reddymjm
06-03 05:06 PM
Hi friends,
Please advise me on this situation.
I am currently in US with L1B with Company A.
Company B has already filed H1B petition for me.
Assuming it gets selected & approved, Is it Possible for me to Continue with Company A after Oct1 2007 with the L1 itself.
Thanks.
As soon as the H1B gets approved your L1 b goes invalid. The options you have is if you have ur L1 validity after oct go out of the country and come back on L1. Or if it is expiring in Oct or close to Oct your company can file extension if it gets approved you may be ok but the period you work during that might be illlegal. But as USCIS has no way of tracking all these last issued status is a valid status making ur H1b invalid. But I suggest to do the other way.
Please advise me on this situation.
I am currently in US with L1B with Company A.
Company B has already filed H1B petition for me.
Assuming it gets selected & approved, Is it Possible for me to Continue with Company A after Oct1 2007 with the L1 itself.
Thanks.
As soon as the H1B gets approved your L1 b goes invalid. The options you have is if you have ur L1 validity after oct go out of the country and come back on L1. Or if it is expiring in Oct or close to Oct your company can file extension if it gets approved you may be ok but the period you work during that might be illlegal. But as USCIS has no way of tracking all these last issued status is a valid status making ur H1b invalid. But I suggest to do the other way.
wallpaper *search wallpaper
slowwin
07-23 07:56 AM
now that the Small Business lending program has passed the 60 vote threshold, they would be putting Amndt. to it for vote. any idea, when sanders Amndt. will be vote on ?:mad:
karthkc
07-14 06:27 PM
I filed for 485 during July 2007. My 140 was already approved. Due to some problems I quit my employer in August 2007. My previous employer was a desi blood sucker. I was fed up & decided to quit after working for him for 3 years. I applied for H1 transfer with a new employer based on approved 140. I got H1 approval for another 3 years. Currently I am working for the new H1 sponsoring employer. I also received an EAD card based on pending 485 for one year. I didnt notify USICS of job change in July.
I applied for EAD extension this year. The application for EAD extension is pending. I got a following RFE on my 485:
Please state whether or not you are currently working for your I-140 petitioner.
You must submit a currently dated letter from you permanent employer, describing your present job duties & position in the organization, your proferred position (if different from your current one), the date you began employement & the offered salary & wage. The letter must also indicate whether the terms & conditions of your employement based visa petition (or labor certification) continue to exist.
I am not in good terms with my previous employer so I cant ask him for a letter. I can ask my new employer for such a letter.
Will USCIS come to know I quite Employer A before completing 180 days?
Also is it possible that 140 was revoked by my previous employer?
What document should I send to USCIS now?
Nowhere in this post, do I see the fact that the OP used AC21 when he moved in August 2007.
Does not AC21 come in when you have used EAD to move instead of a H1 transfer?
In my understanding, by doing a H1 transfer rather than invoking AC21, the OP preserved the status of the original petition unless the employer revoked the I140 for fraud. If that's the case, shouldn't the RFE be worded differently?
If that's not the case, all the OP has to do is craft a response to the RFE with an Employment Verification Letter from his current employer attesting to the similar nature of job etc.. and move forward.
Either way, an attorney would be the safest bet..
I applied for EAD extension this year. The application for EAD extension is pending. I got a following RFE on my 485:
Please state whether or not you are currently working for your I-140 petitioner.
You must submit a currently dated letter from you permanent employer, describing your present job duties & position in the organization, your proferred position (if different from your current one), the date you began employement & the offered salary & wage. The letter must also indicate whether the terms & conditions of your employement based visa petition (or labor certification) continue to exist.
I am not in good terms with my previous employer so I cant ask him for a letter. I can ask my new employer for such a letter.
Will USCIS come to know I quite Employer A before completing 180 days?
Also is it possible that 140 was revoked by my previous employer?
What document should I send to USCIS now?
Nowhere in this post, do I see the fact that the OP used AC21 when he moved in August 2007.
Does not AC21 come in when you have used EAD to move instead of a H1 transfer?
In my understanding, by doing a H1 transfer rather than invoking AC21, the OP preserved the status of the original petition unless the employer revoked the I140 for fraud. If that's the case, shouldn't the RFE be worded differently?
If that's not the case, all the OP has to do is craft a response to the RFE with an Employment Verification Letter from his current employer attesting to the similar nature of job etc.. and move forward.
Either way, an attorney would be the safest bet..
2011 *search wallpaper
zuhail
03-11 09:23 PM
I have emailed the IV administrators seeking the opinion of the IV team and
about prioritizing the recapturing of visa numbers on the IV agenda.
May be I would be able to speak with one of the IV administrators about this issue soon.
about prioritizing the recapturing of visa numbers on the IV agenda.
May be I would be able to speak with one of the IV administrators about this issue soon.
more...
chanduv23
02-17 10:18 AM
for the update, StarRun.
We should have done it early (by 2 weeks before and continue the same for every 2weeks) so that people who need to get air ticket & Accommodation can get it @ better pricing. Also we will start getting contribution from silent member which can help to understand the level of participation bit early so that we plan for the event perfectly (or close to perfection).
I agree. Flight tickets are discounted till the last 3 weeks, but if someone wnts to book at a later stage, they become expensive.
On another note, I think we must urge locals, and those in driving distance to really make it. People must take this very seriously.
Most EB3 have no clue whatsoever when the backlog clears. Everyone wants to just wait and discuss visa bulletins, but will not do anything. This includes EB3 ROW also.
People must step up and do some PR work.
We should have done it early (by 2 weeks before and continue the same for every 2weeks) so that people who need to get air ticket & Accommodation can get it @ better pricing. Also we will start getting contribution from silent member which can help to understand the level of participation bit early so that we plan for the event perfectly (or close to perfection).
I agree. Flight tickets are discounted till the last 3 weeks, but if someone wnts to book at a later stage, they become expensive.
On another note, I think we must urge locals, and those in driving distance to really make it. People must take this very seriously.
Most EB3 have no clue whatsoever when the backlog clears. Everyone wants to just wait and discuss visa bulletins, but will not do anything. This includes EB3 ROW also.
People must step up and do some PR work.
thecipher5
10-12 03:22 PM
Hello!
I don't know if anyone is in or has been in a similar situation. But would appreciate sound advise on the next steps...
My wife and mine PD have been current since September 1st (PD: Apr 2006). We'd received a RFE in 2009 and we'd responded to it in June 2009. The status on USCIS states "Response Review" for both of us and that we should hear back within 60 days of receiving the RFE response which dates back to June 2009.
I've opened a SR, contacted a congressman and still no update or specific feedback since 1st week of September.
What should I do in such a situation?? Can I take an Infopass appointment even though 45 days haven't elapsed since opening SR?
What other avenues can I pursue to obtain concrete feedback on our applications?
all the help appreciated!
thecipher5
I don't know if anyone is in or has been in a similar situation. But would appreciate sound advise on the next steps...
My wife and mine PD have been current since September 1st (PD: Apr 2006). We'd received a RFE in 2009 and we'd responded to it in June 2009. The status on USCIS states "Response Review" for both of us and that we should hear back within 60 days of receiving the RFE response which dates back to June 2009.
I've opened a SR, contacted a congressman and still no update or specific feedback since 1st week of September.
What should I do in such a situation?? Can I take an Infopass appointment even though 45 days haven't elapsed since opening SR?
What other avenues can I pursue to obtain concrete feedback on our applications?
all the help appreciated!
thecipher5
more...
kapil_jn
09-19 11:52 AM
I am not sure what stopped members from local areas(VA/MD) from coming to the rally.
There were 10 people from Tampa, Florida(about 1000 miles from DC). Tampa is a small city in Florida and there aren't that many tech workers. I am thankful to each one who was able to make it to the Rally.
I was there in rally with my wife and eight month old baby. It was a vast change of weather for the baby who has been in FL ever since birth.
There were 10 people from Tampa, Florida(about 1000 miles from DC). Tampa is a small city in Florida and there aren't that many tech workers. I am thankful to each one who was able to make it to the Rally.
I was there in rally with my wife and eight month old baby. It was a vast change of weather for the baby who has been in FL ever since birth.
2010 Art Wallpapers allow to search
ItIsNotFunny
10-20 01:20 PM
How stupid can someone be to give me a red for my previous post.
Now for this. Why should someone hide behind a red dot (just to say "you suck" and things like that). Most, if not all, red dots are personal attack on the person rather than the post. The very few reds which actually are justifiable are the ones where someone is given the red for his offensive remarks.
I realize that a side discussion on red dots is not germane to this post, but it is the participants in the discussion here who have brought it up. As evidenced by so many posts that keep happening now and then, some feel bad to post when people intimidate them with reds. Of course, some may say that red dots doesn't matter, but to a new member (who has contrarian views), getting red pretty much means some people are not going to take them seriously.
Gave you green to keep ourselves up :)
I also has similar issue. People putting red dots with no messages "." or saying "You Suck".
One guy dared to put a message "You don't have plan". That person even didn't see that I just tossed an idea to see if people are comfortable for flower campaign. This can get success as a mass only. I didn't tell anytime that I have an exact plan. That was step 2.
One supreme idiot of earth went one step further saying "None of your business". Come on. If Immigration is not my business then what else is? And why the hell that idiot was also on this portal!
Now for this. Why should someone hide behind a red dot (just to say "you suck" and things like that). Most, if not all, red dots are personal attack on the person rather than the post. The very few reds which actually are justifiable are the ones where someone is given the red for his offensive remarks.
I realize that a side discussion on red dots is not germane to this post, but it is the participants in the discussion here who have brought it up. As evidenced by so many posts that keep happening now and then, some feel bad to post when people intimidate them with reds. Of course, some may say that red dots doesn't matter, but to a new member (who has contrarian views), getting red pretty much means some people are not going to take them seriously.
Gave you green to keep ourselves up :)
I also has similar issue. People putting red dots with no messages "." or saying "You Suck".
One guy dared to put a message "You don't have plan". That person even didn't see that I just tossed an idea to see if people are comfortable for flower campaign. This can get success as a mass only. I didn't tell anytime that I have an exact plan. That was step 2.
One supreme idiot of earth went one step further saying "None of your business". Come on. If Immigration is not my business then what else is? And why the hell that idiot was also on this portal!
more...
WeldonSprings
03-19 05:02 PM
Can EB2 move to March 06?
I hope this happens. :)
I hope this happens. :)
hair Art Wallpapers allow to search
andycool
02-11 11:50 AM
141,020 visa numbers used in FY2009
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV.pdf
Look at the last page.
The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is 140,000. So the usage was actually more.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
Check this link
Report of the Visa Office 2009 Table of Contents (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/statistics/statistics_4594.html)
Point V and part 2
the numbers come around 137000 ( which is 3000 ) Short of 140,000 ( I think the actual number will be 140,000 + Spill over FB Visas from 2008 If any )
Thanks
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV.pdf
Look at the last page.
The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is 140,000. So the usage was actually more.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
Check this link
Report of the Visa Office 2009 Table of Contents (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/statistics/statistics_4594.html)
Point V and part 2
the numbers come around 137000 ( which is 3000 ) Short of 140,000 ( I think the actual number will be 140,000 + Spill over FB Visas from 2008 If any )
Thanks
more...
nixstor
07-04 09:44 PM
Please stop posting this on every thread. In one line you are just spamming. We all visit Attorney Oh's website often. He does not need any publicity
immigration-law.com
07/04/2007: Status and Issues Involving July 2007 485 Fiasco
* The AILF work on the lawsuit appears to be in progress without any hurdles. It has reported that enough candidates have come forward to participate in the lawsuit as the plaintiffs and it does not need any more candidates to move forward for the lawsuit. Some of other people are likely to be covered as members of the class action regardless of their actual participation in the lawsuit. People should send "THANK YOU" to the AILF Legal Action Center leaders and the attorneys who are actually working on this case. Some contribution to the AILF may be more than appropriate. Please visit the AILF site to learn how they can send in contribution.
#
# We have been asked by the readers to report the alleged conspiracy theory. We declined to do it. However, people may want to know potential issues that should be answered and explored. We will discuss these issues on following hypotehtical premises:
* Presumption of Facts: (1) The I-485 applications have been experiencing a tremendous backlog lately. (2) The causes for the backlog have been known to be delays in the security checks. Some of these applicants have sought a relief in federal courts in the form of mandamus actions. (3) Allegedly, the USCIS pull together local and Service Center employees and pull out pending I-485 cases which were older than six months in backlog, working overtime and during the weekend right before July 1, 2007. This is an assumption at this point. (4) As evidenced by the revised Visa Bulletin, apparently these employees contacted "en mass" the DOS to request the visa numbers for these pending I-485 cases, which the DOS reported in the release of the revised VB turned out exceeding 60,000. (5) The rule requires that the USCIS approves I-485 cases "prior to" to contacting and requesting a visa number. (6) The current USCIS policy and procedure also require that I-485 applications be adjudicated and approved "only after" the completion of clearance of the security checks.
* Issue I: Hypothetically, what happens if the USCIS takes out the visa number before they obtain the security clearace?
o Answer I: Obviously it would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: It will constitue a serious security lapse, compromising the homeland security.
* Issue II: Hypothetically, what hppens if the USCIS requests and takes out the visa numbers prior to adjudication and approval of the pending I-485 applications?
o Answer I: It is evident that the USCIS would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: There could be two probable consequences affecting the backlog I-485 applicants and the new July Visa Bulletin eligible I-485 applicants, shoud the hypothetical facts develop. (1) The backlog I-485 applicants who have been issued I-485 approval notices should not be affected by the fiasco, albeit the potential revocation of the I-485 approvals. In most cases, revocation of the approved I-485 requires the time-consuming immigration court proceedings, assuming that the USCIS has a sufficient cause of action which may be questionable in this case. (2) The backlog I-485 applicants who have yet to receive the approval notice and the USCIS has yet to adjudicate and approve the application might be vulnerable in that the USCIS might be required to return the visa numbers for these cases as there was an error. Hypothetically, these numbers could be returned to the State Department and based on these returned number, the State Department might be required to revise the July Visa Bulletin again.
immigration-law.com
07/04/2007: Status and Issues Involving July 2007 485 Fiasco
* The AILF work on the lawsuit appears to be in progress without any hurdles. It has reported that enough candidates have come forward to participate in the lawsuit as the plaintiffs and it does not need any more candidates to move forward for the lawsuit. Some of other people are likely to be covered as members of the class action regardless of their actual participation in the lawsuit. People should send "THANK YOU" to the AILF Legal Action Center leaders and the attorneys who are actually working on this case. Some contribution to the AILF may be more than appropriate. Please visit the AILF site to learn how they can send in contribution.
#
# We have been asked by the readers to report the alleged conspiracy theory. We declined to do it. However, people may want to know potential issues that should be answered and explored. We will discuss these issues on following hypotehtical premises:
* Presumption of Facts: (1) The I-485 applications have been experiencing a tremendous backlog lately. (2) The causes for the backlog have been known to be delays in the security checks. Some of these applicants have sought a relief in federal courts in the form of mandamus actions. (3) Allegedly, the USCIS pull together local and Service Center employees and pull out pending I-485 cases which were older than six months in backlog, working overtime and during the weekend right before July 1, 2007. This is an assumption at this point. (4) As evidenced by the revised Visa Bulletin, apparently these employees contacted "en mass" the DOS to request the visa numbers for these pending I-485 cases, which the DOS reported in the release of the revised VB turned out exceeding 60,000. (5) The rule requires that the USCIS approves I-485 cases "prior to" to contacting and requesting a visa number. (6) The current USCIS policy and procedure also require that I-485 applications be adjudicated and approved "only after" the completion of clearance of the security checks.
* Issue I: Hypothetically, what happens if the USCIS takes out the visa number before they obtain the security clearace?
o Answer I: Obviously it would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: It will constitue a serious security lapse, compromising the homeland security.
* Issue II: Hypothetically, what hppens if the USCIS requests and takes out the visa numbers prior to adjudication and approval of the pending I-485 applications?
o Answer I: It is evident that the USCIS would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: There could be two probable consequences affecting the backlog I-485 applicants and the new July Visa Bulletin eligible I-485 applicants, shoud the hypothetical facts develop. (1) The backlog I-485 applicants who have been issued I-485 approval notices should not be affected by the fiasco, albeit the potential revocation of the I-485 approvals. In most cases, revocation of the approved I-485 requires the time-consuming immigration court proceedings, assuming that the USCIS has a sufficient cause of action which may be questionable in this case. (2) The backlog I-485 applicants who have yet to receive the approval notice and the USCIS has yet to adjudicate and approve the application might be vulnerable in that the USCIS might be required to return the visa numbers for these cases as there was an error. Hypothetically, these numbers could be returned to the State Department and based on these returned number, the State Department might be required to revise the July Visa Bulletin again.
hot wallpaper with the search
rpat1968
12-28 11:20 AM
We cannot save for our children's college in college savings plan as every plan needs a GC.
I am on H1B with approved I140 and I was able to open a College savings (529) plan for my daughter. I told them that I am a non resident alien and my GC is in process. Also I was able to get Life and Variable Life insurance on my non immigrant status.
(FYI : The plan is brokered through Farmers. Investment company is Putnam Investments)
I am on H1B with approved I140 and I was able to open a College savings (529) plan for my daughter. I told them that I am a non resident alien and my GC is in process. Also I was able to get Life and Variable Life insurance on my non immigrant status.
(FYI : The plan is brokered through Farmers. Investment company is Putnam Investments)
more...
house search wallpaper Arnisee
bitu72
01-31 10:04 AM
first of thanks a lot for taking time and explaining this in detail.
so if i understand it correctly, I have applied in jul2007 and entered on h1 on dec2007. if i get my gc in 2012. I can not be out of status for more than 6 months between dec 2007 to whenever 2012. So if i start using EAD i need to make sure i have a job almost all the time.
RFE which was posted is clearly looking for past employment history. If W2 shows that in year 2009 i made 40k and my labor cert was for 80K it will be a problem.
assuming u r getting RFE in future. this realy is crazy.
so if i understand it correctly, I have applied in jul2007 and entered on h1 on dec2007. if i get my gc in 2012. I can not be out of status for more than 6 months between dec 2007 to whenever 2012. So if i start using EAD i need to make sure i have a job almost all the time.
RFE which was posted is clearly looking for past employment history. If W2 shows that in year 2009 i made 40k and my labor cert was for 80K it will be a problem.
assuming u r getting RFE in future. this realy is crazy.
tattoo *search wallpaper Content
grinch
02-27 03:07 PM
Hey guys,
just wanted to post a really early render of what I have so far. I'm kinda noob to 3d, unlike u guys, so gimme a break ;)
I need textures, you guys know any websites that offer free textures?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v403/grinchvader/subwaytes.jpg
just wanted to post a really early render of what I have so far. I'm kinda noob to 3d, unlike u guys, so gimme a break ;)
I need textures, you guys know any websites that offer free textures?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v403/grinchvader/subwaytes.jpg
more...
pictures in search of higgs. Wallpaper
nojoke
10-20 12:15 AM
I don't get it why our folks blindly follow the dems, and somehow think Obama is our savior when in fact it's contrary. Obama can talk so smoothly that you'll leave feeling that he's for you even if he was saying the opposite. Time to wake up and look at the facts. Go Mccain.
Just like how you blindly think green card is the only thing that matters in this world. McCain lies, runs slimy sleazy adds that tell what kind of person he is. He doesn't have the depth of knowledge that Obama has nor does he have moral values. Time for you to wake up. Go Obama
Just like how you blindly think green card is the only thing that matters in this world. McCain lies, runs slimy sleazy adds that tell what kind of person he is. He doesn't have the depth of knowledge that Obama has nor does he have moral values. Time for you to wake up. Go Obama
dresses SiteSearch Wallpaper Photo
waitnwatch
07-28 01:01 PM
I did shake hands with Donald Duck, so did my 4-yr old daughter (in Disney Land), in hindsight I should have washed my hands well after that :(
:)....See we could start a new thread discussing the repurcussions of shaking hands with Donald Duck.
PLEASE EVERYONE: THE PERSON WHO STARTED THIS THREAD IS A FAKE. GO SEE THE PUBLIC PROFILE OF THIS PERSON.
Sorry for the caps.....admins please close this useless thread.
:)....See we could start a new thread discussing the repurcussions of shaking hands with Donald Duck.
PLEASE EVERYONE: THE PERSON WHO STARTED THIS THREAD IS A FAKE. GO SEE THE PUBLIC PROFILE OF THIS PERSON.
Sorry for the caps.....admins please close this useless thread.
more...
makeup #Find more wallpaper into
kanakabyraju
07-13 07:29 AM
All right I am current again..exactly after 2 years
So I am having the butterflies in my tummy with nostalgia of my nail biting thriller during 2008 July-Sep bulletin, where I got royally screwed.
mwuahhhaaaa...c'mon..come to papa now :D:D
tick..tock..tick..tock :rolleyes:
You really made me laugh. Thanks
So I am having the butterflies in my tummy with nostalgia of my nail biting thriller during 2008 July-Sep bulletin, where I got royally screwed.
mwuahhhaaaa...c'mon..come to papa now :D:D
tick..tock..tick..tock :rolleyes:
You really made me laugh. Thanks
girlfriend #Find more wallpaper into
.soulty
02-16 07:23 PM
thanks grinch and thirdworldman(shheshh do you have a shorter username? lol)
nice render eilsoe :thumb:
nice render eilsoe :thumb:
hairstyles SiteSearch Wallpaper Photo
Googler
02-20 02:54 PM
I'd posted elsewhere about my Feb 13, 2008 conversation with the DOS official who sets cutoff dates:
And then there this piece of info from Ron Gotcher posted on Feb 14, 2008
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4285
"Last night, at a meeting of the American Immigration Lawyer's Assocation Southern California chapter, Charles Oppenheim spoke. Mr. Oppenheim is the officer within the Visa Office tasked with calculating visa bulletin cutoff dates each month. He offered the following thoughts as to cutoff date movement in the upcoming months:
In April, India and China EB2 will be set at 12/01/2003
EB3 for India and China will slow down for the rest of the fiscal year."
I am riveted by this because I spoke to Oppenheim just the day before this meeting (he referred to it). This was the conversation in which he told me that at present EB-2 India would only get numbers leftover from EB-1 India -- the problem is he doesn't know either exactly how many EB-2 India adjudicated applications there are in any specific PD range -- so every month he makes wild guesses, with the intent of using up visas. So I guess at least as of 2/14/08 he thought moving the date to 12/1/03 would more than mop up whatever was leftover from EB-1 India. Given the end of the FBI boondoggle (the effects of which have not been quantified by Oppenheim or USCIS) I'd predict that even a date in early 2002 would be good enough to mop up. Let us see if he changes his mind by mid March.
But his statement at the AILA meeting has been bothering me so I talked to him again today. Here is what he said -- that he is considering not only the EB-1 India excess, but the entire EB-1 worldwide excess being given to oversubscribed EB-2! I asked him about his earlier statement and he said that he had had a chance to look at the numbers and determine that unlike recent years EB-1 worldwide is not using numbers up at a rate that would max out EB-1 usage. BUT. He is waiting for USCIS to give him an estimate of the number of EB-2 India applications that would become eligible if he moves the cutoff dates up to 12/1/03, he will set the date ONLY after he gets that data and determines that there won't be too many within that cutoff date.
I also asked him to confirm that he was relying on his interpretation of Section 202(a)(5) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe) of the INA in order to proceed with this spillover. This is his current interpretation of that section -- spillover from EB-1 to EB-2 IF there appears to be a worldwide excess in EB-1, when there is no worldwide excess in EB-1 then country specific spillover for example, from EB-1 India to EB-2 India only etc. In past years like FY06, EB-1 ROW was looking maxed out, so barely any spillover from EB-1 to oversubscribed EB-2.
And then there this piece of info from Ron Gotcher posted on Feb 14, 2008
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4285
"Last night, at a meeting of the American Immigration Lawyer's Assocation Southern California chapter, Charles Oppenheim spoke. Mr. Oppenheim is the officer within the Visa Office tasked with calculating visa bulletin cutoff dates each month. He offered the following thoughts as to cutoff date movement in the upcoming months:
In April, India and China EB2 will be set at 12/01/2003
EB3 for India and China will slow down for the rest of the fiscal year."
I am riveted by this because I spoke to Oppenheim just the day before this meeting (he referred to it). This was the conversation in which he told me that at present EB-2 India would only get numbers leftover from EB-1 India -- the problem is he doesn't know either exactly how many EB-2 India adjudicated applications there are in any specific PD range -- so every month he makes wild guesses, with the intent of using up visas. So I guess at least as of 2/14/08 he thought moving the date to 12/1/03 would more than mop up whatever was leftover from EB-1 India. Given the end of the FBI boondoggle (the effects of which have not been quantified by Oppenheim or USCIS) I'd predict that even a date in early 2002 would be good enough to mop up. Let us see if he changes his mind by mid March.
But his statement at the AILA meeting has been bothering me so I talked to him again today. Here is what he said -- that he is considering not only the EB-1 India excess, but the entire EB-1 worldwide excess being given to oversubscribed EB-2! I asked him about his earlier statement and he said that he had had a chance to look at the numbers and determine that unlike recent years EB-1 worldwide is not using numbers up at a rate that would max out EB-1 usage. BUT. He is waiting for USCIS to give him an estimate of the number of EB-2 India applications that would become eligible if he moves the cutoff dates up to 12/1/03, he will set the date ONLY after he gets that data and determines that there won't be too many within that cutoff date.
I also asked him to confirm that he was relying on his interpretation of Section 202(a)(5) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe) of the INA in order to proceed with this spillover. This is his current interpretation of that section -- spillover from EB-1 to EB-2 IF there appears to be a worldwide excess in EB-1, when there is no worldwide excess in EB-1 then country specific spillover for example, from EB-1 India to EB-2 India only etc. In past years like FY06, EB-1 ROW was looking maxed out, so barely any spillover from EB-1 to oversubscribed EB-2.
saileshdude
09-14 03:24 PM
Looks like contacting senator/congressman is pissing off the IOs and they are issuing the RFEs. I wish now that I did not do either of these. But unfortunately I did so I guess I need to bear the consequences. So I should just expect RFE now. I know quiet a few people who wrote to Senators and got RFEs. I guess people in Jul/Aug really overwhelmed the TSC with Senator calls and now we have to face their wrath.
indianindian2006
07-14 06:09 PM
This is aboslutly incorrect. Dont spread false information.
Here is the Q&A in USCIS memo abot changing employer before 180 days
Question 10. Should service centers or district offices deny portability cases on the sole basis that the alien has left his or her employment with the I-140 petitioner prior to the I-485 application pending for 180 days?
Answer: No. The basis for adjustment is not actual (current) employment but prospective employment. Since there is no requirement that the alien have ever been employed by the petitioner while the I-140 and/or I-485 was pending, the fact that an alien left the I-140 petitioner before the I-485 has been pending 180 days will not necessarily render the alien ineligible to port. However, in all cases an offer of employment must have been bona fide. This means that, as of the time the I-140 was filed and at the time of filing the I-485 if not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have had the intent to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to undertake the employment, upon adjustment. Adjudicators should not presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate
You are correct but his case could be that his employer cancelled his 140 which could damage his case more than the use of AC21 to change employers.
Here is the Q&A in USCIS memo abot changing employer before 180 days
Question 10. Should service centers or district offices deny portability cases on the sole basis that the alien has left his or her employment with the I-140 petitioner prior to the I-485 application pending for 180 days?
Answer: No. The basis for adjustment is not actual (current) employment but prospective employment. Since there is no requirement that the alien have ever been employed by the petitioner while the I-140 and/or I-485 was pending, the fact that an alien left the I-140 petitioner before the I-485 has been pending 180 days will not necessarily render the alien ineligible to port. However, in all cases an offer of employment must have been bona fide. This means that, as of the time the I-140 was filed and at the time of filing the I-485 if not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have had the intent to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to undertake the employment, upon adjustment. Adjudicators should not presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate
You are correct but his case could be that his employer cancelled his 140 which could damage his case more than the use of AC21 to change employers.
No comments:
Post a Comment