singhsa3
04-30 05:11 PM
All,
I am planning to write a letter to USCIS and DOS , suggesting the visa cut off dates for India. Kindly help me develop a model. I will send this letter over the weekend and also post over here.
So far I have the following rational (Of course , I will word them properly).
I have grouped applicants in the following groups
BEC, PERM ROW and PERM Non Row Countries. I then will estimate the visa usage by each categories using sources like FLCdata and DHS publications. Along the way I will make some assumption but the results should be realistic.
Facts
1. Per DOL , As of April'06 50K BEC labors were certified. Certification rates were 50% of labor processed (certified, denied or withdrawn).
Per DOL, as of Sep'07 362,000 BEC labor were processed (certified, denied or withdrawn).
2. Per DHS, total EB (2, 3, 4 and 5 only) visas issued in FY’07 were 135,479 and FY’06 was 122,121.
3. FLC data center indicates that between March’05 and Oct’05, ~6000 PERM applications were filled and certified.
4. Per FLC data, 46,340 ROW PERM applications were certified in FY’06 and 47,251 ROW applications were certified in FY’07.
Assumptions
1. Each labor application uses in 2.2 visas.
2. Based on Fact 1 and Fact 2, let us assumed that in total 180,000 BEC labors were certified between March'05 and Sep'07 by BEC.
3. Total BEC visas requirements 180,000*2.2= 396,000
4. NIW applications are negligible.
5. Retrogressed countries account for 50% of visas used.
Calculations
Scenario 1: Visa processing time is Zero
1. BEC visas used in Fy'06 : = 122,121- (46,340)x 2.2 = 20173
2. BEC visas issued in FY'07 : 135,459-(47,251+6000)x2.2=18,306
3. BEC visas remaining as on 10/01/08= 396,000-20,173-18,306= 357,521
Scenario 2: Visa processing time is one year. Note: it affects only the applications certified within the preceding year.
1. BEC visas used in Fy'06 : = 122,121- (46,340)x 2.2 = 20,173
2. BEC visas issued in FY'07 : 135,459-(6000)x2.2=122,259
3. BEC visas (And NOT labor) remaining as on 10/01/08 = 396,000-122,259= 273,741.
What it means:
BEC contained labors from both retrogressed and non-retrogressed countries. Thus, in FY’08 and FY’09 visa consumptions will be attributed to BEC mainly. Once this backlog is cleared, the normal consumption (Supply = Demand) should resume. But it will also mean that there will always be 2-3 years wait.
Conclusion:
Suggested Cut-off dates for India as on 10/01/2008: ??? TBD.
Last update:
Time 11.32 AM ET , 05/01/08.
I am planning to write a letter to USCIS and DOS , suggesting the visa cut off dates for India. Kindly help me develop a model. I will send this letter over the weekend and also post over here.
So far I have the following rational (Of course , I will word them properly).
I have grouped applicants in the following groups
BEC, PERM ROW and PERM Non Row Countries. I then will estimate the visa usage by each categories using sources like FLCdata and DHS publications. Along the way I will make some assumption but the results should be realistic.
Facts
1. Per DOL , As of April'06 50K BEC labors were certified. Certification rates were 50% of labor processed (certified, denied or withdrawn).
Per DOL, as of Sep'07 362,000 BEC labor were processed (certified, denied or withdrawn).
2. Per DHS, total EB (2, 3, 4 and 5 only) visas issued in FY’07 were 135,479 and FY’06 was 122,121.
3. FLC data center indicates that between March’05 and Oct’05, ~6000 PERM applications were filled and certified.
4. Per FLC data, 46,340 ROW PERM applications were certified in FY’06 and 47,251 ROW applications were certified in FY’07.
Assumptions
1. Each labor application uses in 2.2 visas.
2. Based on Fact 1 and Fact 2, let us assumed that in total 180,000 BEC labors were certified between March'05 and Sep'07 by BEC.
3. Total BEC visas requirements 180,000*2.2= 396,000
4. NIW applications are negligible.
5. Retrogressed countries account for 50% of visas used.
Calculations
Scenario 1: Visa processing time is Zero
1. BEC visas used in Fy'06 : = 122,121- (46,340)x 2.2 = 20173
2. BEC visas issued in FY'07 : 135,459-(47,251+6000)x2.2=18,306
3. BEC visas remaining as on 10/01/08= 396,000-20,173-18,306= 357,521
Scenario 2: Visa processing time is one year. Note: it affects only the applications certified within the preceding year.
1. BEC visas used in Fy'06 : = 122,121- (46,340)x 2.2 = 20,173
2. BEC visas issued in FY'07 : 135,459-(6000)x2.2=122,259
3. BEC visas (And NOT labor) remaining as on 10/01/08 = 396,000-122,259= 273,741.
What it means:
BEC contained labors from both retrogressed and non-retrogressed countries. Thus, in FY’08 and FY’09 visa consumptions will be attributed to BEC mainly. Once this backlog is cleared, the normal consumption (Supply = Demand) should resume. But it will also mean that there will always be 2-3 years wait.
Conclusion:
Suggested Cut-off dates for India as on 10/01/2008: ??? TBD.
Last update:
Time 11.32 AM ET , 05/01/08.
sanprabhu
07-26 11:20 AM
I already sent the card to Senator... I urge everybody else to do the same.
njboy
07-26 10:38 AM
pappu, the only way the labor can be transferred to new company is if the 485 has been filed for more than 180 days.
in this case, since he is unable to file 485 due to retrogression, the labor is not transferable. what may be transferable is the priority date.
in this case, since he is unable to file 485 due to retrogression, the labor is not transferable. what may be transferable is the priority date.
Dhundhun
07-10 06:30 PM
On I-797 from Y it doesn't have I-94 number on it anywhere. since its through consular processing.
In order to work with Y, i have to get stamped first then only pay stubbs are generated. This was the understanding, when owner of Y ,company Y Attorney and myself were in the conference call discussion.
Basically the H-1B with company Y required Change of Status (COS). I am not familiar with this type of situation - whether you can get change of status done in USA or not. If not I think this is a case, which requires Visa to be stamped in home country.
Could somebody throw more infromation on this? Thanks
In order to work with Y, i have to get stamped first then only pay stubbs are generated. This was the understanding, when owner of Y ,company Y Attorney and myself were in the conference call discussion.
Basically the H-1B with company Y required Change of Status (COS). I am not familiar with this type of situation - whether you can get change of status done in USA or not. If not I think this is a case, which requires Visa to be stamped in home country.
Could somebody throw more infromation on this? Thanks
more...
krishnam70
07-17 06:19 PM
might serve IV community better if we contribute for funds...
Good job IV. We should not rest now and carry forward with the actual agenda of IV.
Good job IV. We should not rest now and carry forward with the actual agenda of IV.
ivgclive
08-23 06:14 PM
I lost the hope of GC after working 10 years in US because my GC is not approving.
Is it possible to file case against my employer and ask to return money that they deduct from me for GC and the % that they earned from me in last 8 years. I joined my employer for smooth GC process but even my I140 is not approved. My labor went to backlog. Once labor approved than I140 is pending for last 30 months. USCIS is trying to find out that my company is legitimate or not.
Do not argue how I know that I140 is pending because of company. Please let what is process to inform USCIS about my employer. My company files GC so that no one should leave the company. Employer gives hope about GC but I140 never approves. What all evidence I have to collect so that I can prove against my employer. Please suggest.
You have rights to ask the above items. But it can not be done thru USCIS.
You should hire a good lawer and proceed thru court.
Good luck.
PS: If you fail, please come back and ask how to get all the money you paid to the lawer and the court.
Is it possible to file case against my employer and ask to return money that they deduct from me for GC and the % that they earned from me in last 8 years. I joined my employer for smooth GC process but even my I140 is not approved. My labor went to backlog. Once labor approved than I140 is pending for last 30 months. USCIS is trying to find out that my company is legitimate or not.
Do not argue how I know that I140 is pending because of company. Please let what is process to inform USCIS about my employer. My company files GC so that no one should leave the company. Employer gives hope about GC but I140 never approves. What all evidence I have to collect so that I can prove against my employer. Please suggest.
You have rights to ask the above items. But it can not be done thru USCIS.
You should hire a good lawer and proceed thru court.
Good luck.
PS: If you fail, please come back and ask how to get all the money you paid to the lawer and the court.
more...
seekerofpeace
10-05 11:05 PM
that was hilarious GCN007...BTW my wife got approved to finally....
Years ago or should I say ages ago not even in the US of A but at Heathrow at the American Airlines counter (that time I was a student for MS) the lady was going thru my I-20 and was asking for additional documents et al...so I had this bunch of documents in my folder...and her eyes landed on my degree certificate...she asked me you have a degree from IIT and you couldn't get a job still ? that's why you are going for your MS....i was like well I wanted to do research....why not in India? I was like this is not even USA and this is my 2nd visit to USA (after the Christmas break in the 2nd year)....why are they asking so many questions and this is pre-9/11.....
I was like why is she harassing me....Do you have intentions of staying back in the USA after you finish your MS....I said no I plan to do my PhD in the UK...She gave me a ugly look and stamped my passport and let me go....
SoP
Years ago or should I say ages ago not even in the US of A but at Heathrow at the American Airlines counter (that time I was a student for MS) the lady was going thru my I-20 and was asking for additional documents et al...so I had this bunch of documents in my folder...and her eyes landed on my degree certificate...she asked me you have a degree from IIT and you couldn't get a job still ? that's why you are going for your MS....i was like well I wanted to do research....why not in India? I was like this is not even USA and this is my 2nd visit to USA (after the Christmas break in the 2nd year)....why are they asking so many questions and this is pre-9/11.....
I was like why is she harassing me....Do you have intentions of staying back in the USA after you finish your MS....I said no I plan to do my PhD in the UK...She gave me a ugly look and stamped my passport and let me go....
SoP
kriskris
08-22 02:47 PM
you can renew your DL by showing a copy of H1 receipt and letter from employer regd employment. DL office clerks dont know this so your lawyer might have to call their supervisor. take your 140 along as well, actually all the documents.
one of my co-workers got it renewed based on H1 receipt. and we are in FL.
Sukhwinder,
They are not accepting the receipt notices in Dallas. They don't even listen to you if you try to explain them. All they do is ask for I-94 and gives us a paper that contains what all documents can be accepted.
Thanks
Krishna
one of my co-workers got it renewed based on H1 receipt. and we are in FL.
Sukhwinder,
They are not accepting the receipt notices in Dallas. They don't even listen to you if you try to explain them. All they do is ask for I-94 and gives us a paper that contains what all documents can be accepted.
Thanks
Krishna
more...
indianabacklog
12-04 06:50 PM
A wife of one of my colleagues got her green card through marriage. They have now been married for over eight years and she simply visits at least once a year and on at least three occasions has only visited for a weekend.
This gives you a good idea how little time you have to be here without losing your permanent residency.
I also know of a research fellow who I used to work with. Has had his green card for almost twenty years and in that entire time has only visited for one conference each year and then for at most five days.
If you want to progress to become a citizen this sort of arrangement will not work obviously but if you simply want to retain your green card it would appear to be remarkably easy.
This gives you a good idea how little time you have to be here without losing your permanent residency.
I also know of a research fellow who I used to work with. Has had his green card for almost twenty years and in that entire time has only visited for one conference each year and then for at most five days.
If you want to progress to become a citizen this sort of arrangement will not work obviously but if you simply want to retain your green card it would appear to be remarkably easy.
andycool
08-28 06:49 AM
Any one get refund from USCIS ??
I sent EAD application on 05/01,was approved on 06/14 and never received to my address,called after 30 days of receiving email,they said card lost in the mail and they suggested to apply replacement card.I applied for replacement card,approved and also received last week and since monday receiving emails saying card production ordered on old one which was mentioned as lost in the email.I just spoke to USCIS representative,he suggested to send a letter to TSC for refund request.
any one sent letter for refund before ? do we have any form for refund ?
How this will work out ?
I dont think USCIS will issue refund ....
I sent EAD application on 05/01,was approved on 06/14 and never received to my address,called after 30 days of receiving email,they said card lost in the mail and they suggested to apply replacement card.I applied for replacement card,approved and also received last week and since monday receiving emails saying card production ordered on old one which was mentioned as lost in the email.I just spoke to USCIS representative,he suggested to send a letter to TSC for refund request.
any one sent letter for refund before ? do we have any form for refund ?
How this will work out ?
I dont think USCIS will issue refund ....
more...
swede
08-23 11:41 AM
USCIS should have all the records in their system. I guess that are refrained from asking RFEs if they can find it in their system or cross check it with other agencies.
I wish it was like that, but it amazes me how many times I have to give the exact same information to all government agencies. They have no clue or contact between each other unfortunately.
For example, why do I have to give all my information on all forms, even within USCIS? And why do I have redo my fingerprints every year? My fingers don't change.
And why can people get a new drivers license or hide in another state from where the drivers license was issued?
The only thing that should be needed to apply for a i485 should be your social #. The rest of the information they should already KNOW... Why should you give it? Then they will have to check that you gave the right information on the paper, not focusing on if the information is correct... It is just opening up for fraud.
So until they get their information straight, don't underestimate how much data you have to give them over and over again... and how slow the process will be because of that.
I wish it was like that, but it amazes me how many times I have to give the exact same information to all government agencies. They have no clue or contact between each other unfortunately.
For example, why do I have to give all my information on all forms, even within USCIS? And why do I have redo my fingerprints every year? My fingers don't change.
And why can people get a new drivers license or hide in another state from where the drivers license was issued?
The only thing that should be needed to apply for a i485 should be your social #. The rest of the information they should already KNOW... Why should you give it? Then they will have to check that you gave the right information on the paper, not focusing on if the information is correct... It is just opening up for fraud.
So until they get their information straight, don't underestimate how much data you have to give them over and over again... and how slow the process will be because of that.
nath
06-07 05:56 PM
Good luck everybody who are able to make it for DC campaign. Rest of IV members will be with you guys in spirit. :)
Hi, I am planning to join tomorrow, please let me know, whats tomorrow schedule and where to come and meet.
Hi, I am planning to join tomorrow, please let me know, whats tomorrow schedule and where to come and meet.
more...
vandanaverdia
09-11 02:56 PM
FYI
"Competing against fast-growing technology companies in India offering jobs with handsome pay raises and quick promotions, Microsoft has to work harder these days to attract and retain the best and brightest Indian engineering talent."
http://www.canada.com/topics/technol...d08f52&k=30524
Please join the WA state chapter....
"Competing against fast-growing technology companies in India offering jobs with handsome pay raises and quick promotions, Microsoft has to work harder these days to attract and retain the best and brightest Indian engineering talent."
http://www.canada.com/topics/technol...d08f52&k=30524
Please join the WA state chapter....
milind70
10-31 08:45 AM
Should address on Drivers license and Address that we provide for USCIS should it match ?
I am a consultant hence i have given a friends address who own a home so that i dont need to change it often. Now i live in a different state (ofcourse temporarily) and since its USCIS i gave this address for any correspondence to USCIS. Now in future if i apply for any new forms many people have mentioned sending Drivers License but if i sent it it has a different address on it. is copy of drivers license mandatory? how does it work ?
If it is in the same state I think you are fine, I went for FP rececntly and I had a DL which had my three year old address( though i did change online on DMV website and they send me a paper card satting my new adress) as for a new card they charged some money so i never changed it.It is 3 years since i have moved to my current address. I was not even asked anything at FP.
I am a consultant hence i have given a friends address who own a home so that i dont need to change it often. Now i live in a different state (ofcourse temporarily) and since its USCIS i gave this address for any correspondence to USCIS. Now in future if i apply for any new forms many people have mentioned sending Drivers License but if i sent it it has a different address on it. is copy of drivers license mandatory? how does it work ?
If it is in the same state I think you are fine, I went for FP rececntly and I had a DL which had my three year old address( though i did change online on DMV website and they send me a paper card satting my new adress) as for a new card they charged some money so i never changed it.It is 3 years since i have moved to my current address. I was not even asked anything at FP.
more...
jonty_11
02-09 12:45 PM
Yes we have to keep focused and not give up this fight. With so much taxes and spending we have pumped into the economy, dont u guys think u deserve better.
ss777
09-16 10:25 PM
I know a friend who faced exact situation you described here. His lawyer also answered the same way your lawyer replied. He is doing fine with the approved I-140 and the original I-485 (based on first I-140(eventually denied)). He was told USCIS automatically "consolidates the cases". His attorney did not send any request for consolidation or something like that. This happened about an year back and he successfully made an overseas trip and returned on AP. This makes me feel you are OK and your lawyer is correct.
more...
b_boy
08-28 03:58 PM
Pending too
greenerpastures
07-21 12:45 PM
MScapbust,
Lots of people have done H1-F1-H1 in the past and they are not counted against the quota. You can search for various attorney's (including Rajiv of immigration.com and Murthy of murthy.com) answers for ur specific question either in their websites or thru google. I did some research on this specific thing in the past and also had confirmed with immigraion HR in my company. So I am pretty much sure that you are not counted against the cap. You would need to apply before the visa (F1/opt period) expires so that you dont get to stay in US without any valid visa. so no hurry and dont worry about adv degree cap.
Lots of people have done H1-F1-H1 in the past and they are not counted against the quota. You can search for various attorney's (including Rajiv of immigration.com and Murthy of murthy.com) answers for ur specific question either in their websites or thru google. I did some research on this specific thing in the past and also had confirmed with immigraion HR in my company. So I am pretty much sure that you are not counted against the cap. You would need to apply before the visa (F1/opt period) expires so that you dont get to stay in US without any valid visa. so no hurry and dont worry about adv degree cap.
chanduv23
05-13 12:35 PM
Looks like - they keep pulling up your information using your A number and for some reason they may be relating to your EB2 i 140 even though you have an EB3 i 140.
We have no clue what happens inside USCIS and how their record retention policy is.
You must do the following
(1) Write to Ombudsman - fill out form 7001 and attach all documents, proofs, and clearly explain the issue and hardships you are facing
(2) Write to both your Senators
(3) Write to your congressman
(4) Write to IV also in detail about your case. Don't have to write any private details.
We have no clue what happens inside USCIS and how their record retention policy is.
You must do the following
(1) Write to Ombudsman - fill out form 7001 and attach all documents, proofs, and clearly explain the issue and hardships you are facing
(2) Write to both your Senators
(3) Write to your congressman
(4) Write to IV also in detail about your case. Don't have to write any private details.
lvaka
07-18 10:49 AM
This is like giving them a small window to file within 10 days in the old rate other wise....pay the big chunk.
Good tactics....it will be difficult for the people who do not have any medical appointments and other documents that need to come from other countries !!
I think you missed the USCIS update. You can file till Aug 17th. So its the same amount of time one month from now.
Good tactics....it will be difficult for the people who do not have any medical appointments and other documents that need to come from other countries !!
I think you missed the USCIS update. You can file till Aug 17th. So its the same amount of time one month from now.
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.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire