solaris27
10-15 01:46 PM
No you can't
ashkam
12-03 04:12 PM
Does anyone knows if Person eligible for AC21 porting is eligible for unemployment benefit?
Refer to this post (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=234403&postcount=24) for a good answer.
Refer to this post (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=234403&postcount=24) for a good answer.
h1bemployee
06-25 01:57 PM
Hi Prasanthi,
In the denial letter they stated that
"The beneficiary may remain in the current immigration status until date indicated on Form I94.. ". My I-94 is valid till sep 30 2009 .... so even though my H1b transfer got denied ,will that save me from being out-of-status?
In the denial letter they stated that
"The beneficiary may remain in the current immigration status until date indicated on Form I94.. ". My I-94 is valid till sep 30 2009 .... so even though my H1b transfer got denied ,will that save me from being out-of-status?
prince_waiting
12-12 12:02 PM
Hi fellow IVians from the 'Heart of Dixie',
Birmingham is at an equal distant from Montgomery as well as from Huntsville if I am correct. Willing to travel from Auburn to Birmingham for a state chapter meeting if it is convened.
Birmingham is at an equal distant from Montgomery as well as from Huntsville if I am correct. Willing to travel from Auburn to Birmingham for a state chapter meeting if it is convened.
more...
belmontboy
05-21 04:56 PM
we have become subject of joke for them!
conchshell
07-30 12:04 PM
Paper based filing on July 2nd 2008 (NSC)
Got filing receipt on July 19th 2008
Today I got the CRIS appproval email for my EAD application. However, the EAD application for my spouse still shows pending. We both filed together (paper filing). Is this normal, has someone seen this type of situation before? Do I need to contact USCIS to remind them about the other EAD application?
Got filing receipt on July 19th 2008
Today I got the CRIS appproval email for my EAD application. However, the EAD application for my spouse still shows pending. We both filed together (paper filing). Is this normal, has someone seen this type of situation before? Do I need to contact USCIS to remind them about the other EAD application?
more...
SunnySurya
08-21 03:15 PM
Thanks, I gave you some green dots for your answers.
You asked about my age: I will be 40yrs old this December. I came here when I was 29.
Even though you wanted to file a lawsuit against EB3( I am EB3 2004, with US Masters and Indian Bachelors both in Computer Science) I will still go ahead give you some suggestions.
1) I am guessing since you are working for consulting company, you might have worked at client places here in US. Nowadays everyone is in the fashion of opening their own India office like Target, BOA etc. So if you have worked with these clients and have good references from a PM or VP then you might be able to get in India office fairly easily and with really good pay. You could try for managerial roles.
2)As someone suggested Real Estate is another option
3) Otherthing to look in to is opening a school, this will help serve the community and also make money for you. Schools in India are going nowhere, so very less risk.
Hope this helps you...but what I am not sure from your statements is, are you frustrated with the wait for GC or are you frustrated with making less than what you should be making or are you frustrated in general?
Do not know your age, could be mid life crisis :D think about it....take a vacation....
You asked about my age: I will be 40yrs old this December. I came here when I was 29.
Even though you wanted to file a lawsuit against EB3( I am EB3 2004, with US Masters and Indian Bachelors both in Computer Science) I will still go ahead give you some suggestions.
1) I am guessing since you are working for consulting company, you might have worked at client places here in US. Nowadays everyone is in the fashion of opening their own India office like Target, BOA etc. So if you have worked with these clients and have good references from a PM or VP then you might be able to get in India office fairly easily and with really good pay. You could try for managerial roles.
2)As someone suggested Real Estate is another option
3) Otherthing to look in to is opening a school, this will help serve the community and also make money for you. Schools in India are going nowhere, so very less risk.
Hope this helps you...but what I am not sure from your statements is, are you frustrated with the wait for GC or are you frustrated with making less than what you should be making or are you frustrated in general?
Do not know your age, could be mid life crisis :D think about it....take a vacation....
sayantan76
07-08 10:39 PM
this is BS.
The interests of indian citizens resident in the USA (all decent taxpayers) are not being taken care of by the US political system. There is a clear pattern of exploitation by employers and neglect by CIS, FBI and others.
In this situation, the interests of Indian citizens should be taken up by the Indian parliament. If they want to shy away from their duty, it should be taken up by the UN.
As far as I know - a large number of us in the USA do not need to pay Indian taxes on our US income.......unlike USA - Govt of India does not tax its overseas citizens' foreign income......(for that matter GC holders are also liable to pay US taxes when they are outside USA).
Under these circumstances and the fact the Govt of India has much more serious issues on hand- I find it very selfish to go ask for their help for a set of relatively well to do, highly educated professionals working for mostly personal gains outside their motherland.......
Its one thing GoI stepping in against exploitation of labor in middle east or advocating for med students in UK - most of us are established professionals who have consciously chosen our battles - we should not shy away from those battles and suddenly ask for motherland's help.....
BTW - I am in the same boat......actually a bit worse perhaps..since I am filed under EB1 and was current till last month and only 2 months or so away from GC before current bulletin......
The interests of indian citizens resident in the USA (all decent taxpayers) are not being taken care of by the US political system. There is a clear pattern of exploitation by employers and neglect by CIS, FBI and others.
In this situation, the interests of Indian citizens should be taken up by the Indian parliament. If they want to shy away from their duty, it should be taken up by the UN.
As far as I know - a large number of us in the USA do not need to pay Indian taxes on our US income.......unlike USA - Govt of India does not tax its overseas citizens' foreign income......(for that matter GC holders are also liable to pay US taxes when they are outside USA).
Under these circumstances and the fact the Govt of India has much more serious issues on hand- I find it very selfish to go ask for their help for a set of relatively well to do, highly educated professionals working for mostly personal gains outside their motherland.......
Its one thing GoI stepping in against exploitation of labor in middle east or advocating for med students in UK - most of us are established professionals who have consciously chosen our battles - we should not shy away from those battles and suddenly ask for motherland's help.....
BTW - I am in the same boat......actually a bit worse perhaps..since I am filed under EB1 and was current till last month and only 2 months or so away from GC before current bulletin......
more...
indygc
12-18 11:41 PM
Hi All,
One of my friend is in a bad situation, I am posting on behalf of him,
He is having H1B from Company A, company even filed labor, he got a project all was going well , his project with client got over on September 15th 2009. He was on bench since then, his recruiting guys tried hard marketing him and atlast after 3 mnths found a project and when the time has come for paper work, today,HR from client called and told him that his company A's HR responded them saying his H1 was cancelled on September 15th as soon as his project got over with his previous client. My friend was not intimated about this not even the recruiter and was in assumption that company is still supporting him ..He is in shock and helpless..
Now the question is its more than 90 days since Sept 15th, what is the current situation what can he do? (has 2 offers in hand and no h1)..wat are the options he left with? Anything can be done? Can he stay and apply a new H1 or transfer? Pleas advise, Gurus appreciate your quick response.
Thanks in Advance
AJ
One of my friend is in a bad situation, I am posting on behalf of him,
He is having H1B from Company A, company even filed labor, he got a project all was going well , his project with client got over on September 15th 2009. He was on bench since then, his recruiting guys tried hard marketing him and atlast after 3 mnths found a project and when the time has come for paper work, today,HR from client called and told him that his company A's HR responded them saying his H1 was cancelled on September 15th as soon as his project got over with his previous client. My friend was not intimated about this not even the recruiter and was in assumption that company is still supporting him ..He is in shock and helpless..
Now the question is its more than 90 days since Sept 15th, what is the current situation what can he do? (has 2 offers in hand and no h1)..wat are the options he left with? Anything can be done? Can he stay and apply a new H1 or transfer? Pleas advise, Gurus appreciate your quick response.
Thanks in Advance
AJ
pappusheth
08-11 02:38 PM
good one ghost.
it's disappointing that the sept vb movement was much smaller than expected (i fall in your g3m2 category) but the blessing in disguise is that it will make people believe the long term vision that IV has to pursue the fixes that will solve these problems for good and will help everyone irrespective of their category. hopefully more people will come forward and donate and join IV's hands on the grass root efforts.
it's disappointing that the sept vb movement was much smaller than expected (i fall in your g3m2 category) but the blessing in disguise is that it will make people believe the long term vision that IV has to pursue the fixes that will solve these problems for good and will help everyone irrespective of their category. hopefully more people will come forward and donate and join IV's hands on the grass root efforts.
more...
kartikiran
05-28 03:21 PM
I did it on May 1st and did it again on May 20th.
For any agenda to be pushed forward funds are needed.
Even just to run a portal like this to give us an opportunity to discuss our issues at a single source also costs.
For any agenda to be pushed forward funds are needed.
Even just to run a portal like this to give us an opportunity to discuss our issues at a single source also costs.
help43
09-25 12:26 AM
When I Applied For A Amendement.
My Previous Status Was Approval Notice Sent.
My Previous Status Was Approval Notice Sent.
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.
Trinity79
04-08 05:31 PM
I am new here.Thanks I updated it .
more...
singhsa3
08-01 12:30 PM
Good catch! Thank You.
No Offense, but please don't misspell the senator/congressman(woman) name...Senator Menendez...
It might also not look good when someone from IV calls the office and pronounces the name incorrectly...
Thanks..
No Offense, but please don't misspell the senator/congressman(woman) name...Senator Menendez...
It might also not look good when someone from IV calls the office and pronounces the name incorrectly...
Thanks..
gc_maine2
08-08 04:27 PM
OK good another thread, now you have posted this info you can also close this thread.:)
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/FAQ3.pdf
Q33: When filing an EB I-485 using the old fee, what version of the I-485 form do we use?
A33: The current I-485 form version dated “7/30/07 Y” should be used. The form can be found at www.uscis.gov
Q34: To ensure that the correct fee is submitted, may an applicant submit both a check for the old fee and a second check for the new fee?
A34: USCIS requires that all applications and petitions be submitted with the required filing fee or a waiver, if applicable. USCIS urges the public to exercise caution in submitting additional checks in incorrect amounts: extraneous checks may slow down the intake process and may result in an erroneous rejection of an application (as in the case where the check in the correct amount is missed) or in the inadvertent cashing of such checks, since filing fees are normally non-refundable. For additional information, the public is referred to the fee requirements announced in the Federal Register on August 1, 2007 (Temporary Adjustment of the Immigration and Naturalization Benefit Application and Petition Fee Schedule for Certain Adjustment of Status, FR at 41888). This regulation amends the new Fee Rule, and requires that aliens who file an employment-based Form I–485 and any related Forms I–765 and I–131, pursuant to Visa Bulletin No. 107, through August 17, 2007, must include the filing fees in effect prior to July 30, 2007. The new fee schedule becomes effective on July 30, 2007, for all other immigration and naturalization applications and petitions and on August 18, 2007, for Forms I–485 and all subsequent or ‘‘renewal’’ applications for advance parole and employment authorization based on pending Forms I–485 filed pursuant to Visa Bulletin No. 107.
Q35: Will previous USCIS policy still apply in those instances where the original approved labor certification cannot be included in support of an I-140 petition, such as when the original has been lost or previously filed with USCIS, or when a duplicate approval must be requested?
A35: Yes. While an original labor certification must be submitted in support of certain I-140 petitions, USCIS will continue to accept duplicates of previously filed Labor certificates and, as in the instances stated above, in cases where an original labor certificate has been properly filed with USCIS.
1 USCIS may issue future “FAQs” on this topic for the benefit of the public, should additional questions arise. Such FAQs will be dated and numbered for ease of reference. Department of Homeland Security
Q36: Will USCIS accept Schedule A concurrently filed I-140 petitions and adjustment of status applications that are filed on or after August 1, 2007?
A36: As previously stated, USCIS will accept properly filed Forms I-140 filed on behalf of aliens with a priority date on or after August 1, 2007; however, pursuant to August Visa Bulletin No. 108, USCIS will reject any concurrently filed adjustment of status applications filed by aliens with a priority date on or after August 1, 2007.
Q37: Will the new I-765 filing instructions apply to Forms I-765 filed based on employment-based adjustment of status applications filed pursuant to the July Visa Bulletin No. 107, if filed between July 30, 2007 – August 17, 2007?
A37: No. The fee of $180 for Forms I-765 and the fee of $170 for Form I-131 will remain in effect for those aliens eligible to file an employment-based adjustment of status application pursuant to July Visa Bulletin No. 107 until August 17, 2007.
Q38: Where should an employment-based adjustment of status application be filed if the underlying I-140 petition remains pending with USCIS?
A38: Forms I-485 may be filed at either the Nebraska Service Center or the Texas Service Center in accordance with the Direct Filing Update issued June 21, 2007, regardless of where the pending I-140 was filed. Applicants should submit a copy of the I-140 receipt notice or, if the applicant does not have a receipt notice, include a brightly colored sheet of paper on top of the filing with the following notice and information:
TO THE MAILROOM: The enclosed I-485 Adjustment Application(s) should be matched with a pending I-140 Immigrant Petition for which no Receipt Notice has been received. The Immigrant Petition [type, e.g., I-140] was delivered to [Service Center] on [provide date of filing and tracking number]; Petitioner's name; Beneficiary's name; Beneficiary's date of birth; Beneficiary's country of birth.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/FAQ3.pdf
Q33: When filing an EB I-485 using the old fee, what version of the I-485 form do we use?
A33: The current I-485 form version dated “7/30/07 Y” should be used. The form can be found at www.uscis.gov
Q34: To ensure that the correct fee is submitted, may an applicant submit both a check for the old fee and a second check for the new fee?
A34: USCIS requires that all applications and petitions be submitted with the required filing fee or a waiver, if applicable. USCIS urges the public to exercise caution in submitting additional checks in incorrect amounts: extraneous checks may slow down the intake process and may result in an erroneous rejection of an application (as in the case where the check in the correct amount is missed) or in the inadvertent cashing of such checks, since filing fees are normally non-refundable. For additional information, the public is referred to the fee requirements announced in the Federal Register on August 1, 2007 (Temporary Adjustment of the Immigration and Naturalization Benefit Application and Petition Fee Schedule for Certain Adjustment of Status, FR at 41888). This regulation amends the new Fee Rule, and requires that aliens who file an employment-based Form I–485 and any related Forms I–765 and I–131, pursuant to Visa Bulletin No. 107, through August 17, 2007, must include the filing fees in effect prior to July 30, 2007. The new fee schedule becomes effective on July 30, 2007, for all other immigration and naturalization applications and petitions and on August 18, 2007, for Forms I–485 and all subsequent or ‘‘renewal’’ applications for advance parole and employment authorization based on pending Forms I–485 filed pursuant to Visa Bulletin No. 107.
Q35: Will previous USCIS policy still apply in those instances where the original approved labor certification cannot be included in support of an I-140 petition, such as when the original has been lost or previously filed with USCIS, or when a duplicate approval must be requested?
A35: Yes. While an original labor certification must be submitted in support of certain I-140 petitions, USCIS will continue to accept duplicates of previously filed Labor certificates and, as in the instances stated above, in cases where an original labor certificate has been properly filed with USCIS.
1 USCIS may issue future “FAQs” on this topic for the benefit of the public, should additional questions arise. Such FAQs will be dated and numbered for ease of reference. Department of Homeland Security
Q36: Will USCIS accept Schedule A concurrently filed I-140 petitions and adjustment of status applications that are filed on or after August 1, 2007?
A36: As previously stated, USCIS will accept properly filed Forms I-140 filed on behalf of aliens with a priority date on or after August 1, 2007; however, pursuant to August Visa Bulletin No. 108, USCIS will reject any concurrently filed adjustment of status applications filed by aliens with a priority date on or after August 1, 2007.
Q37: Will the new I-765 filing instructions apply to Forms I-765 filed based on employment-based adjustment of status applications filed pursuant to the July Visa Bulletin No. 107, if filed between July 30, 2007 – August 17, 2007?
A37: No. The fee of $180 for Forms I-765 and the fee of $170 for Form I-131 will remain in effect for those aliens eligible to file an employment-based adjustment of status application pursuant to July Visa Bulletin No. 107 until August 17, 2007.
Q38: Where should an employment-based adjustment of status application be filed if the underlying I-140 petition remains pending with USCIS?
A38: Forms I-485 may be filed at either the Nebraska Service Center or the Texas Service Center in accordance with the Direct Filing Update issued June 21, 2007, regardless of where the pending I-140 was filed. Applicants should submit a copy of the I-140 receipt notice or, if the applicant does not have a receipt notice, include a brightly colored sheet of paper on top of the filing with the following notice and information:
TO THE MAILROOM: The enclosed I-485 Adjustment Application(s) should be matched with a pending I-140 Immigrant Petition for which no Receipt Notice has been received. The Immigrant Petition [type, e.g., I-140] was delivered to [Service Center] on [provide date of filing and tracking number]; Petitioner's name; Beneficiary's name; Beneficiary's date of birth; Beneficiary's country of birth.
more...
somegchuh
10-31 05:26 PM
Thanks everyone for the input. Does anyone know if they issue the renewed EAD starting at the end of the current EAD or does the renewed EAD start on the day the case gets updated? If the answer is latter then I don't want to bother pushing the lawyer (not that they care anyways ;-)
my lawyer said that if anyone uses EAD to work or planning to use EAD soon (not H1B) then it is better to apply for EAD renewal before 6 months of current one expires. If you are in H1B not planning to use EAD even in future then you can renew it 3-4 months before expiry.
my lawyer said that if anyone uses EAD to work or planning to use EAD soon (not H1B) then it is better to apply for EAD renewal before 6 months of current one expires. If you are in H1B not planning to use EAD even in future then you can renew it 3-4 months before expiry.
snhn
09-27 09:59 AM
I am not very well informed legally, but sometime back we had a meeting with our company immigration lawyers and they said once filed, the catagories can't
be changed.
so why dont you look at the palnets and tell us what the futre hold for us.. you are doing on astroqury.com
Lets see what the future holds for us.
be changed.
so why dont you look at the palnets and tell us what the futre hold for us.. you are doing on astroqury.com
Lets see what the future holds for us.
BadDeal
05-20 05:02 PM
Can you please let me know which service center (Texas or Nebraska) processed yours and your wife's I485 application.
If you don't mind can you please let me know how long it took to receive I-485 receipt notice and Finger print notice (for your wife).
My situation is
Priority date is 08/01/06 (EB2). Becoming current on June 1st 2011. Need to add my wife as dependent to my green card process (she is in US in H4 status now). Texas Service Center is processing my I-485.
Hello,
I am also in the same situation. I filed 485 in July 2007 and got married later. I will be filing my wife's 485 in June. I was wondering how long will it take for her to get her 485 approved.
Is it a good idea to start a thread to track spouse I-485 filing post July '07 approvals?
Thanks!
If you don't mind can you please let me know how long it took to receive I-485 receipt notice and Finger print notice (for your wife).
My situation is
Priority date is 08/01/06 (EB2). Becoming current on June 1st 2011. Need to add my wife as dependent to my green card process (she is in US in H4 status now). Texas Service Center is processing my I-485.
Hello,
I am also in the same situation. I filed 485 in July 2007 and got married later. I will be filing my wife's 485 in June. I was wondering how long will it take for her to get her 485 approved.
Is it a good idea to start a thread to track spouse I-485 filing post July '07 approvals?
Thanks!
prinive
03-14 02:40 PM
We all know that we are able to file 485 on July and we got EAD due to IV efforts. Which in turn helping us to get a 600$ rebate for the spouse (Some plan to spend the money).. Can we make a pledge here that we will contribute a certain % to our organization? The % can be your choice. At least this % can help this site up and running� If the moderator decide that this is not a good idea please close this thread.
First from me 20% from whatever I get as rebate �
First from me 20% from whatever I get as rebate �
purgan
07-28 05:44 PM
I would like to participate. Let's see if there are any solutions to the historic backlogs in EB3 IND...
EB3 IND folks, this is your time to join and ask your questions.
EB3 IND folks, this is your time to join and ask your questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment