Ramba
09-03 04:48 PM
You have two options. One is forget the current GC and take new job re-start your GC.
The second option is keep a copy of your I 140 approval. Join a new company. Re-Start the GC application. When the new labor is approved and lawyer is ready to ship the I 140 package to USCIS ask him to include the copy of Old I 140 approval notice in it with a cover letter to USCIS requesting porting the old priority date to your new application. ( I am not sure of job description in the 2 labors needs to be same/ similar for portablity. My guess is that it does not need to be strictly same but least in same field. Example IT to IT and not say IT to Finance or Healthcare etc)
The best bet is to take an appointment with a lawyer and go over it. Also talk to new companys immigration attorney if he will support this porting when the time comes.
Wrong information. In order to retain the PD from old 140 when filing new 140, the both jobs need not be in same/similar field. You are confused with AC21 job change. The first 140 job can be a "cook" in eb3, and the new 140 job can be "rocket scientist" in eb1.
The second option is keep a copy of your I 140 approval. Join a new company. Re-Start the GC application. When the new labor is approved and lawyer is ready to ship the I 140 package to USCIS ask him to include the copy of Old I 140 approval notice in it with a cover letter to USCIS requesting porting the old priority date to your new application. ( I am not sure of job description in the 2 labors needs to be same/ similar for portablity. My guess is that it does not need to be strictly same but least in same field. Example IT to IT and not say IT to Finance or Healthcare etc)
The best bet is to take an appointment with a lawyer and go over it. Also talk to new companys immigration attorney if he will support this porting when the time comes.
Wrong information. In order to retain the PD from old 140 when filing new 140, the both jobs need not be in same/similar field. You are confused with AC21 job change. The first 140 job can be a "cook" in eb3, and the new 140 job can be "rocket scientist" in eb1.
gc2005
11-17 01:35 PM
SKIL is the best bet for us. Hopefully we will see it being discussed soon in Senate.
I agree, SKIL is the best bet for us. There are chances of something happenning before Oct 2007 because of no H1B visa numbers being available unitl then. I don't think it has been that bad situation with H1B until now.
I agree, SKIL is the best bet for us. There are chances of something happenning before Oct 2007 because of no H1B visa numbers being available unitl then. I don't think it has been that bad situation with H1B until now.
amoljak
10-16 01:51 PM
Which country are you from ?
jprangi
08-04 11:28 PM
I know lot of people are waiting. But just want to tell you all the INS is moving forward may be slow. I just received my receipt notices today. My application reached INS on July second at 11:25 am. My checks have also been cashed.
Cheer up guys and keep you fingers crossed.
-Rangi
Cheer up guys and keep you fingers crossed.
-Rangi
more...
ash12
07-27 02:11 PM
Related to the questions on this thread.
What happens when:
AOS has been filed and it is more than 180 days AND
dependent has started working on EAD AND
primary applicant loses job
Case 1: primary applicant is also on EAD
Case 2: primary applicant continues on H1 without using EAD
Do the primary applicant and/or spouse become out of status in either of these situations? Can the primary applicant invoke AC21 and look for another job - how much time does he/she have? i.e. does the AOS filing provide primary applicant a cushion in case of job loss?
thanks!
What happens when:
AOS has been filed and it is more than 180 days AND
dependent has started working on EAD AND
primary applicant loses job
Case 1: primary applicant is also on EAD
Case 2: primary applicant continues on H1 without using EAD
Do the primary applicant and/or spouse become out of status in either of these situations? Can the primary applicant invoke AC21 and look for another job - how much time does he/she have? i.e. does the AOS filing provide primary applicant a cushion in case of job loss?
thanks!
dipu76
06-01 08:11 PM
its fine. Your salary should match the LCA salary. The LC salary is for 'future job'. the only place it might come into play is if your employer is very small, and there are ability-to-pay issues (here, if your current salary matches LC salary then its easier to say that employer has ability to pay).
Thank you all for your expert advice!!.. My I140 was approved about a year back.. I am working for one of the top 10 outsourcing co.. so it is very unlikely that they will do an error though we can't be certain..
Thank you all for your expert advice!!.. My I140 was approved about a year back.. I am working for one of the top 10 outsourcing co.. so it is very unlikely that they will do an error though we can't be certain..
more...
pragir
12-12 04:10 PM
There are literally no unapproved cases for EB2 India in before Jan 2000. There are a number of them in 2000/01/02. So, I think moving the date back to Jan 2000 is a way for DOS to pretty much shut off the spigot before they start opening it up slowly again.
I think that for the rest of the year, they will advance the PD for EB2-India month by month so they dont have a glut of demand for visa numbers.
I think that for the rest of the year, they will advance the PD for EB2-India month by month so they dont have a glut of demand for visa numbers.
sanjay
02-02 12:03 PM
`Sec. 245B. (a) In General- The Secretary of Homeland Security may adjust the status of an alien to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if the alien--
`(1) was physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 5 years immediately preceding the date on which this provision was enacted and has maintained continuous physical presence since then;
Any thoughts???
Assume:
This mean from the date this bill gets enacted, one should stay in USA for five years continuously.
It's impossible, atleast for me. I can't even think that I won't be able to go to India for 5 years. It would be a torture on my soul. This kind of clause works for an un-documented immigrant, who don't have a choice to leave but not for legal immigrant.
What my company tell me to go to another country say some Brazil to implement project and infrastructure and I had to stay 2 months? Then I have to start afresh ?
`(1) was physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 5 years immediately preceding the date on which this provision was enacted and has maintained continuous physical presence since then;
Any thoughts???
Assume:
This mean from the date this bill gets enacted, one should stay in USA for five years continuously.
It's impossible, atleast for me. I can't even think that I won't be able to go to India for 5 years. It would be a torture on my soul. This kind of clause works for an un-documented immigrant, who don't have a choice to leave but not for legal immigrant.
What my company tell me to go to another country say some Brazil to implement project and infrastructure and I had to stay 2 months? Then I have to start afresh ?
more...
dixie
09-05 05:47 PM
Not sure what happens technically to the old CIR, but most likely both the senate and house will throw away their respective bills and start from scratch.
I have a hypethetical situation
1. Say in the election Dems get both house and Senate AND
2. No compromise happens in CIR at Lame Duck Session too. Also
no SKILL passes too AND
3. New winners Sworn in and its congress controlled by Dems.
Now what is the status of the CIR that was passed in the senate and
that house bill passed? Does it expire or go annul? Or can these
new members come a compromise on that? What could be the attittude of the congress member towards it? It would be really interesting to know the
legal sides and political attittude of lawmakers to it.
thanks
I have a hypethetical situation
1. Say in the election Dems get both house and Senate AND
2. No compromise happens in CIR at Lame Duck Session too. Also
no SKILL passes too AND
3. New winners Sworn in and its congress controlled by Dems.
Now what is the status of the CIR that was passed in the senate and
that house bill passed? Does it expire or go annul? Or can these
new members come a compromise on that? What could be the attittude of the congress member towards it? It would be really interesting to know the
legal sides and political attittude of lawmakers to it.
thanks
sreeks925
02-03 04:44 AM
Bush urges US Congress to lift H-1B visa limit
Making a strong pitch for America to stay competitive in the face of emerging economies such as India and China, President George W Bush has urged the Congress to raise the number of H-1B visas that allow companies to hire foreign workers for scientific and high tech jobs.
"Congress needs to understand that nations like India, China, Japan, Korea and Canada all offer tax incentives that are permanent. In other words, we live in a competitive world. We want to be the leader in this world," Bush said in a speech in Minnesota on Thursday.
To fill vacant jobs in the US, Bush urged the Congress to lift current limit on H-1B visas that allow foreign workers to get jobs in the United States. The Congress in 2005 capped at 65,000 the number of H-1B visas, a third of the 195,000 allowed during the technology boom.
"I think it's a mistake not to encourage more really bright folks who can fill the jobs that are having trouble being filled here in America, to limit their number. So I call upon Congress to be realistic and reasonable and raise that cap," Bush said, but did not say by how much he wanted the limit lifted.
He said that one part of the agenda to stay competitive was to study math and science, a theme he touched on in his State of the Union Address on Tuesday.
"It's one thing to research, but if you don't have somebody in that lab, well� And so I got some ideas for the Congress to consider. The first is to emphasize math and science early, and to make sure that the courses are rigorous enough that our children can compete globally," Bush said in a speech at the 3M Corporation.
He said there are more high-tech jobs in America today than people available to fill them. "So what do we do about that? And the reason it's important -- and the American citizen has got to understand it's important -- is if we don't do something about how to fill those high-tech jobs here, they'll go somewhere else where somebody can do the job."
"There are some who say, we can't worry about competition. It doesn't matter, it's here. It's a real aspect of the world in which we live," he said.
"And so one way to deal with this problem, and probably the most effective way, is to recognize that there's a lot of bright engineers and chemists and physicists from other lands that are either educated here, or received an education elsewhere but want to work here. And they come here under a programme called H1B visas," Bush said.
He said America should not fear competition. "It's important for us not to lose our confidence in changing times. It's important for us not to fear competition but welcome it."
Senior administration officials noted that the number of H-1B visas has fallen to 65,000 which in their estimation was 'too low' and that it was imperative 'to bump that up.'
". . . some of reports have called for increases of 10,000; others between 20,000 and 40,000. So there is a number of options on the table to be considered. But we'll work with Congress on that," said Claude Allen, assistant to the President for domestic policy.
Making a strong pitch for America to stay competitive in the face of emerging economies such as India and China, President George W Bush has urged the Congress to raise the number of H-1B visas that allow companies to hire foreign workers for scientific and high tech jobs.
"Congress needs to understand that nations like India, China, Japan, Korea and Canada all offer tax incentives that are permanent. In other words, we live in a competitive world. We want to be the leader in this world," Bush said in a speech in Minnesota on Thursday.
To fill vacant jobs in the US, Bush urged the Congress to lift current limit on H-1B visas that allow foreign workers to get jobs in the United States. The Congress in 2005 capped at 65,000 the number of H-1B visas, a third of the 195,000 allowed during the technology boom.
"I think it's a mistake not to encourage more really bright folks who can fill the jobs that are having trouble being filled here in America, to limit their number. So I call upon Congress to be realistic and reasonable and raise that cap," Bush said, but did not say by how much he wanted the limit lifted.
He said that one part of the agenda to stay competitive was to study math and science, a theme he touched on in his State of the Union Address on Tuesday.
"It's one thing to research, but if you don't have somebody in that lab, well� And so I got some ideas for the Congress to consider. The first is to emphasize math and science early, and to make sure that the courses are rigorous enough that our children can compete globally," Bush said in a speech at the 3M Corporation.
He said there are more high-tech jobs in America today than people available to fill them. "So what do we do about that? And the reason it's important -- and the American citizen has got to understand it's important -- is if we don't do something about how to fill those high-tech jobs here, they'll go somewhere else where somebody can do the job."
"There are some who say, we can't worry about competition. It doesn't matter, it's here. It's a real aspect of the world in which we live," he said.
"And so one way to deal with this problem, and probably the most effective way, is to recognize that there's a lot of bright engineers and chemists and physicists from other lands that are either educated here, or received an education elsewhere but want to work here. And they come here under a programme called H1B visas," Bush said.
He said America should not fear competition. "It's important for us not to lose our confidence in changing times. It's important for us not to fear competition but welcome it."
Senior administration officials noted that the number of H-1B visas has fallen to 65,000 which in their estimation was 'too low' and that it was imperative 'to bump that up.'
". . . some of reports have called for increases of 10,000; others between 20,000 and 40,000. So there is a number of options on the table to be considered. But we'll work with Congress on that," said Claude Allen, assistant to the President for domestic policy.
more...
Munna Bhai
01-09 12:54 PM
which service center? You can ask your employer to ask USCIS as 140 is employer's application.
Can anyone tell me, is this common wait time and what more i can do.
Can anyone tell me, is this common wait time and what more i can do.
Mohit_Malkani
10-08 11:13 AM
Sorry to hear about your situation.
Take a look at www.immigtation-law.com. Go to the nreaking news swction. They have a great piece on I140/I485 portability.
I have also pasted it here in case you dont get to the website
All the best.
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 physically 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 ensure. 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.
Take a look at www.immigtation-law.com. Go to the nreaking news swction. They have a great piece on I140/I485 portability.
I have also pasted it here in case you dont get to the website
All the best.
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 physically 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 ensure. 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.
more...
ikass
05-29 08:35 AM
Even if we can get one of these, especially, Item #3 passed will provide relief to many candidates.
For example, we can request Congress to amend to "Allow USCIS to issue 3 year EAD along with I140 Approval."
Can IV help pass this request on Advocacy days?
For example, we can request Congress to amend to "Allow USCIS to issue 3 year EAD along with I140 Approval."
Can IV help pass this request on Advocacy days?
latejunefiler
07-12 09:28 AM
Singhsa,
Thats a great poem!!
I have made some aesthetic changes to your document and uploaded here.
http://www.geocities.com/latejunefiler/Ghandhigiri.pdf
Thats a great poem!!
I have made some aesthetic changes to your document and uploaded here.
http://www.geocities.com/latejunefiler/Ghandhigiri.pdf
more...
looivy
08-14 12:11 PM
That is a relief...
heywhat
10-24 01:37 PM
I gave you green .. be happy .. and keep helping others
Someone gave me a red dot for this post. Why?? Now folks think twice before trying to help someone on this forum, you might get a negative reputation.
Someone gave me a red dot for this post. Why?? Now folks think twice before trying to help someone on this forum, you might get a negative reputation.
more...
Munna Bhai
02-08 11:59 AM
You want to keep your 140 intact for 2 reasons:
1. To port the priority date for future use in a subsequent Greencard petition.
2. To get more H1 extensions based on this 140, until you have another labor and 140 going on with new employer.
First, about 1:
There is a lot of information on this thread about priority date transfers (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=912)from old approved 140 to a new 140. Read that thread and you will learn all you want to learn and all the information out there in the immigration world about PD transfer from one 140 to another 140.
In a nutshell:
Its a grey area of the law. If your 140 is never revoked, you would be fine and able to port your priority date. If it is revoked for fraud and willful misrepresentation, then you cannot port that PD under any circumstances. If 140 is revoked by employer then it falls into grey area. USCIS adjudicator's field manual says that you can still port your PD. The code of federal regulations says that you cannot. Currently USCIS is porting priority dates even if employer has revoked that 140, and they are following the AFM(adjudicator's field manual). However that can change in future. Legislation trumps regulation and regulation trumps the adjudicator's field manual. For now, things are great as AFM is being followed.
About 2:
If you have an H1 approved for 3 years after 140 approval, and you transfer jobs to a new employer and get another H1. You should be fine. If your previous employer cancels your I-140 after you leave and go to another employer, then USCIS will not go back and cancel your H1 because it was based on an approved 140 that is now revoked. This is what is happening as of now. At the time of H1 transfer to your new employer, your 140 should be in good status and you should have a photocopy of your approved 140. Once your H1 transfer is done (probably will have same end-date as the current 3-year H1 from your current employer), if the 140 is revoked AFTER that, then you should be fine. I am saying this based on advice from a very good lawyer.
Now, in far future, USCIS may decide to go and look for H1s that were approved based on approved 140 and then if that 140 is revoked, then they would go and cancel that H1 also. Its very very unlikely that they would do that even in future. They dont have that kind of resources to keep track of H1s based on 140 approvals and then go back and cancel them whenever some disappointed employer revokes 140.
About preventing 140 from being revoked:
I do not think that by changing lawyers, you can stop the previous 140 from being revoked. Your previous employer, for any reason, can get that 140 revoked with any lawyer they choose, regardless of who your current lawyer is. Lawyers are tied to clients, not petitions and cases. However, if someone knows more about this, please post here.
Thanks, please let everyone know if by changing lawyers is there anyway of protecting I-140 from being revoked?? or is there any other way out??
1. To port the priority date for future use in a subsequent Greencard petition.
2. To get more H1 extensions based on this 140, until you have another labor and 140 going on with new employer.
First, about 1:
There is a lot of information on this thread about priority date transfers (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=912)from old approved 140 to a new 140. Read that thread and you will learn all you want to learn and all the information out there in the immigration world about PD transfer from one 140 to another 140.
In a nutshell:
Its a grey area of the law. If your 140 is never revoked, you would be fine and able to port your priority date. If it is revoked for fraud and willful misrepresentation, then you cannot port that PD under any circumstances. If 140 is revoked by employer then it falls into grey area. USCIS adjudicator's field manual says that you can still port your PD. The code of federal regulations says that you cannot. Currently USCIS is porting priority dates even if employer has revoked that 140, and they are following the AFM(adjudicator's field manual). However that can change in future. Legislation trumps regulation and regulation trumps the adjudicator's field manual. For now, things are great as AFM is being followed.
About 2:
If you have an H1 approved for 3 years after 140 approval, and you transfer jobs to a new employer and get another H1. You should be fine. If your previous employer cancels your I-140 after you leave and go to another employer, then USCIS will not go back and cancel your H1 because it was based on an approved 140 that is now revoked. This is what is happening as of now. At the time of H1 transfer to your new employer, your 140 should be in good status and you should have a photocopy of your approved 140. Once your H1 transfer is done (probably will have same end-date as the current 3-year H1 from your current employer), if the 140 is revoked AFTER that, then you should be fine. I am saying this based on advice from a very good lawyer.
Now, in far future, USCIS may decide to go and look for H1s that were approved based on approved 140 and then if that 140 is revoked, then they would go and cancel that H1 also. Its very very unlikely that they would do that even in future. They dont have that kind of resources to keep track of H1s based on 140 approvals and then go back and cancel them whenever some disappointed employer revokes 140.
About preventing 140 from being revoked:
I do not think that by changing lawyers, you can stop the previous 140 from being revoked. Your previous employer, for any reason, can get that 140 revoked with any lawyer they choose, regardless of who your current lawyer is. Lawyers are tied to clients, not petitions and cases. However, if someone knows more about this, please post here.
Thanks, please let everyone know if by changing lawyers is there anyway of protecting I-140 from being revoked?? or is there any other way out??
imv116
06-06 05:26 PM
Hi,
I have some questions in regard to using AC21.
Using AC21, what are the risks involved with I140, provided it is:
1. Already approved and more than 180 days after filling I485?
2. New job/position is “same or similar” as mentioned in I140?
Situation:
1. Employer wants to revoke the I140 or in way threatens
2. Can I have the freedom to change employer, provided I have a “same or similar” position and I timely file AC21 with new employment details.
Also, with links to a MEMO from USCIS dated August 4, 2003. Are there any updates to that memo?
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/I140_AC21_8403.pdf
http://www.murthy.com/news/UDportme.html
Please give your suggestions
Thanks All,
IMV116
I have some questions in regard to using AC21.
Using AC21, what are the risks involved with I140, provided it is:
1. Already approved and more than 180 days after filling I485?
2. New job/position is “same or similar” as mentioned in I140?
Situation:
1. Employer wants to revoke the I140 or in way threatens
2. Can I have the freedom to change employer, provided I have a “same or similar” position and I timely file AC21 with new employment details.
Also, with links to a MEMO from USCIS dated August 4, 2003. Are there any updates to that memo?
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/I140_AC21_8403.pdf
http://www.murthy.com/news/UDportme.html
Please give your suggestions
Thanks All,
IMV116
seahawks
03-15 11:57 AM
I also just emailed.
thanks.
just faxed my wife's and my FOIA letters too..
thanks.
just faxed my wife's and my FOIA letters too..
saveimmigration
12-06 02:22 PM
After seeing so much activism on Dream Act in the news, I think Dream Act deserves to be passed. Recapture does not. We are responsible for it for not doing anything if Dream Act passes. Just Google Dream Act and you will see so much work done on this. Compare it to Recapture bill. Reporters will also write about issues where they see lot of activity. We are simply not doing enough.
DREAM act is a political issue if passed will get Democrats millions and millions of hispanic votes and possibly help them in 2012 election. Republicans will also want those votes. So there is a possibility that DREAM will pass some day. It is unfortunate illegal aliens get path to citizenship and legal immigrants like us have to wait on an untimed line with a hope to get green card. It is all politics my friends. Bottom line is they are illegal when they came here. If they are students they should get F1 visas if they are working should get work permits. Giving them citizenship is ridiculous. No one supports our cause, not even the Hispanic community. Dude we should oppose illegal immigration that has kept legal immigration at hostage. Jai Hind!1
DREAM act is a political issue if passed will get Democrats millions and millions of hispanic votes and possibly help them in 2012 election. Republicans will also want those votes. So there is a possibility that DREAM will pass some day. It is unfortunate illegal aliens get path to citizenship and legal immigrants like us have to wait on an untimed line with a hope to get green card. It is all politics my friends. Bottom line is they are illegal when they came here. If they are students they should get F1 visas if they are working should get work permits. Giving them citizenship is ridiculous. No one supports our cause, not even the Hispanic community. Dude we should oppose illegal immigration that has kept legal immigration at hostage. Jai Hind!1
Be_Pragmatic
07-23 05:16 PM
I'm in a similar predicament as well. I'm on EAD and 485 is pending, can I claim unemployment benefits?
No comments:
Post a Comment