irrational
06-30 04:23 PM
Message from AILA (American Immigration Lawyers Association) website about the biometrics cancellations:
6/30/2009 ASC Biometrics Cancellations
USCIS has reportedly cancelled all biometrics appointments for July 7-July 9, and all appointments are to be rescheduled in 2-3 weeks. AILA Doc. No. 09063061.
6/30/2009 ASC Biometrics Cancellations
USCIS has reportedly cancelled all biometrics appointments for July 7-July 9, and all appointments are to be rescheduled in 2-3 weeks. AILA Doc. No. 09063061.
wallpaper Worst Movie Titles Ever: Fat
TheCanadian
10-22 06:38 PM
You eat dinner on tables, so why not use them for websites?
You don't use DIVs to build houses, so why use them for websites?
You don't use DIVs to build houses, so why use them for websites?
GC4US
01-21 01:44 AM
Can soneone help me with this question.....please....
My husband is on H1B and I'm on Ead.....both of us have expired I-94 stamps.....we are planing to go to our home country this year...we want to apply for advance parole......my question is.....can we enter U.S both of us with AD?
I read on Uscis website that you need to have personal reason in order to go to your country while I-485 is pending....and you have to prove your personal reason.....is that true....we want only to visit our parents.
Thanks in advance!
My husband is on H1B and I'm on Ead.....both of us have expired I-94 stamps.....we are planing to go to our home country this year...we want to apply for advance parole......my question is.....can we enter U.S both of us with AD?
I read on Uscis website that you need to have personal reason in order to go to your country while I-485 is pending....and you have to prove your personal reason.....is that true....we want only to visit our parents.
Thanks in advance!
2011 9 Funny Porn Titles – coed
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.
more...
canmt
10-19 10:37 AM
You are required to send a notice to your lawyer letting him know that you no longer require his/her service. Also notify USCIS in writing that your lawyer does not represent you anymore and send correspondence to you directly. If any USCIS notice addressed to you was transmitted to your former counsel, it should be available to you from counsel. You may wish to request forwarding of all post-representation correspondence that arrived after representation ceased. Although that lawyer may have no obligation to perform any services for you, the office should not impede your ability to answer USCIS requests. You should call the service center and request a copy of any correspondence that was sent to your lawyer until the lawyer sends a notice to USCIS letting them know that he no longer represents your case or until another lawyer files a G-28 for you.
I hope this helps and good luck on your greencard chase.
I hope this helps and good luck on your greencard chase.
uma001
03-08 02:12 PM
usually you will be asked for W2 for those years since your priority date.It doesnt matter when you entered US initially
more...
man-woman-and-gc
03-27 09:17 AM
Thanks for ur response....I have'nt received any Interview notification yet from the USCIS or NBC.
2010 Movie Title: Fear and Loathing
glus
10-21 08:32 PM
All,
I submitted my first application on July 2nd. since I did not get receipt notice till Aug 16th so I filled the second (as back up) one on Aug 16th. Later I did get my receipt notices for July 2nd.
Though, I did put stop payment on the checks for the appliaction filled on Aug 16th but yesterday, I received their receipt notices.
Now, I have two A#s one for July 2nd applications and another one for Aug 16th appliaction.
I was planning to just sit on it and do not respond to finger printing notice or any communciation from USCIS for Aug 16th application and hence causing it to get rejected.
The reason I do not want to communicate with USCIS is that I don't want any confusion and hence anything happen to my July 2nd application.
Is it a right strategy? Please comment.
OK, everyone knows that double I485 was not a good idea. However, many people had done it and I was one who was thinking of it, but did not do it. As per my attorney's advise, stopping a check issued to a governmental entity is not legal. On these grounds, I decided not to file 2nd time.
I guess the best way would be to withdraw the second petition. One can do that by writing a letter stating the reason for withdrawal and sending it to the appropriate service center (with tracking number.) Of course, the reason should be true, "Due to the July Visa Bulletin fiasco and indications that my first I485 could have been lost, I sent out a second application which is should not be considered anymore," or something like that. Withdrawal of the second I485 would, most likely, be the safest way to go about it.
Regards,
I submitted my first application on July 2nd. since I did not get receipt notice till Aug 16th so I filled the second (as back up) one on Aug 16th. Later I did get my receipt notices for July 2nd.
Though, I did put stop payment on the checks for the appliaction filled on Aug 16th but yesterday, I received their receipt notices.
Now, I have two A#s one for July 2nd applications and another one for Aug 16th appliaction.
I was planning to just sit on it and do not respond to finger printing notice or any communciation from USCIS for Aug 16th application and hence causing it to get rejected.
The reason I do not want to communicate with USCIS is that I don't want any confusion and hence anything happen to my July 2nd application.
Is it a right strategy? Please comment.
OK, everyone knows that double I485 was not a good idea. However, many people had done it and I was one who was thinking of it, but did not do it. As per my attorney's advise, stopping a check issued to a governmental entity is not legal. On these grounds, I decided not to file 2nd time.
I guess the best way would be to withdraw the second petition. One can do that by writing a letter stating the reason for withdrawal and sending it to the appropriate service center (with tracking number.) Of course, the reason should be true, "Due to the July Visa Bulletin fiasco and indications that my first I485 could have been lost, I sent out a second application which is should not be considered anymore," or something like that. Withdrawal of the second I485 would, most likely, be the safest way to go about it.
Regards,
more...
zvezdast
07-02 05:50 PM
There is hope....
hair 50 damn funny pics from
black_logs
10-27 11:06 AM
Yes they keep the originals and send it back with your passport, atleast they did in my case. I went to consulate in N. Delhi
My wife went for H4 visa stamping in New Delhi embassy ...
My wife went for H4 visa stamping in New Delhi embassy ...
more...
BharatPremi
09-08 05:51 PM
Sad, No pun intended but USCIS is reciprocating the blunder what you made (Applying for US GC):rolleyes:
hot movie Title : PULSE, DVD
arunmohan
08-08 06:20 PM
Group:
Please vote this poll. I am ready to any kind of support. We have to do something for EB3.
Please vote this poll. I am ready to any kind of support. We have to do something for EB3.
more...
house Self-descriptive movie titles
Beemar
11-05 11:34 PM
You should be having a copy of your approval notice of your I-140. Your lawyer must be having the original copy of this approval notice. Take an info pass appointment, take this I-140 notice copy with you and ask them what exactly is the matter.
My guess is actually same as your HR/attorney. It most likely is a system issue. I have seen the LUD on many of my open petitions actually going back in past! CIS sure has some cheap and clueless programmers at their offices.
Hi
I my PD is July 2003 EB3 (India).
My I140 was approved in 2006 and had applied for 485, EAD, A/P in July 2007 like most of you. Yesterday LUD on my approved I140 and 485, EAD, A/P applications in USCIS changed after months. But now my approved I140 status has changed to
What is even more surprising is that it also says This is incorrect since i got the approval notice in Nov 2006.
I have NOT done any labor substitution or anything like that.
As usually our corporate lawyer and HR were useless and think this is just some system issue at USCIS. Did anyone else see this before? I was looking for other threads but couldn't find anyone else having similar issues.
Immigration gurus - any suggestions/comments? Is this normal?
Thanks!
My guess is actually same as your HR/attorney. It most likely is a system issue. I have seen the LUD on many of my open petitions actually going back in past! CIS sure has some cheap and clueless programmers at their offices.
Hi
I my PD is July 2003 EB3 (India).
My I140 was approved in 2006 and had applied for 485, EAD, A/P in July 2007 like most of you. Yesterday LUD on my approved I140 and 485, EAD, A/P applications in USCIS changed after months. But now my approved I140 status has changed to
What is even more surprising is that it also says This is incorrect since i got the approval notice in Nov 2006.
I have NOT done any labor substitution or anything like that.
As usually our corporate lawyer and HR were useless and think this is just some system issue at USCIS. Did anyone else see this before? I was looking for other threads but couldn't find anyone else having similar issues.
Immigration gurus - any suggestions/comments? Is this normal?
Thanks!
tattoo Watch-funny-movies.com is a
sunilsj
01-21 10:43 AM
I wouldn't make the assumption that this is only happening to consulting cases. I know example where a full-time non-consulting candidate has been held up. Be careful.
more...
pictures Honest Sports Movie Titles
mayitbesoon
02-20 05:47 PM
any inputs on how to open a service request or enquiry through senator's office for I-140 processing delay?
dresses Title: In Ghost House Inn - Is
belmontboy
09-15 02:53 PM
Any ideas? (My wife and son are in india now).
Anyway, I will support IV wholeheartedly going forward. Of course, I got benefitted from it. I am a long timer, 2001, EB3.
Sharab & Kabab.
Anyway, I will support IV wholeheartedly going forward. Of course, I got benefitted from it. I am a long timer, 2001, EB3.
Sharab & Kabab.
more...
makeup Movie Title in my pants
jcrajput
09-30 09:53 PM
Here I am planning to send following letter: Please suggest me ASAP if any changes. I really appericiate your feedback.
Director,
US BUREAU OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES
P.O. Box 805887
Chicago, IL 60680-4120
ATTN: CRU Supervisor - Case Improperly Returned (I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status on Behalf of xxxxx (the �Petitioner�) based on an Employment based visa petition (I-140)
Dear Sir or Madam,
This application/petition was filed along with the required fees is being returned to me for the following reason.
Reference: I797C, Notice of Action, Receipt number: xxxx
Notice date: September 20, 2007
�Please resubmit your application with the �Copy of your form-I797, (Notice of Action) if the petition has already been filed or approved. (I-140)�
I believe that my application was sent along with the copy of I-140 and I feel that my case is improperly returned.
Originally I have sent my I-485 application based on JULY 2007 VISA BULLETIN to NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER. Here below is my shipping detail:
FedEx Tracking number xxxx
Ship (P/U) date Jun 30, 2007
Delivery date Jul 2, 2007 7:55 AM
Sign for by: R.WILLIAMS
Delivered to: Shipping/Receiving
Service type: FedEx First Overnight
Packaging type: FedEx Pak
Number of pieces 1
Weight: 1.00 lb.
Shipper Information
xxx
Recipient Information
xxx
I have sent my application with the copy of form I-797, (Notice of Action) which was already field and approved on date March 09, 2007. Here below if the detail for the form I-797 for case type I-140.
Case type: I-140 (IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER)
Receipt number: xxxx
Receipt date: December 11, 2006
Notice Date: March 9, 2007
Priority date: October 4, 2006
Petitioner: xxxx
Beneficiary: xxxx
A # xxx
NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER.
I would like to re-submit this application and I am requesting for processing once again.
Please contact me if you need any further information or assistance. Your kind attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
xxxx
Human Resources Manager
xxxxxxx
Director,
US BUREAU OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES
P.O. Box 805887
Chicago, IL 60680-4120
ATTN: CRU Supervisor - Case Improperly Returned (I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status on Behalf of xxxxx (the �Petitioner�) based on an Employment based visa petition (I-140)
Dear Sir or Madam,
This application/petition was filed along with the required fees is being returned to me for the following reason.
Reference: I797C, Notice of Action, Receipt number: xxxx
Notice date: September 20, 2007
�Please resubmit your application with the �Copy of your form-I797, (Notice of Action) if the petition has already been filed or approved. (I-140)�
I believe that my application was sent along with the copy of I-140 and I feel that my case is improperly returned.
Originally I have sent my I-485 application based on JULY 2007 VISA BULLETIN to NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER. Here below is my shipping detail:
FedEx Tracking number xxxx
Ship (P/U) date Jun 30, 2007
Delivery date Jul 2, 2007 7:55 AM
Sign for by: R.WILLIAMS
Delivered to: Shipping/Receiving
Service type: FedEx First Overnight
Packaging type: FedEx Pak
Number of pieces 1
Weight: 1.00 lb.
Shipper Information
xxx
Recipient Information
xxx
I have sent my application with the copy of form I-797, (Notice of Action) which was already field and approved on date March 09, 2007. Here below if the detail for the form I-797 for case type I-140.
Case type: I-140 (IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER)
Receipt number: xxxx
Receipt date: December 11, 2006
Notice Date: March 9, 2007
Priority date: October 4, 2006
Petitioner: xxxx
Beneficiary: xxxx
A # xxx
NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER.
I would like to re-submit this application and I am requesting for processing once again.
Please contact me if you need any further information or assistance. Your kind attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
xxxx
Human Resources Manager
xxxxxxx
girlfriend strip away a movie#39;s title
ilikekilo
01-08 04:03 PM
No offense to anyone but I think this is how the market is flooded sometimes with short term trained and oppurtunisticly timing decisions made by people.
Before you change careers I think you ought to see whether it really fits ur goals and aspirations..my 2 cents... CHances are you may not even like that job and want ot get trained in something else...I dont make a boat load of money but I like my job so far...however if money is the sole (please dont confuse this with means of living) reason to get into any job there are so many jobs and fields one can explore and change often...Its all your personal choice...
Before you change careers I think you ought to see whether it really fits ur goals and aspirations..my 2 cents... CHances are you may not even like that job and want ot get trained in something else...I dont make a boat load of money but I like my job so far...however if money is the sole (please dont confuse this with means of living) reason to get into any job there are so many jobs and fields one can explore and change often...Its all your personal choice...
hairstyles A Very Literal Movie Title,
maddipati1
08-20 03:58 PM
i traveled to India and went for stamping when my PP was expiring within couple of months and got VISA stamped successfully and traveled back safely.
the initial screening officer at Chennai consulate commented with a smile 'you know, your passport is expiring in couple of months'. but the main immi officer didnt mention anything about it. this proves that there is no such law that says, u have to have a PP valid for six months.
but, when u r applying for a stamping appointment, the system says, 'its recommended to have a PP valid for at least six months'.
in your case i guess its just travel and no stamping involved and so u r in much better shape.
but, THIS WAS JUST MY EXPERIENCE. I WOULDN'T RELY ON THIS.
EVER SINCE I STRONGLY FEEL I WAS SUPER STUPID TO TAKE THAT KIND OF A RISK.
coz, i found out couple of things after wards :-)
in SFO consulate i could get PP in less than 7 business days. i guess urs is Chicago, so might not apply for u.
but, in India u can get new PP very fast under Tatkal scheme. do this,
be prepared with required dox and stuff before going there, ask ur relative/friend there to talk to local Tatkal officer to make it ready for ur PP renewal, soon as u land in India apply for PP renewal under Tatkal, u will get ur new PP before ur Jet lag is over. this leaves a buffer of ur vacation time, for contingencies.
finally, what GCCOVET said is absolutely right, u will get I-94 only until the expiry date of old PP. u would need to renew it again. not worth it. luckily i live close to border so i drove and came back to extend my I-94 after getting new PP.
the initial screening officer at Chennai consulate commented with a smile 'you know, your passport is expiring in couple of months'. but the main immi officer didnt mention anything about it. this proves that there is no such law that says, u have to have a PP valid for six months.
but, when u r applying for a stamping appointment, the system says, 'its recommended to have a PP valid for at least six months'.
in your case i guess its just travel and no stamping involved and so u r in much better shape.
but, THIS WAS JUST MY EXPERIENCE. I WOULDN'T RELY ON THIS.
EVER SINCE I STRONGLY FEEL I WAS SUPER STUPID TO TAKE THAT KIND OF A RISK.
coz, i found out couple of things after wards :-)
in SFO consulate i could get PP in less than 7 business days. i guess urs is Chicago, so might not apply for u.
but, in India u can get new PP very fast under Tatkal scheme. do this,
be prepared with required dox and stuff before going there, ask ur relative/friend there to talk to local Tatkal officer to make it ready for ur PP renewal, soon as u land in India apply for PP renewal under Tatkal, u will get ur new PP before ur Jet lag is over. this leaves a buffer of ur vacation time, for contingencies.
finally, what GCCOVET said is absolutely right, u will get I-94 only until the expiry date of old PP. u would need to renew it again. not worth it. luckily i live close to border so i drove and came back to extend my I-94 after getting new PP.
nit_sea
01-04 01:14 PM
Probably I did not make myself clear .
I don't care about any in-state tution or financial assistance .
My question is, is it possible to even file for COS from H4 to F1 after getting F1 denied in India .
Here is the timeline
Nov 2010 - COS from H4 to F1 approved in US.
Dec 2010 - Went to india for F1 Stamping and it was denied.
Jan 2011 - Came to US on H4 visa .
Now is it possible to apply for COS to F1 again ? . Will the F1 denial in India have any impact on COS to F1 processing ?
I don't care about any in-state tution or financial assistance .
My question is, is it possible to even file for COS from H4 to F1 after getting F1 denied in India .
Here is the timeline
Nov 2010 - COS from H4 to F1 approved in US.
Dec 2010 - Went to india for F1 Stamping and it was denied.
Jan 2011 - Came to US on H4 visa .
Now is it possible to apply for COS to F1 again ? . Will the F1 denial in India have any impact on COS to F1 processing ?
nk2
05-05 11:03 PM
You have successfully signed up for a subscription to Secure $50 Per Month Recurring Contribution using PayPal.
Your first subscription payment, for $50.00 USD, has already been sent to Immigration Voice.
---Subscription Details---------------------
Date of sign up: Apr. 27, 2009
Subscription Name:
Secure $50 Per Month Recurring Contribution
Subscription Number: S-4CD34410RR712362G
Secure $50 Per Month Recurring Contribution Subscription Terms:$50.00 USD for each month
Your subscription will automatically renew at the rates stated above unless you cancel prior to the end of the billing period.
If you have any questions or concerns about this subscription, please contact Immigration Voice.
-----Contact Information-----------
Business Name: Immigration VoiceContact Email: donations@immigrationvoice.orgContact Phone: 850-391-4966
Your first subscription payment, for $50.00 USD, has already been sent to Immigration Voice.
---Subscription Details---------------------
Date of sign up: Apr. 27, 2009
Subscription Name:
Secure $50 Per Month Recurring Contribution
Subscription Number: S-4CD34410RR712362G
Secure $50 Per Month Recurring Contribution Subscription Terms:$50.00 USD for each month
Your subscription will automatically renew at the rates stated above unless you cancel prior to the end of the billing period.
If you have any questions or concerns about this subscription, please contact Immigration Voice.
-----Contact Information-----------
Business Name: Immigration VoiceContact Email: donations@immigrationvoice.orgContact Phone: 850-391-4966
No comments:
Post a Comment