immi2006
05-24 10:30 AM
Recently in a IIT meet and IISC meet we came across a huge number of folks in EB2 on GC wait., I was told their numbers exceed 1000 plus through the internal IIT network.. so if they consume X number just in Bay area, what about rest of US. Live happily while you are here, enjoy the weather and do not pin hopes on US. Think that you were fortunate to come here in prime of youth and learnt a thing or two..
Honestly how many points we score really does not matter if the visa country cap is too low. Most of us, coming from India, China etc. score almost the same points and getting TOEFL is a piece of cake if you need to improve your points.
It's pointless to break our heads calculating these points, everything is in limbo right now and the only best advise for new GC aspirants especially those coming from retrogressed countries is locking the priority date by applying LC under the old system.
Honestly how many points we score really does not matter if the visa country cap is too low. Most of us, coming from India, China etc. score almost the same points and getting TOEFL is a piece of cake if you need to improve your points.
It's pointless to break our heads calculating these points, everything is in limbo right now and the only best advise for new GC aspirants especially those coming from retrogressed countries is locking the priority date by applying LC under the old system.
wallpaper selena gomez round and round
Anders �stberg
April 17th, 2004, 12:56 PM
]']I only own a Tamron 28-200 XR at the moment :), mounted in my 300D :) . But maybe is possible to create big bubbles using bath gel... I should try :D .
Definitely has the potential for a clean shot! :p
(Ugghh, bad joke)
Definitely has the potential for a clean shot! :p
(Ugghh, bad joke)
avisitinguser
10-11 01:08 PM
Our applications reached to TSC on July 27. I have received my receipts. But no receipts and no checks cashed for my wife's applications. Is anyone in the same situation?
2011 selena gomez and the scene who
Libra
08-03 12:53 PM
What made you think like that? did you find anything wrong in my post? anyway, i still request you to consider any type of contribution towards sept rally.
Thank you for your post:D
You are a jack ass
Thank you for your post:D
You are a jack ass
more...
anilsal
09-15 09:55 PM
No place for you, if you are neither.:D
lazycis
12-21 01:31 PM
Here is a shortened version:
1151
d) Worldwide level of employment-based immigrants
(1) The worldwide level of employment-based immigrants under this subsection for a fiscal year is equal to—
(A) 140,000, plus
(B) the number computed under paragraph (2). (i.e. unused family-based visas from the previous year)
1153
(b) Preference allocation for employment-based immigrants
Aliens subject to the worldwide level specified in section 1151 (d) of this title for employment-based immigrants in a fiscal year shall be allotted visas as follows:
(EB-1) Priority workers
Visas shall first be made available in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (4) and (5)
(EB-2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of exceptional ability
(A) In general
Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraph (1), to qualified immigrants who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United States.
(EB-3) Skilled workers, professionals, and other workers
(A) In general
Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (1) and (2), to the following classes of aliens who are not described in paragraph (2):
(4) Certain special immigrants
Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 7.1 percent of such worldwide level, to qualified special immigrants described in section 1101 (a)(27) of this title (other than those described in subparagraph (A) or (B) thereof), of which not more than 5,000 may be made available in any fiscal year to special immigrants described in subclause (II) or (III) of section 1101 (a)(27)(C)(ii) of this title, and not more than 100 may be made available in any fiscal year to special immigrants, excluding spouses and children, who are described in section 1101 (a)(27)(M) of this title.
(5) Employment creation
(A) In general
Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 7.1 percent of such worldwide level, to qualified immigrants seeking to enter the United States for the purpose of engaging in a new commercial enterprise (including a limited partnership)—
i.e. for each country EB1 gets (140,000 + number of unused FB visas from the previous year) * 0.07 * 0.286 = 2802 + something insignificant, same for EB2 and EB3.
If there are unused visas, they go from EB1 to EB2 to EB3, but they are lost at the end of the fiscal year. Unused visas from 4th and 5th category can be added to that number as well (usually in the 4th quarter of the fiscal year). Please note that at the end of the fiscal year per country limits may be lifted if there are unused visas left.
1151
d) Worldwide level of employment-based immigrants
(1) The worldwide level of employment-based immigrants under this subsection for a fiscal year is equal to—
(A) 140,000, plus
(B) the number computed under paragraph (2). (i.e. unused family-based visas from the previous year)
1153
(b) Preference allocation for employment-based immigrants
Aliens subject to the worldwide level specified in section 1151 (d) of this title for employment-based immigrants in a fiscal year shall be allotted visas as follows:
(EB-1) Priority workers
Visas shall first be made available in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (4) and (5)
(EB-2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of exceptional ability
(A) In general
Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraph (1), to qualified immigrants who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United States.
(EB-3) Skilled workers, professionals, and other workers
(A) In general
Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (1) and (2), to the following classes of aliens who are not described in paragraph (2):
(4) Certain special immigrants
Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 7.1 percent of such worldwide level, to qualified special immigrants described in section 1101 (a)(27) of this title (other than those described in subparagraph (A) or (B) thereof), of which not more than 5,000 may be made available in any fiscal year to special immigrants described in subclause (II) or (III) of section 1101 (a)(27)(C)(ii) of this title, and not more than 100 may be made available in any fiscal year to special immigrants, excluding spouses and children, who are described in section 1101 (a)(27)(M) of this title.
(5) Employment creation
(A) In general
Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 7.1 percent of such worldwide level, to qualified immigrants seeking to enter the United States for the purpose of engaging in a new commercial enterprise (including a limited partnership)—
i.e. for each country EB1 gets (140,000 + number of unused FB visas from the previous year) * 0.07 * 0.286 = 2802 + something insignificant, same for EB2 and EB3.
If there are unused visas, they go from EB1 to EB2 to EB3, but they are lost at the end of the fiscal year. Unused visas from 4th and 5th category can be added to that number as well (usually in the 4th quarter of the fiscal year). Please note that at the end of the fiscal year per country limits may be lifted if there are unused visas left.
more...
ndbhatt
12-21 02:14 PM
The visa bulletin reads "..Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. "
Does this mean 7 % limit per country is set to combined total of FB and EB category and not just EB? Also, does this mean 25,620 annual visa can be allotted for either one of these preferences, EB or FB?:confused:
I have heard earlier that EB preference limit per country is ~9,800. How true does it stand by sections in INA?
Does this mean 7 % limit per country is set to combined total of FB and EB category and not just EB? Also, does this mean 25,620 annual visa can be allotted for either one of these preferences, EB or FB?:confused:
I have heard earlier that EB preference limit per country is ~9,800. How true does it stand by sections in INA?
2010 Selena Gomez co-credits her
snathan
04-01 10:50 PM
And I can't apply for a green card, I don't meet the criteria...I'd have to get married with a woman.
you dont have to marry. just remain as illegal and they will GC sooner.
you dont have to marry. just remain as illegal and they will GC sooner.
more...
raj2007
06-21 03:52 AM
In case the I-485 is filed concurrently with I-140 or on the basis of a I-140 "pending approval", if the "I-140" is rejected (say because it was incorrectly classified as EB-2 when it should have been EB-3), then is the I-485 also automatically rejected? (My guess: YES)
If this happens to you, does this mean you may not be able to resubmit I-485 if your "priority date" is not current at the time you came to know it got rejected? (My guess: YES... and this is a scary scenario.)
Finally, if the I-140 (EB2) is mentions the requirement to be "BS + 5 years of post BS experience", but the the reviewing officer thinks that the 140 application is not supported by "proper" evidence of 5 years of progressive post BS experience.... then would it generate an RFE or would it straightaway cause a rejection of the I-140?
Experts, please comment. I may have to face this scenario.
Thanks!
Abhijit
Contribution so far: $100
You should get RFE but rules are changing all the time. If you are not sure file 2nd I-140 with EB3.
If this happens to you, does this mean you may not be able to resubmit I-485 if your "priority date" is not current at the time you came to know it got rejected? (My guess: YES... and this is a scary scenario.)
Finally, if the I-140 (EB2) is mentions the requirement to be "BS + 5 years of post BS experience", but the the reviewing officer thinks that the 140 application is not supported by "proper" evidence of 5 years of progressive post BS experience.... then would it generate an RFE or would it straightaway cause a rejection of the I-140?
Experts, please comment. I may have to face this scenario.
Thanks!
Abhijit
Contribution so far: $100
You should get RFE but rules are changing all the time. If you are not sure file 2nd I-140 with EB3.
hair Selena Gomez And The Scene Who
Soltan
05-06 08:03 PM
Soltan
But you cannot directly use the old 140 for filing a new 485
Krishmunn, thanks for your reply. I understand that I have to apply labor and I140 again. But my question was how do I port the priority date when I do not have the approved copy of my I140 with me. What if the old employer cancels my i140?
All I have is the old i140 receipt and the receipt number online shows approved status.
Thanks
But you cannot directly use the old 140 for filing a new 485
Krishmunn, thanks for your reply. I understand that I have to apply labor and I140 again. But my question was how do I port the priority date when I do not have the approved copy of my I140 with me. What if the old employer cancels my i140?
All I have is the old i140 receipt and the receipt number online shows approved status.
Thanks
more...
webm
10-05 01:17 PM
"7. Aytes said they are trying to set it up that next year the EAD and Advance Paroles will be issued for more than a one year expiration and that there may possibly be one document issued for both the EAD and APs. More on this will come by the end of the year"
This news is interesting..looking forward to it....:)
This news is interesting..looking forward to it....:)
hot Selena Gomez and The Scene
ndialani
11-23 08:38 PM
Do you mean we can send checks for $ accounts to be deposited into local rupees accounts in india? Does this work. Do you know how long it takes for them to get the money after each cheque deposit?
Hebbar77,
Yes its ok to do it. I have been doing it for last 11 years. It usually takes 7-10 days to get it cleared in the bank.MY parents have account in Axis bank , ICICI and dena bank. Depends from bank to bank.
Advantage: no extra cost involved
Limitation: 1-2 weeks time
Wire transfer:
Advantage: money is there in 2 days , good for emergencies
Limitation: unnecessary extra cost involved.
Hebbar77,
Yes its ok to do it. I have been doing it for last 11 years. It usually takes 7-10 days to get it cleared in the bank.MY parents have account in Axis bank , ICICI and dena bank. Depends from bank to bank.
Advantage: no extra cost involved
Limitation: 1-2 weeks time
Wire transfer:
Advantage: money is there in 2 days , good for emergencies
Limitation: unnecessary extra cost involved.
more...
house Selena Gomez And The Scene
AB1275
12-16 11:36 AM
My lawyer has submitted the advertisement to TWC for EB2 and EB3 category to weigh the options. She says it takes 5-10 business days for a response.....Is this true?
She suggested that if we take the route of EB2 for the second time, the scrutiny will be more intense and hence my W-2 of 2008 should also show the wages per the payscale even though my new filing will start in 2009. Is this true?
Kindly help!
She suggested that if we take the route of EB2 for the second time, the scrutiny will be more intense and hence my W-2 of 2008 should also show the wages per the payscale even though my new filing will start in 2009. Is this true?
Kindly help!
tattoo selena gomez who says album
ram_ram
10-01 09:43 AM
The backlogs at DOLS's found a solution..PERM. Similarly premium processing was introduced for I-140's. I think now it's time to move the Departments and courts to find a more efficient Security/Name check process. If not USCIS will continue to loose tons of visa numbers every year. Though USCIS has 26 k cases that has the visa number available,
many of them are struck with FBI. Any movements or actions?
Successfully Challenging USCIS Delays in Federal Court
On September 10, the Los Angeles Times featured an article about how FBI name checks have been slowing down the process of gaining immigration benefits for hundreds of thousands of applicants.
The article revealed that "nearly 320,000 people were waiting for their name checks to be completed as of August 7, including more than 152,000 who had been waiting for more than six months, according to the U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. More than 61,000 had been waiting for more than two years."
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a lawsuit in federal court regarding this issue. The Times article quotes an ACLU attorney who stated that "there is nothing in immigration law that says that a citizenship application should take two, three, four years. That's absurd. People who have not been any sort of threat ... have been caught up in this dragnet."
Applicants for adjustment of status, citizenship, extensions of stay and many other immigration benefits have taken days off work to visit USCIS offices only to be told that the USCIS can do nothing since the name check process is in the hands of the FBI.
Nor do letters and meetings with Senators and Members of Congress yield results. They receive polite letters from the USCIS' Congressional Liaison Unit to the effect that "Sorry, but this is FBI's problem, not ours."
DHS Secretary Chertoff announced that his Department is meeting with the FBI (which is part of the Department of Justice) to work out a more efficient system of processing these name checks, but so far, the number of people waiting for results from the FBI continues to grow and grow.
The problem exists for applicants from a wide variety of countries and affects Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, etc.
Our solution is to sue both the USCIS and the FBI in Federal Court. Most Federal Judges are not reluctant to order the FBI and the USCIS to complete their name checks and application processing by a date certain.
Many applicants have turned to litigation as the one and only method of solving the name check problem. The numbers of such lawsuits have increased from just 680 in 2005 to 2,650 in 2006 to over 4,100 this year. Although there is no guarantee of success, our law firm has yet to lose one of these cases in Federal Court.
The Times article concludes with a quote from me:
"There is only one thing that works, and that is suing them in federal court."
We link to the Times article, "Caught in a Bureaucratic Black Hole" from
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/091107P.shtml
We also link to AILF's new practice advisory entitled "Mandamus Jurisdiction over Delayed Applications: Responding to the Government's Motion to Dismiss" from
http://shusterman.com/toc-dpt.html#A1
many of them are struck with FBI. Any movements or actions?
Successfully Challenging USCIS Delays in Federal Court
On September 10, the Los Angeles Times featured an article about how FBI name checks have been slowing down the process of gaining immigration benefits for hundreds of thousands of applicants.
The article revealed that "nearly 320,000 people were waiting for their name checks to be completed as of August 7, including more than 152,000 who had been waiting for more than six months, according to the U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. More than 61,000 had been waiting for more than two years."
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a lawsuit in federal court regarding this issue. The Times article quotes an ACLU attorney who stated that "there is nothing in immigration law that says that a citizenship application should take two, three, four years. That's absurd. People who have not been any sort of threat ... have been caught up in this dragnet."
Applicants for adjustment of status, citizenship, extensions of stay and many other immigration benefits have taken days off work to visit USCIS offices only to be told that the USCIS can do nothing since the name check process is in the hands of the FBI.
Nor do letters and meetings with Senators and Members of Congress yield results. They receive polite letters from the USCIS' Congressional Liaison Unit to the effect that "Sorry, but this is FBI's problem, not ours."
DHS Secretary Chertoff announced that his Department is meeting with the FBI (which is part of the Department of Justice) to work out a more efficient system of processing these name checks, but so far, the number of people waiting for results from the FBI continues to grow and grow.
The problem exists for applicants from a wide variety of countries and affects Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, etc.
Our solution is to sue both the USCIS and the FBI in Federal Court. Most Federal Judges are not reluctant to order the FBI and the USCIS to complete their name checks and application processing by a date certain.
Many applicants have turned to litigation as the one and only method of solving the name check problem. The numbers of such lawsuits have increased from just 680 in 2005 to 2,650 in 2006 to over 4,100 this year. Although there is no guarantee of success, our law firm has yet to lose one of these cases in Federal Court.
The Times article concludes with a quote from me:
"There is only one thing that works, and that is suing them in federal court."
We link to the Times article, "Caught in a Bureaucratic Black Hole" from
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/091107P.shtml
We also link to AILF's new practice advisory entitled "Mandamus Jurisdiction over Delayed Applications: Responding to the Government's Motion to Dismiss" from
http://shusterman.com/toc-dpt.html#A1
more...
pictures Selena Gomez amp; The Scene - Who
sundar99
05-03 10:01 AM
Suggest folks write back personal stories and ask the editor to highlight the need to raise Legal Immigration issues.. the writer has clearly expressed how the legal immigrants needs to be given consideration : Contact Jessie Mangaliman at jmangaliman@mercurynews. com or (408) 920-5794.
They are organising a counter protest against Illegal Immigrants rally :
Amnesty foes respond
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/immigration_debate/14488543.htm
They are organising a counter protest against Illegal Immigrants rally :
Amnesty foes respond
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/immigration_debate/14488543.htm
dresses selena gomez and the scene who
logiclife
06-25 06:36 PM
Hi all,
My attorney (a great guy by the way) filed my I485 without my employment verification letter. When I raised the question, he argued that the employment verification letter cannot be a ground for denial and that worst case scenario will be USCIS sending a RFE.
Is it true that it is not a ground for denial?
Is is possible to send it it separately to complete the file?
What would be your advice?
Thanks is advance.
The most recent USCIS memo says that if initial evidence is missing, then they can deny the petition without bothering to send the RFE. This is memo as of June 17th.
Employment verification letter is listed in the intial evidence on 485 form. So it is very risk to send 485 without that coz it could get denied without you ever seeing an RFE.
Ask your lawyer if he has read the USCIS memo on June 17th. If he hasnt, then send him/her this link:
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/RFEFinalRule060107.pdf
Thanks.
My attorney (a great guy by the way) filed my I485 without my employment verification letter. When I raised the question, he argued that the employment verification letter cannot be a ground for denial and that worst case scenario will be USCIS sending a RFE.
Is it true that it is not a ground for denial?
Is is possible to send it it separately to complete the file?
What would be your advice?
Thanks is advance.
The most recent USCIS memo says that if initial evidence is missing, then they can deny the petition without bothering to send the RFE. This is memo as of June 17th.
Employment verification letter is listed in the intial evidence on 485 form. So it is very risk to send 485 without that coz it could get denied without you ever seeing an RFE.
Ask your lawyer if he has read the USCIS memo on June 17th. If he hasnt, then send him/her this link:
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/RFEFinalRule060107.pdf
Thanks.
more...
makeup Selena Gomez amp; The Scene / A
DesiTech
06-01 06:25 PM
hi viewers,
any help will be appreciate in this matter. MY PD is June/2003 and my i-140 approved few weeks back. When can I file my 485 ? do I need to wait till PD ?
Also can I transfer to other company maintaining my approved i-140 and PD ?
What are risks involved here.
Thanks U all in advance.
any help will be appreciate in this matter. MY PD is June/2003 and my i-140 approved few weeks back. When can I file my 485 ? do I need to wait till PD ?
Also can I transfer to other company maintaining my approved i-140 and PD ?
What are risks involved here.
Thanks U all in advance.
girlfriend selena gomez and the scene who
mchundi
07-27 08:41 PM
Hi everyone,
I have a question on changing jobs. I am on my second H1b and my h1 expires in a little over a year. I have a possible offer for a job and would like to change. My question is if i DO change jobs right now, can i still apply for my PERM and will i be eligible for further h1b extentions?
A friend mentioned to me that your labour needs to be applied for atleast one whole year (even if it has been approved in PERM), to be able to apply for any kind of H1 extentions.
Can someone on here please tell me what the law is on H1B extentions and how it works exactly in a case like mine.
Thanks
If ur current employer did not apply for a labor, it doesnot matter anyway, as u r in the same position.
Ur friend is right. However if ur I-140 is also approved, u will continue to get H1-B extensions beyond 6 years.
--MC
I have a question on changing jobs. I am on my second H1b and my h1 expires in a little over a year. I have a possible offer for a job and would like to change. My question is if i DO change jobs right now, can i still apply for my PERM and will i be eligible for further h1b extentions?
A friend mentioned to me that your labour needs to be applied for atleast one whole year (even if it has been approved in PERM), to be able to apply for any kind of H1 extentions.
Can someone on here please tell me what the law is on H1B extentions and how it works exactly in a case like mine.
Thanks
If ur current employer did not apply for a labor, it doesnot matter anyway, as u r in the same position.
Ur friend is right. However if ur I-140 is also approved, u will continue to get H1-B extensions beyond 6 years.
--MC
hairstyles Who Says by Selena Gomez amp; the
gc_bulgaria
10-09 04:18 PM
http://www.immigration-law.com/
10/08/2007: I-140 Portability After 180 Days of 485 Filing and Service Centers Standard Procedure of Review and Adjudication
When there is a retrogression of visa numbers and anticipated long delays in 485 adjudication due to the massive July VB fiasco 485 filings, it is anticipated that there will be a substantial number of 485 applicants who may have to change employment along the way, either voluntarily or involuntarily, under AC 21 Section 106(c) provision. Accordingly, whether one reports the change of employment proactively or not, one should learn the internal review and adjudication procedures within the Service Center which are adopted by the adjudicators in adjudicating such I-485 applications.
The good material to review on this procedure is the USCIS Standard Operating Procedure for the adjudicators. The SOP states that "If the alien is using the portability provisions of AC21 106(c), the adjudicator must determine that both the ported labor certification and the ported I-140 are still valid under the current employer, especially in regards to the continual payment of the prevailing wage, similar occupation classification, and the employer’s ability to pay the prevailing wage."
(1) Prevailing Wage Payment: The AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer pays the prevailing wage or higher wage for portability. However, the adjudicators review the wage as part of their determination of "continuing validity" of the ported certified labor certification application and I-140 petition. When the applicant stays with the same employer without changing employer, payment of wage less than the prevailing wage should not present any serious issue inasmuch as the employer establishes that the employer was financially able to pay the prevailing wage and is continuously able to pay the prevailing wage until the green card is approved. However, when there is a change of employer who pays less than the prevailing wage, there is no clear-cut rule with reference to this issue. Payment of less than prevailing wage thus potentially can raise two issues when there is a change of employer. One is the adjudicator's argument that there is no continuing validity of the labor certification or I-140 petition. The other is the argument that different wage reflects that the labor certification job and the new job with the new employer are two different occupational classifications.
(2) Similar occupational classification issue: The similarity of the two positions involves not the "jobs" but "occupational classification." Accordingly, the old and new positions do not necessarily have to match exactly in every details, especially specific skill sets. Currently, the USCIS is looking up the Labor Department SOC/OES classifications of occupations. When the two jobs fall under the same occupational classification in the DOL occupational definitions, the two jobs are generally considered "similar" occupational classification. As long as the two jobs belong to a similar occupational classification, the applicant can work for the new employer anywhere in the United States. There is no physical location restrictions.
(3) Employer's financial ability to pay the wage: Again, AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer must prove that the new employer has and will have a financial ability to pay the prevailing wage. However, the adjudicators appear to review the portability case considering the new employer's ability to pay as well as part of review of continuing vality of labor certification and I-140 petition.
Remember that when there is a portability issue, two things can ensue. If one proactively reports the eligibility of portability meeting all the foregoing requirment, the adjudicators are likely to decide the pending I-485 application on the merit. However, if the 485 applicants do not report proactively change of employment and the USCIS somehow obtains information of the alien's change of employment, for instance, by employer's report of termination of employment or withdrawal of I-140 petition or substitution of alien beneficiary, then 485 applicants are likely to be served a notice of intent to deny I-485 applications or in most cases, the adjudicator transfers the I-485 file to the local district office for interview.
In AC 21 106(c) portability situation, the adjudicators also review the issue of the continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition involving the original employer, and are likely to raise similar issues which are described above. However, when the alien ports with the "approved" I-140 petition with a copy of the last paycheck and W-2, the adjudicators rarely revisit the original employer's foregoing issues in determining the 140 portability issue. The issues are raised when the alien ports before the I-140 petition is approved. Under the Yates Memorandum, when the alien ports before I-140 petition is approved, the alien has a burden of proof that the I-140 petition was approvable. Accordingly, inasmuch as I-140 petition was approvable and the alien ports after 180 days of I-485 filing, even if the original employer withdraws the I-140 petition, the pending I-485 will not be affected. Yates Memorandum indicates that in such a circumstance, the adjudicator should adjudicate the pending I-140 petition and if finds approvable, then recognizes 106(c) portability and continues to adjudicate the pending I-485 application. Without doubt, in the foregoing situation, the adjudicator will intensively and carefully review the issue of continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition issues which are specified above, particularly the employer's financial ability to pay the wage, and the applicant will have to overcome tremendous hurdles to deal with the challenges by the USCIS. Accordingly, people should not port before I-140 petition is approved unless they are assured that the original employer will continuously cooperate and support his/her green card process.
10/08/2007: I-140 Portability After 180 Days of 485 Filing and Service Centers Standard Procedure of Review and Adjudication
When there is a retrogression of visa numbers and anticipated long delays in 485 adjudication due to the massive July VB fiasco 485 filings, it is anticipated that there will be a substantial number of 485 applicants who may have to change employment along the way, either voluntarily or involuntarily, under AC 21 Section 106(c) provision. Accordingly, whether one reports the change of employment proactively or not, one should learn the internal review and adjudication procedures within the Service Center which are adopted by the adjudicators in adjudicating such I-485 applications.
The good material to review on this procedure is the USCIS Standard Operating Procedure for the adjudicators. The SOP states that "If the alien is using the portability provisions of AC21 106(c), the adjudicator must determine that both the ported labor certification and the ported I-140 are still valid under the current employer, especially in regards to the continual payment of the prevailing wage, similar occupation classification, and the employer’s ability to pay the prevailing wage."
(1) Prevailing Wage Payment: The AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer pays the prevailing wage or higher wage for portability. However, the adjudicators review the wage as part of their determination of "continuing validity" of the ported certified labor certification application and I-140 petition. When the applicant stays with the same employer without changing employer, payment of wage less than the prevailing wage should not present any serious issue inasmuch as the employer establishes that the employer was financially able to pay the prevailing wage and is continuously able to pay the prevailing wage until the green card is approved. However, when there is a change of employer who pays less than the prevailing wage, there is no clear-cut rule with reference to this issue. Payment of less than prevailing wage thus potentially can raise two issues when there is a change of employer. One is the adjudicator's argument that there is no continuing validity of the labor certification or I-140 petition. The other is the argument that different wage reflects that the labor certification job and the new job with the new employer are two different occupational classifications.
(2) Similar occupational classification issue: The similarity of the two positions involves not the "jobs" but "occupational classification." Accordingly, the old and new positions do not necessarily have to match exactly in every details, especially specific skill sets. Currently, the USCIS is looking up the Labor Department SOC/OES classifications of occupations. When the two jobs fall under the same occupational classification in the DOL occupational definitions, the two jobs are generally considered "similar" occupational classification. As long as the two jobs belong to a similar occupational classification, the applicant can work for the new employer anywhere in the United States. There is no physical location restrictions.
(3) Employer's financial ability to pay the wage: Again, AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer must prove that the new employer has and will have a financial ability to pay the prevailing wage. However, the adjudicators appear to review the portability case considering the new employer's ability to pay as well as part of review of continuing vality of labor certification and I-140 petition.
Remember that when there is a portability issue, two things can ensue. If one proactively reports the eligibility of portability meeting all the foregoing requirment, the adjudicators are likely to decide the pending I-485 application on the merit. However, if the 485 applicants do not report proactively change of employment and the USCIS somehow obtains information of the alien's change of employment, for instance, by employer's report of termination of employment or withdrawal of I-140 petition or substitution of alien beneficiary, then 485 applicants are likely to be served a notice of intent to deny I-485 applications or in most cases, the adjudicator transfers the I-485 file to the local district office for interview.
In AC 21 106(c) portability situation, the adjudicators also review the issue of the continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition involving the original employer, and are likely to raise similar issues which are described above. However, when the alien ports with the "approved" I-140 petition with a copy of the last paycheck and W-2, the adjudicators rarely revisit the original employer's foregoing issues in determining the 140 portability issue. The issues are raised when the alien ports before the I-140 petition is approved. Under the Yates Memorandum, when the alien ports before I-140 petition is approved, the alien has a burden of proof that the I-140 petition was approvable. Accordingly, inasmuch as I-140 petition was approvable and the alien ports after 180 days of I-485 filing, even if the original employer withdraws the I-140 petition, the pending I-485 will not be affected. Yates Memorandum indicates that in such a circumstance, the adjudicator should adjudicate the pending I-140 petition and if finds approvable, then recognizes 106(c) portability and continues to adjudicate the pending I-485 application. Without doubt, in the foregoing situation, the adjudicator will intensively and carefully review the issue of continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition issues which are specified above, particularly the employer's financial ability to pay the wage, and the applicant will have to overcome tremendous hurdles to deal with the challenges by the USCIS. Accordingly, people should not port before I-140 petition is approved unless they are assured that the original employer will continuously cooperate and support his/her green card process.
pkpalta
08-11 05:02 PM
Admin, please remove this post. If INS reads it and amends to verify all the employers then there will be more back logs and more retrogression.
We all know that there are tonne of problems with processing and lots of idiosyncracy but this forum is to solve problems not creating it.
;)
We all know that there are tonne of problems with processing and lots of idiosyncracy but this forum is to solve problems not creating it.
;)
GCard_Dream
07-10 02:48 PM
I found the answer from the I-693 form. X-ray is only needed in the following situation:
Chest X-Ray - Required ONLY for TST reactions of > 5mm or if specific TST exception criteria met, or for an applicant with TB symptoms or immunosuppression (e.g., HIV). Attach copy of X-Ray Report.
Here is the detailed explanation from USCIS on the the new TB test requirements:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dq/pdf/civil_surgeons_ti.pdf
Chest X-Ray - Required ONLY for TST reactions of > 5mm or if specific TST exception criteria met, or for an applicant with TB symptoms or immunosuppression (e.g., HIV). Attach copy of X-Ray Report.
Here is the detailed explanation from USCIS on the the new TB test requirements:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dq/pdf/civil_surgeons_ti.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment