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.
wallpaper So far, the Nike LeBron 8 V2
grimreaper
03-29 05:58 PM
I have filed PERM in Nov-2009 and am still waiting. I am a Physician and hope not to get audited. Let us see.
mrdelhiite
02-01 09:42 AM
This is a perfect example of creating more problems for everyone including yourself. IF everyone applies 2 H1 just to make sure there probability increases the overall probability of one getting H1 stays the same. The problem comes when someone plays by book and applies only one H1. By your action his probability is decreased. This is something my conscious won’t allow. When i was applying a H1 i had option to go for a regular H1 or last years left over masters Quota (The first year masters Quota opened, USCIS started accepting applications in Jan for that already started fiscal year). I decided to go for the Masters one so that i don’t use up a number from the coming year's regular or masters quota .. i could have saved money staying on OPT but i did not
Moral of the story .... please think about ur actions and be considerate to others. We is stronger then me.
-M
Moral of the story .... please think about ur actions and be considerate to others. We is stronger then me.
-M
2011 Nike LeBron 8 V2 Low Metallic
natrajs
09-05 12:11 PM
What's the big deal, if it is not this year may be in next few years another bill will be introduced. Bills will kept being introduced and some day one of those bill will pass.
Why should I worry about it? Do you really think you can make a difference?
Even the answer is yes, people with late priority dates should be more worried as they are the ones who will get their GC in several years. If they are not worried, why are you?
You know there is a saying that goes in my country, you can bring horse to water but you can't make him drink.
So dude take it easy... Even though in 5-10 years but folks will get their GC (of course assuming other things remain constant)
I may have early PD but it doesn't make GC is granted, rather than focus on �What�s in for me� please focus on common issue.
Great people had not thought about themselves, they always thought about the future.
There is old say in my country that a person who plants a tree will not be get benefited through that, but still plant it; the reason is that the person believes that the tree will give benefits to the future generations
Why should I worry about it? Do you really think you can make a difference?
Even the answer is yes, people with late priority dates should be more worried as they are the ones who will get their GC in several years. If they are not worried, why are you?
You know there is a saying that goes in my country, you can bring horse to water but you can't make him drink.
So dude take it easy... Even though in 5-10 years but folks will get their GC (of course assuming other things remain constant)
I may have early PD but it doesn't make GC is granted, rather than focus on �What�s in for me� please focus on common issue.
Great people had not thought about themselves, they always thought about the future.
There is old say in my country that a person who plants a tree will not be get benefited through that, but still plant it; the reason is that the person believes that the tree will give benefits to the future generations
more...
cinqsit
01-13 08:16 PM
Thanks a lot for the replies.
I have an infopass appointment for tomorrow. Are the infopass officers qualified to review the file and process it right away?
Nope infopass officers are not at all helpful. I found out that many are just
"half-trained" customer service reps who have access to whatever online
system USCIS uses. They can tell you if your background checks were cleared,
what your priority date is (if you have multiple I-140s) and if every thing
has been bundled together in your "A-file" or not.
I had a horrible infopass where the "officer" didnt even know what a I-140 was.
Try sending a clear letter to the ombudsman right away. Be very clear an give copies
of everything you have I-485 receipts, your PD, country of chargeability etc etc.
I did send a letter to the ombudsman in mid dec got a usual we have opened a
request with USCIS and you will get answer in 45 days 2 weeks ago. Last week
got a phone call - yes a phone call - from them last week saying they got a email from USCIS saying my case is being fowarded for adjudication and you will get a result within 30 days.
Best of luck
cinqsit
I have an infopass appointment for tomorrow. Are the infopass officers qualified to review the file and process it right away?
Nope infopass officers are not at all helpful. I found out that many are just
"half-trained" customer service reps who have access to whatever online
system USCIS uses. They can tell you if your background checks were cleared,
what your priority date is (if you have multiple I-140s) and if every thing
has been bundled together in your "A-file" or not.
I had a horrible infopass where the "officer" didnt even know what a I-140 was.
Try sending a clear letter to the ombudsman right away. Be very clear an give copies
of everything you have I-485 receipts, your PD, country of chargeability etc etc.
I did send a letter to the ombudsman in mid dec got a usual we have opened a
request with USCIS and you will get answer in 45 days 2 weeks ago. Last week
got a phone call - yes a phone call - from them last week saying they got a email from USCIS saying my case is being fowarded for adjudication and you will get a result within 30 days.
Best of luck
cinqsit
InTheMoment
02-06 11:53 PM
Senthil,
If you invoke AC21 and get your own EAD, it beats me ...what stops your wife from getting her own whereby both of you stay in status !
If you invoke AC21 and get your own EAD, it beats me ...what stops your wife from getting her own whereby both of you stay in status !
more...
gman
07-29 01:45 PM
I filed my I-485 on Aug 13, 2007 (Received date) under EB3 ROW (> 180 days). My I-140 was filed for job "Systems Analyst". I am now being offered a job as "Director of Development" managing the development process along with 30-40 people for another company. I know this theme has been discussed and has risks but would it be OK to take the job. I have approved EAD and AP due to expire on Nov 21 (will renew tomorrow just in case GC does not get approved by then). Has anyone been in this position? I have valid H1-B visa and have not used EAD or AP.
Any advice highly appreciated. thanks!
Any advice highly appreciated. thanks!
2010 quot;Christmasquot; Nike LeBron 8 v2
aamchimumbai
05-17 03:11 AM
How long did i take for you to get the vaccinations ? I mean were you done in a day.
Thanks
I just posted another alternative to saving on the vaccines:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=87048&postcount=20
Basically, if your county health dept has a program, they can give you vaccinations for dirt cheap prices. I paid only $10 per person for Td & MMR :)
Thanks
I just posted another alternative to saving on the vaccines:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=87048&postcount=20
Basically, if your county health dept has a program, they can give you vaccinations for dirt cheap prices. I paid only $10 per person for Td & MMR :)
more...
CantLeaveAmerica
04-16 02:06 PM
I am willing to move to Flower Mound, TX. Any info will be greatly appreciated!
Hi,
I used to live in Dallas, TX before. Flower Mound is an excellent place, great school district if u have kids, lovely houses and residential community, close to both DFW airport and Grapevine Mills Mall...u couldnt ask for a better place!
Hi,
I used to live in Dallas, TX before. Flower Mound is an excellent place, great school district if u have kids, lovely houses and residential community, close to both DFW airport and Grapevine Mills Mall...u couldnt ask for a better place!
hair nike air max lebron 8 v2 low
GCmuddu_H1BVaddu
02-01 08:11 PM
I would suggest to build a wind mill and generate own power next winter :D
My a** was burned with big electricity bill last winter when I was in apartment . If I put 70 hall will be very hot and bed room will be very cold. If I put 75 bed room is ok but people in hall are sweating. No proper control because of poor maitenance and also the apartment location.
You will be surprised I am paying less power bill now in new house of 2500 SQFT than I was paying in 1100 SQFT apartment (with no one at home from 8 AM to 6 PM and all lights off by 10.30 PM).
I am repeating myself, most of the times it is because of the poor maintenance of the heating system. That causes the system to run all the time.Ask how long ago the management did maintenance to the heating system (not just replacing the filter twice a year which doesn't do anything other than clean air)
My a** was burned with big electricity bill last winter when I was in apartment . If I put 70 hall will be very hot and bed room will be very cold. If I put 75 bed room is ok but people in hall are sweating. No proper control because of poor maitenance and also the apartment location.
You will be surprised I am paying less power bill now in new house of 2500 SQFT than I was paying in 1100 SQFT apartment (with no one at home from 8 AM to 6 PM and all lights off by 10.30 PM).
I am repeating myself, most of the times it is because of the poor maintenance of the heating system. That causes the system to run all the time.Ask how long ago the management did maintenance to the heating system (not just replacing the filter twice a year which doesn't do anything other than clean air)
more...
raju_abc
07-23 11:18 AM
Pittsburg ?? what state CA or PA ?? since there is no "h", I assume you are talking about pittsburg in CA ...
Its Pittsburgh , PA
Its Pittsburgh , PA
hot Nike LeBron 8 V2
friend99
10-09 09:46 PM
Everything ha0s been done through a Lawyer, I mean my application was applied through a Lawyer and still rejected for no reason!
more...
house Nike Air Max LeBron 8 V2 Black
kshitijnt
10-07 02:50 PM
So, you can keep driving in Maryland with your Ohio license as long as it's valid but you cannot get a Maryland drivers license because of some stupid notes written on the Ohio license?
This is really frustrating to see how some states target (segregate?) the legal immigrants.
Until someone sues nothing is going to happen. Most americans are scared of only one thing, lawsuit.
This is really frustrating to see how some states target (segregate?) the legal immigrants.
Until someone sues nothing is going to happen. Most americans are scared of only one thing, lawsuit.
tattoo nike air max lebron 8 v2 low
ganguteli
04-23 01:16 PM
I know it is a loss in priority date. But my point is: "does fighting with the lawyer, give him his time back?" In fact by that he is loosing his valuable time and energy further.
If there is "ANY" method to get his "LC" approved with the same priority date, I totally agree he should do that.
That is what I mean by "focus on your goal". If your goal is to fight with lawyer for a cause, just do it. You will at least feel happy that you did the right thing, whatever you felt right.
If a lawyer made the mistake and you complain, then at least you will save others like you. One should stop being selfish or scared.
Will you keep quiet if someone robs you or does you harm. Will you at that time think you will lose your time and energy if you report it to cops?
I want to say that I have seen a lot of people blaming lawyers for their problems in immigration. This maybe false too. These lawyers are also doing their jobs. Just because you did not get a good service does not mean they maybe bad. Why did you choose them in the first place. You should have done your due homework first and if you were not satisfied you could have fired them too. And if they are bad, then go and complain to authorities. Do not be scared and listen to people who scare you. You live in a country that has laws and a system.
If there is "ANY" method to get his "LC" approved with the same priority date, I totally agree he should do that.
That is what I mean by "focus on your goal". If your goal is to fight with lawyer for a cause, just do it. You will at least feel happy that you did the right thing, whatever you felt right.
If a lawyer made the mistake and you complain, then at least you will save others like you. One should stop being selfish or scared.
Will you keep quiet if someone robs you or does you harm. Will you at that time think you will lose your time and energy if you report it to cops?
I want to say that I have seen a lot of people blaming lawyers for their problems in immigration. This maybe false too. These lawyers are also doing their jobs. Just because you did not get a good service does not mean they maybe bad. Why did you choose them in the first place. You should have done your due homework first and if you were not satisfied you could have fired them too. And if they are bad, then go and complain to authorities. Do not be scared and listen to people who scare you. You live in a country that has laws and a system.
more...
pictures Nike LeBron 8 V2 Low Sprite
Waitingnvain
02-08 10:01 AM
I will be in transit through Amsterdam, do I need a transit visa and are there any problems with travelling on Advance Parole.
Thanks
Thanks
dresses nike air max lebron 8 v2 black
kumar.yerr
12-15 05:36 PM
I attended Visa Interview for my H1B extension today (Dec 11th 2009) at Hyderabad Consulate.
I do have a genuine job and had been working for the same client since the day I started working in the US..
VO gave me 221g Yellow form and he didn't check anything. He asked me to drop all the documents in the drop box. He didn't mention anything about the passport.
Below is conversation:
1) DS-156, 157 & Passport
A) I handed him those docs.
2) Are you returning to the same job?
A) Yes sir
3) Can I see the client letter?
A) I gave a letter from Fedex. (Attached the client letter I submitted to the Consulate Officer)
4) Can I see your Paystubs?
A) Gave him all the paystubs since May 2007.
5) Why are the amounts different in paystubs?
A) Base salary is same, but bonus component varies every pay cycle. Also, my employer had switched to a different payroll company and since then they are running the payroll weekly.
He then gave me a 221g Yellow form and asked me to drop all the documents in the dropbox. And he also asked me if he could keep the client letter. I said Yes.
Couple of questions:
1) Should i drop my passport along with all other documents?
2) What is the success rate and
3) Why do they usually issue an Yellow slip?
Any help is greatly appreciated..
Thanks and Regards..
I do have a genuine job and had been working for the same client since the day I started working in the US..
VO gave me 221g Yellow form and he didn't check anything. He asked me to drop all the documents in the drop box. He didn't mention anything about the passport.
Below is conversation:
1) DS-156, 157 & Passport
A) I handed him those docs.
2) Are you returning to the same job?
A) Yes sir
3) Can I see the client letter?
A) I gave a letter from Fedex. (Attached the client letter I submitted to the Consulate Officer)
4) Can I see your Paystubs?
A) Gave him all the paystubs since May 2007.
5) Why are the amounts different in paystubs?
A) Base salary is same, but bonus component varies every pay cycle. Also, my employer had switched to a different payroll company and since then they are running the payroll weekly.
He then gave me a 221g Yellow form and asked me to drop all the documents in the dropbox. And he also asked me if he could keep the client letter. I said Yes.
Couple of questions:
1) Should i drop my passport along with all other documents?
2) What is the success rate and
3) Why do they usually issue an Yellow slip?
Any help is greatly appreciated..
Thanks and Regards..
more...
makeup Nike LeBron 8 V2 Low quot;Spritequot;
immi_seeker
09-11 06:21 PM
There has been a understanding that the number of EB cases (EB2+EB3) with PD of 2005 is very less compared to previous years (close to 8000 i believe). If thats the case and assume 2004 cases are cleared why didnt the VB make more advance movements?
girlfriend nike air max lebron 8 v2
rkm
07-17 06:52 PM
Just made payment $100.00
Thank you
Thank you
hairstyles This Lebron 8 V2 low features
gcformeornot
12-31 02:12 PM
being in same boat sometimes rocks sometime scares.......
binadh
07-12 01:06 PM
May be someone from NY can start calling/writing clintons office. Help us or return that $$$$.
As per this report Indian-Americans raise $2Million. Can we get some help from her to raise our issues?
source: http://www.nysun.com/article/57238
If you think this thread is useless, CORE please close this thread.
As per this report Indian-Americans raise $2Million. Can we get some help from her to raise our issues?
source: http://www.nysun.com/article/57238
If you think this thread is useless, CORE please close this thread.
newuser
07-17 11:02 PM
I used to watch CNN for any news update and visit CNN.com atleast 10 times a day. Not anymore. I didn't visit the website for the last two days and I am sending e-mails to all my friends to stop watching CNN and all the products that endrosed Lou Dobbs show.
I am getting my info from www.nytimes.com now and watching msnbc on cable.
I am getting my info from www.nytimes.com now and watching msnbc on cable.
No comments:
Post a Comment