December 09 and my H1b stamp on the passport expires in July of 2010. Will there be any problem at the POE because of the short valid months left in the passport and H1B visa.
Thanks,
1. At POE there is a possibility they might give you the I-94 till December'09 only as that is when your PP expires. If this happens you will have to worry about filling for your H1 extension in November v/s in June, 2010 to get an updated I-94.
2. To best of my knowledge if you have a valid visa stamp on your passport then the Indian PP office needs to return the renewed PP in 24-48 hours.. My dad had something like this a while back, not sure if they changed the rules. Have someone from your family in India inquire about it.
In short get your PP renewed either before you leave or in India, don't wait to come back on an expiring PP.
I'm planning to travel to India next month. My passport expires in December 09 and my H1b stamp on the passport expires in July of 2010. Will there be any problem at the POE because of the short valid months left in the passport and H1B visa.
Thanks,
gckalafda
08-04 11:33 AM
My EB3 I-140 is pending and got RFE at NSC since 1st Jan 2007 and later moved Texas, I don't know wether this thred belongs to same or not. I have a PD of Dec 2003, :mad:
mohitb272
10-17 05:15 PM
One of my friend filed on July 2nd through her lawyer but she has not received any Receipt Notice (her checks have also not been cashed yet).
Her lawyer has the Fedex delivery confirmation that the application was delivered on July 2nd.
Anyone in similar circumstances? Would appreciate any help on this matter.
Her lawyer has the Fedex delivery confirmation that the application was delivered on July 2nd.
Anyone in similar circumstances? Would appreciate any help on this matter.