Ennada
01-13 10:21 AM
Hello Immi Gurus,
Our Division is in very bad situation and we are expecting some lay off's in next few weeks. I am working on h1b now but my 485 is pending for more than 180 days and have Valid EAD which I didn't use so far. following are my question:
1) If I get laid off and my employer cancels the h1b, Am i out of status?
2) Can they cancel my approved i 140?
3) I am planning to use EAD for my next job, How much time do I have to find a new job to be in Status?
Thanks so much for all your help, Thanks ...
I was in the same boat in 2009. I got laid off in Feb without a job for 4 months and found a job in June. Had no problems from USCIS, no RFEs. My H1 was revoked. My employer said that they won't revoke 140 and is not required for them to do so. I used my EAD in my new job. And one fine day in Sept got my GC. It was a roller coaster ride that ended well. I hope and wish you get a job soon and GC soon too.
In my opinion, you are OK. My understanding is that the rule says that you need to have a job at the time of adjudication of your GC.
Good Luck.
Our Division is in very bad situation and we are expecting some lay off's in next few weeks. I am working on h1b now but my 485 is pending for more than 180 days and have Valid EAD which I didn't use so far. following are my question:
1) If I get laid off and my employer cancels the h1b, Am i out of status?
2) Can they cancel my approved i 140?
3) I am planning to use EAD for my next job, How much time do I have to find a new job to be in Status?
Thanks so much for all your help, Thanks ...
I was in the same boat in 2009. I got laid off in Feb without a job for 4 months and found a job in June. Had no problems from USCIS, no RFEs. My H1 was revoked. My employer said that they won't revoke 140 and is not required for them to do so. I used my EAD in my new job. And one fine day in Sept got my GC. It was a roller coaster ride that ended well. I hope and wish you get a job soon and GC soon too.
In my opinion, you are OK. My understanding is that the rule says that you need to have a job at the time of adjudication of your GC.
Good Luck.
cartoon earth. Cartoon: earth tear (medium)
makemygc
08-03 10:34 PM
maybe they meant 07/1/2007
See the disclaimer at the bottom of the page. It says it might take another 14 days to receive the receipt even though they might have issued it. What I understand from this is that USCIS has completed the data entry for the dates given and issue the receipts (essentially means, receipt date has been marked against your application in the database) but the receipt will take another 14 days to reach.
So guys keep patience as USCIS is going to give us update every week now...mentioned in the news letter.
See the disclaimer at the bottom of the page. It says it might take another 14 days to receive the receipt even though they might have issued it. What I understand from this is that USCIS has completed the data entry for the dates given and issue the receipts (essentially means, receipt date has been marked against your application in the database) but the receipt will take another 14 days to reach.
So guys keep patience as USCIS is going to give us update every week now...mentioned in the news letter.
cartoon earth. Cartoon by Joshua M. Smith
mrsr
06-19 08:46 PM
guess u r talking abt varicella vaccine .. this need 30 day gap, we had MMR on one day itself
The only catch could be on the MMR. MMR needs two vaccinations. The two vaccines nmeed to have a 1 month gap. So if you take one and to medical exam, they will force you take the 2'nd one right there. Ofcourse they don't care about the gap since they want to make money
The only catch could be on the MMR. MMR needs two vaccinations. The two vaccines nmeed to have a 1 month gap. So if you take one and to medical exam, they will force you take the 2'nd one right there. Ofcourse they don't care about the gap since they want to make money
cartoon earth. CA), Buy this cartoon
prouddesi
10-15 04:31 PM
Hello Folks,
We have an excellent opportunity to set-up an IV booth. Details are posted on So Cal yahoo group with the link in my signature.
Venue: Diwali Mela, San Diego.
Date: Saturday, November 10th.
Target: A whopping 5000 visitors for recruitment and educational purposes.
I am looking for at least 4 So Cal volunteers/shift to take responsibility for 2 hour shifts at the booth. If San Diego/Orange County/LA members take turns in the booth shifts that day, this goal is achievable!
PLEASE SIGN-UP on the yahoo groups spreadsheet.
Thank you in advance! :)
Southern California IV members,
There are several action items that we are currently working on in the Southern California group including meeting with our lawmakers, membership drive events and getting together volunteers to make calls for the DC Rally. We urgently need active participants to help us carry out these action items. Please contribute your time and effort so that IV can succeed in resolving our issues.
For more information, join us at our yahoo group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SC_Immigration_Voice/
We have an excellent opportunity to set-up an IV booth. Details are posted on So Cal yahoo group with the link in my signature.
Venue: Diwali Mela, San Diego.
Date: Saturday, November 10th.
Target: A whopping 5000 visitors for recruitment and educational purposes.
I am looking for at least 4 So Cal volunteers/shift to take responsibility for 2 hour shifts at the booth. If San Diego/Orange County/LA members take turns in the booth shifts that day, this goal is achievable!
PLEASE SIGN-UP on the yahoo groups spreadsheet.
Thank you in advance! :)
Southern California IV members,
There are several action items that we are currently working on in the Southern California group including meeting with our lawmakers, membership drive events and getting together volunteers to make calls for the DC Rally. We urgently need active participants to help us carry out these action items. Please contribute your time and effort so that IV can succeed in resolving our issues.
For more information, join us at our yahoo group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SC_Immigration_Voice/
more...
cartoon earth. earth cartoon with peace flag
dsneyog
11-30 10:54 PM
Sorry I have no advise as I am filing my AP tomorrow for the first time. However it scares me that it's been over 3 months that USCIS received your application. I am sending out mine tomorrow and need to get it it by late February. Wondering if I should mention in my covering letter about expediting it. I am also planning to include prepaid envelope.
Hope someone here can answer your question.
Hope someone here can answer your question.
cartoon earth. cartoon earth images.
Ramba
07-29 07:15 PM
Ahem.. ? :confused:
Technically speaking, an immigrant visa should be immediately available to approve her 485. So, she needs to wait till her PD (which is in fact yours), become current again. You may contact a lawyer orCongressman/Senaters or USCIS regarding this situation. But I doubt it will yield any positive results. As she is a derivative applicant, she will have no problem in approval, except the waiting game. If it going to be very long, once you acquire a citizenship, you can file a I-30 for her and she will become GC holder immediately.
Technically speaking, an immigrant visa should be immediately available to approve her 485. So, she needs to wait till her PD (which is in fact yours), become current again. You may contact a lawyer orCongressman/Senaters or USCIS regarding this situation. But I doubt it will yield any positive results. As she is a derivative applicant, she will have no problem in approval, except the waiting game. If it going to be very long, once you acquire a citizenship, you can file a I-30 for her and she will become GC holder immediately.
more...
cartoon earth. Earth clip art
continuedProgress
06-29 02:24 PM
Thanks logiclife for showing an option when I had given up!.
I have an approved 140 and I can get a letter mentioning future employment from my previous employer. I understand that I cannot apply for EAD since I will not be working for them, however, what additional steps do I need to take to invoke 'AC21 portability'?. Since I am assuming my 485 will take more than 180 days.
Thanks!
A
I have an approved 140 and I can get a letter mentioning future employment from my previous employer. I understand that I cannot apply for EAD since I will not be working for them, however, what additional steps do I need to take to invoke 'AC21 portability'?. Since I am assuming my 485 will take more than 180 days.
Thanks!
A
cartoon earth. Life On Earth cartoon 4
universalgc
08-10 12:41 PM
Hello All
My employer paid me for my 485 application,he gave me his personal checks in the name of uscis, i applied with those checks, now i hear that
"The Address Printed On your checks Must Match the adress given in work sheets[in 485]"
I am confused,will they accept the application,checks are not cashed yet,applied on july18th
Please Help
Our company checks address is differant than coporate address. We never had any issue with USCIS regarding the address.
I think people are getting lot of doubts because USCIS not issuing the receipts promptly. , some of the checks do not have address also.
Cheer up people think logically and forget about it. Our company attorney charge the amount based on phone calls and emails also. So Dont bother your attorney, it is a simple matter.
My employer paid me for my 485 application,he gave me his personal checks in the name of uscis, i applied with those checks, now i hear that
"The Address Printed On your checks Must Match the adress given in work sheets[in 485]"
I am confused,will they accept the application,checks are not cashed yet,applied on july18th
Please Help
Our company checks address is differant than coporate address. We never had any issue with USCIS regarding the address.
I think people are getting lot of doubts because USCIS not issuing the receipts promptly. , some of the checks do not have address also.
Cheer up people think logically and forget about it. Our company attorney charge the amount based on phone calls and emails also. So Dont bother your attorney, it is a simple matter.
more...
cartoon earth. Mike Keefe Editorial Cartoon
rb_248
10-18 12:16 AM
rb_248, I am in the similar situation if you dont mind can you share your lawyers details, seems to be very experienced lawyer..
golgappa,
Just sent you a PM. Please check your inbox.
golgappa,
Just sent you a PM. Please check your inbox.
cartoon earth. * CLICK ARROW TO WATCH
rajenk
04-21 01:37 PM
First of Change the subject of this thread. This is confusing to state that your I485 is already denied.
To your question:
1. NO you cannot continue to work on EAD once your I-485 is denied. EAD is based on the pending I-485, once that is denied there is no basis for EAD to be valid. You are out of status immediately after the denial.
2. Opening MTR takes months, if you are lucky then it might be quick.
Now a question to you.
1. Why do you think your I-485 will get denied? I assume you have all the documents supporting your legal status in US and on job. If so you should not be worried.
The safe bet:
That is the reason why people maintain dual status with H1/L1. That helps in these kind of situations.
Just my thoughts, better consult with a lawyer if you are in such a situation.
Good luck.
Raj
To your question:
1. NO you cannot continue to work on EAD once your I-485 is denied. EAD is based on the pending I-485, once that is denied there is no basis for EAD to be valid. You are out of status immediately after the denial.
2. Opening MTR takes months, if you are lucky then it might be quick.
Now a question to you.
1. Why do you think your I-485 will get denied? I assume you have all the documents supporting your legal status in US and on job. If so you should not be worried.
The safe bet:
That is the reason why people maintain dual status with H1/L1. That helps in these kind of situations.
Just my thoughts, better consult with a lawyer if you are in such a situation.
Good luck.
Raj
more...
cartoon earth. stock photo : Cartoon
speedo
08-14 07:34 PM
when is your appointment? what city?
cartoon earth. Cartoon: google earth (medium)
sanjay02
05-14 03:15 PM
Gurus
I am going to be renewing my EAD myself and its going to be paper filing, so my question is what should I be be answering to the question below?
Its question 17 on the EAD form
17. If you entered the Eligibility Category, (c)(3)(C), in item 16 above, list your
degree, your employer's name as listed in E-Verfy, and your employer's EVerify
Company Identification Number or a valid E-Verify
Client Company Identification Number in the space below.
Degree:
Employer's Name as listed in E-Verify:
Employer's E-Verify Company Identification Number or a valid E-Verify
Client Company Identification Number
I am going to be renewing my EAD myself and its going to be paper filing, so my question is what should I be be answering to the question below?
Its question 17 on the EAD form
17. If you entered the Eligibility Category, (c)(3)(C), in item 16 above, list your
degree, your employer's name as listed in E-Verfy, and your employer's EVerify
Company Identification Number or a valid E-Verify
Client Company Identification Number in the space below.
Degree:
Employer's Name as listed in E-Verify:
Employer's E-Verify Company Identification Number or a valid E-Verify
Client Company Identification Number
more...
cartoon earth. How to draw a cartoon earth
eb3retro
06-09 08:37 AM
Hi all,
I have come to texas on a B1 to the client location. I stayed with my colleague who has a apartment here. When we left to office ( my first day ) .I made a mistake leaving my passport and others in apartment. .
I have applied and got a new passport .
I have applied for I-94 by filing I-102 . The processing dates are very slow for this . I only have a reciept of this and nothing.
I am leaving 3july next month...what need to be done....i dont even have a VISA.
And what needs to be done for B1 VISA.
I emailed the chennai US embassy but couldnt get any reply............
PLEAASE...HELP:(:confused:
is this in dallas or houston?
I have come to texas on a B1 to the client location. I stayed with my colleague who has a apartment here. When we left to office ( my first day ) .I made a mistake leaving my passport and others in apartment. .
I have applied and got a new passport .
I have applied for I-94 by filing I-102 . The processing dates are very slow for this . I only have a reciept of this and nothing.
I am leaving 3july next month...what need to be done....i dont even have a VISA.
And what needs to be done for B1 VISA.
I emailed the chennai US embassy but couldnt get any reply............
PLEAASE...HELP:(:confused:
is this in dallas or houston?
cartoon earth. cartoon earth.
EADchallenged
07-27 04:17 PM
CIR is akin to churning the ocean and in an election year highly unlikely. Our best opportunity this year would be to get some retrogression relief in this bill. Filing for 485 gets some extra dollars for the ICE and at the same time does not add a single extra immigrant. Is this being pursued seriously?
more...
cartoon earth. stock photo : earth cartoon
srinivas06
12-09 04:18 PM
Hello-
1) Is it possible to allow minimum ONE TIME contributions like $10?
2) Is it possible to allow minimum RECURRING contributions like $10?
When I am talking to my friends, we felt that the above things increase the
Contributions. We are also thinking that it is easy to ask friends to contribute if there are no limits on the contributions.
If I am correct there are more than 25,000 Members. If there are 10% of active members and each contribute $10 we get another $25000 that is required for the Bill.
My Contributions:
$50 Recurring Contributions from Nov 07.
Contributed $100 for the DC Rally.
$25 to the local Northern California Chapter in Oct 07.
Contributed to AILF $100 during the July visa bulletin time.
1) Is it possible to allow minimum ONE TIME contributions like $10?
2) Is it possible to allow minimum RECURRING contributions like $10?
When I am talking to my friends, we felt that the above things increase the
Contributions. We are also thinking that it is easy to ask friends to contribute if there are no limits on the contributions.
If I am correct there are more than 25,000 Members. If there are 10% of active members and each contribute $10 we get another $25000 that is required for the Bill.
My Contributions:
$50 Recurring Contributions from Nov 07.
Contributed $100 for the DC Rally.
$25 to the local Northern California Chapter in Oct 07.
Contributed to AILF $100 during the July visa bulletin time.
cartoon earth. Earth#39;s Crust cartoon 2
help43
09-10 10:56 PM
Thanks for your replies and help
Which consulate i need to go if i want to go for stamping.......
http://www.happyschoolsblog.com/i797a-i797b-i797c-difference/
According to above link they are saying i need to go to india for stamping ........
please advise me on this.........
Which consulate i need to go if i want to go for stamping.......
http://www.happyschoolsblog.com/i797a-i797b-i797c-difference/
According to above link they are saying i need to go to india for stamping ........
please advise me on this.........
more...
cartoon earth. 40000+ Cartoons to laugh!
KanME
12-26 12:15 PM
Thanks for reply... that clears things a little. :)
cartoon earth. Blue Earth clip art
buehler
07-10 04:22 PM
Here is the link - Visa Bulletin for August 2009 (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4539.html)
cartoon earth. Cartoon: Earth Hour - Opinion
yabadaba
06-18 12:00 PM
thanks tnite!!!... u r right my opt/h1b overlaped comfortably and i was never out of status
pandu_hawaldar
10-05 12:47 PM
I applied for AP for primary and secondary applicants on 09/17 at TSC (RD 09/24). Online update showed that AP for Primary applicant has been approved, but the secondary still shows under review. Today I received approved AP for the Primary applicant in mail, but nothing for secondary applicant yet. Why TSC is not approving both the APs at the same time? Last time, I got the both at the same time. Any idea or guidance please.....
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.
0 comments:
Post a Comment