logiclife
02-27 11:51 AM
This decision is too important for you, it seems, and I would consult a lawyer for best course of action because the users on forums are not lawyers and they can give you options, but it may not be the best option.
Since you are planning next 2-3 years of your life, you should seek paid consultation from a good lawyer.
Since you are planning next 2-3 years of your life, you should seek paid consultation from a good lawyer.
wallpaper labeled animal cell with
reddy_h
01-07 10:38 PM
You will only be counted against the cap once unless your 6 year limit of H-1 is over and you are out of US for another year. So no problems you can file for your new H-1. Just make sure you send a copy of the old H-1 approval copy as well to prove you are already counted towards cap.
sathweb
01-21 10:30 AM
rumour say retrogression may lift on march 2009, is it true????
You created a new account just to start a rumor?
You got five red stars from two posts! that must be the new record.
We have seen gazillion rumors like that in the past. We don’t need to answer your question; you will get the answer if you ask yourself.
At least start a rumor that is believable, like...say "Every IV member is going to get Green Card in next 30 days, Executive order from President Obama".
You created a new account just to start a rumor?
You got five red stars from two posts! that must be the new record.
We have seen gazillion rumors like that in the past. We don’t need to answer your question; you will get the answer if you ask yourself.
At least start a rumor that is believable, like...say "Every IV member is going to get Green Card in next 30 days, Executive order from President Obama".
2011 girlfriend simple animal cell
saimrathi
08-10 03:30 PM
Source??
And please post in the media thread...
And please post in the media thread...
more...
paskal
07-20 08:33 PM
a link that says 485 filing needs tax returns.
please see the official instructions with the 485 form and note what is actually asked for- it's not much- and no W2 or tax returns are mentioned.
please see the official instructions with the 485 form and note what is actually asked for- it's not much- and no W2 or tax returns are mentioned.
satishku_2000
08-23 10:01 PM
Response times are now determined by service centers. Earlier it used be be 12 weeks but now it depends on evidence type
Memo accoring to murthy.com
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_restim.html
USCIS Clarification on Response Time for RFEs/NOIDs
Posted Jun 22, 2007
�MurthyDotCom
The USCIS is implementing changes with respect to the deadlines for responses to Requests for Evidence (RFEs) and Notices of Intent to Deny (NOIDs). MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers were informed of the final rule on flexible response times for RFEs in our May 4, 2007 article, USCIS Regulation on Response Time for RFEs and NOIDs.
�MurthyDotCom
The USCIS now has issued further clarification regarding timeframes for RFE and NOID responses in its June 1, 2007 interoffice memorandum. This guidance was issued to the appropriate USCIS directors in order to clarify procedures that became effective on June 18, 2007. This guidance is intended to establish the proper RFE and NOID deadlines, now that we will no longer be operating under the earlier, standard 12-week response time for an RFE and 30-day response time for a NOID.
�MurthyDotCom
TYPES OF FILINGS FOR RESPONSE WITHIN 30 DAYS
�MurthyDotCom
Missing or Incomplete Initial Evidence
�MurthyDotCom
According to the USCIS's June 1, 2007 guidance, applicants and petitioners can be given 30 days to submit missing initial evidence that the form requires, regardless of the nature of the form. Initial evidence is essentially basic, required documentation that is fundamentally necessary in each case.
�MurthyDotCom
The USCIS can deny a case outright for a lack of initial evidence. The issuance of an RFE is purely discretionary on the part of the USCIS, when, in their opinion, the initial evidence was not provided with the filing.
�MurthyDotCom
I-539 Requests to Extend / Change Nonimmigrant Status
�MurthyDotCom
The USCIS also established a 30-day response time to any RFE issued with regard to Form I-539 (Request to Extend / Change Nonimmigrant Status). The Memo explained that the USCIS determined lengthy RFE response times to be inconsistent with the purpose of Form I-539. Therefore, RFEs related to Form I-539 filings will have 30 days to respond.
�MurthyDotCom
OTHER TYPES OF RFE RESPONSES
�MurthyDotCom
Evidence Available within the U.S. : 42 Days
�MurthyDotCom
If the USCIS believes that the missing evidence is available within the U.S., the RFE response typically will be 42 days. This applies to all forms, other than the I-539, discussed above.
�MurthyDotCom
Evidence to be Obtained from Abroad
�MurthyDotCom
If missing evidence is available only from outside the U.S., then the USCIS typically will provide applicants and/or petitioners with up to a total of 84 days to respond to the RFE. This also applies to all forms, with the exception of the I-539, discussed above.
�MurthyDotCom
CONCLUSION
�MurthyDotCom
It is now more important than ever to make every effort to completely document a case before filing. The importance of providing all of the initial required evidence is going to become even more important now than before. Failure to respond to an RFE, with all the required evidence and in a timely fashion, will likely result in a denial. It is important to take the time to file correctly, rather than rush. At the Murthy Law Firm, we believe that it is always better to obtain a slow approval than a quick denial!
Memo accoring to murthy.com
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_restim.html
USCIS Clarification on Response Time for RFEs/NOIDs
Posted Jun 22, 2007
�MurthyDotCom
The USCIS is implementing changes with respect to the deadlines for responses to Requests for Evidence (RFEs) and Notices of Intent to Deny (NOIDs). MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers were informed of the final rule on flexible response times for RFEs in our May 4, 2007 article, USCIS Regulation on Response Time for RFEs and NOIDs.
�MurthyDotCom
The USCIS now has issued further clarification regarding timeframes for RFE and NOID responses in its June 1, 2007 interoffice memorandum. This guidance was issued to the appropriate USCIS directors in order to clarify procedures that became effective on June 18, 2007. This guidance is intended to establish the proper RFE and NOID deadlines, now that we will no longer be operating under the earlier, standard 12-week response time for an RFE and 30-day response time for a NOID.
�MurthyDotCom
TYPES OF FILINGS FOR RESPONSE WITHIN 30 DAYS
�MurthyDotCom
Missing or Incomplete Initial Evidence
�MurthyDotCom
According to the USCIS's June 1, 2007 guidance, applicants and petitioners can be given 30 days to submit missing initial evidence that the form requires, regardless of the nature of the form. Initial evidence is essentially basic, required documentation that is fundamentally necessary in each case.
�MurthyDotCom
The USCIS can deny a case outright for a lack of initial evidence. The issuance of an RFE is purely discretionary on the part of the USCIS, when, in their opinion, the initial evidence was not provided with the filing.
�MurthyDotCom
I-539 Requests to Extend / Change Nonimmigrant Status
�MurthyDotCom
The USCIS also established a 30-day response time to any RFE issued with regard to Form I-539 (Request to Extend / Change Nonimmigrant Status). The Memo explained that the USCIS determined lengthy RFE response times to be inconsistent with the purpose of Form I-539. Therefore, RFEs related to Form I-539 filings will have 30 days to respond.
�MurthyDotCom
OTHER TYPES OF RFE RESPONSES
�MurthyDotCom
Evidence Available within the U.S. : 42 Days
�MurthyDotCom
If the USCIS believes that the missing evidence is available within the U.S., the RFE response typically will be 42 days. This applies to all forms, other than the I-539, discussed above.
�MurthyDotCom
Evidence to be Obtained from Abroad
�MurthyDotCom
If missing evidence is available only from outside the U.S., then the USCIS typically will provide applicants and/or petitioners with up to a total of 84 days to respond to the RFE. This also applies to all forms, with the exception of the I-539, discussed above.
�MurthyDotCom
CONCLUSION
�MurthyDotCom
It is now more important than ever to make every effort to completely document a case before filing. The importance of providing all of the initial required evidence is going to become even more important now than before. Failure to respond to an RFE, with all the required evidence and in a timely fashion, will likely result in a denial. It is important to take the time to file correctly, rather than rush. At the Murthy Law Firm, we believe that it is always better to obtain a slow approval than a quick denial!
more...
Sakthisagar
10-20 12:01 PM
Not understanding why can't any Democratic Pro-immigrant Senator reply to these kind of ignorant blaberrings and order USCIS to act as per LAW? How this grassley gets USCIS internal draft memo! need to inverstigate.
2010 pictures simple animal cell
TheColonial
04-27 01:35 AM
SDL is not really that confusing at all.
I never said it was. What I am saying is that it's off topic considering what he wants to achieve.
And he will have to learn it at one time or another, and why limit a program to one OS.
He will? Why?
DirectX/OpenGL can be used in a windowed environment
Again, that's got nothing to do with the desire to learn Win32.
so even if you just want to do Win32 stuff DirectX can enhance it.
And so can using the WPF in .NET, but how does that help with learning Win32?
I never said it was. What I am saying is that it's off topic considering what he wants to achieve.
And he will have to learn it at one time or another, and why limit a program to one OS.
He will? Why?
DirectX/OpenGL can be used in a windowed environment
Again, that's got nothing to do with the desire to learn Win32.
so even if you just want to do Win32 stuff DirectX can enhance it.
And so can using the WPF in .NET, but how does that help with learning Win32?
more...
optimist578
03-18 01:05 PM
Most of the pro-immigrant bills donot seem to have cosponsors, whereas, the anti-immigrant/security-enhancing/american-jobs-protecting bills have a lot of support.
A small list of bills I found somewhat relevant to our issues...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
H.R.133 : To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to deny citizenship at birth to children born in the United States of parents who are not citizens or permanent resident aliens.
Sponsor: Rep Gallegly, Elton [CA-24] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (5)
H.R.938 : To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to make changes related to family-sponsored immigrants and to reduce the number of such immigrants.
Sponsor: Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA-11] (introduced 2/8/2007) Cosponsors (17)
H.R.19 : To require employers to conduct employment eligibility verification.
Sponsor: Rep Calvert, Ken [CA-44] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (24)
H.R.132 : To impose a criminal penalty on an alien who fails voluntarily to depart the United States after securing permission to do so, or who unlawfully returns to the United States after voluntarily departing.
Sponsor: Rep Gallegly, Elton [CA-24] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (2)
H.R.98 : To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to enforce restrictions on employment in the United States of unauthorized aliens through the use of improved Social Security cards and an Employment Eligibility Database, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Dreier, David [CA-26] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (24)
H.R.842 : To provide for enhanced Federal, State, and local assistance in the enforcement of the immigration laws, to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act, to authorize appropriations to carry out the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Norwood, Charles W. [GA-10] (introduced 2/6/2007) Cosponsors (None)
H.R.131 : To impose a mandatory minimum sentence on a deportable alien who fails to depart or fails to attend a removal proceeding.
Sponsor: Rep Gallegly, Elton [CA-24] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (1)
A small list of bills I found somewhat relevant to our issues...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
H.R.133 : To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to deny citizenship at birth to children born in the United States of parents who are not citizens or permanent resident aliens.
Sponsor: Rep Gallegly, Elton [CA-24] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (5)
H.R.938 : To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to make changes related to family-sponsored immigrants and to reduce the number of such immigrants.
Sponsor: Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA-11] (introduced 2/8/2007) Cosponsors (17)
H.R.19 : To require employers to conduct employment eligibility verification.
Sponsor: Rep Calvert, Ken [CA-44] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (24)
H.R.132 : To impose a criminal penalty on an alien who fails voluntarily to depart the United States after securing permission to do so, or who unlawfully returns to the United States after voluntarily departing.
Sponsor: Rep Gallegly, Elton [CA-24] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (2)
H.R.98 : To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to enforce restrictions on employment in the United States of unauthorized aliens through the use of improved Social Security cards and an Employment Eligibility Database, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Dreier, David [CA-26] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (24)
H.R.842 : To provide for enhanced Federal, State, and local assistance in the enforcement of the immigration laws, to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act, to authorize appropriations to carry out the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Norwood, Charles W. [GA-10] (introduced 2/6/2007) Cosponsors (None)
H.R.131 : To impose a mandatory minimum sentence on a deportable alien who fails to depart or fails to attend a removal proceeding.
Sponsor: Rep Gallegly, Elton [CA-24] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (1)
hair We then reviewed the cell by
walking_dude
12-21 09:39 AM
First we need to contact the madam @ 10 Janpath. Without her choreography Papa singh won't dance and neither will the daughter.
( Papa Singh isn't helping us much! It would be naive to assume his daughter will help us because of who her Papa is)
I just read at TOI that Dr Manmohan Singh's daughter Amrit Singh is a staff attorney at ACLU.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/PMs_daughter_puts_White_House_in_the_dock/articleshow/2639327.cms
Can she be of any help to IV's Agenda. Has IV core considered contacting her.
( Papa Singh isn't helping us much! It would be naive to assume his daughter will help us because of who her Papa is)
I just read at TOI that Dr Manmohan Singh's daughter Amrit Singh is a staff attorney at ACLU.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/PMs_daughter_puts_White_House_in_the_dock/articleshow/2639327.cms
Can she be of any help to IV's Agenda. Has IV core considered contacting her.
more...
reddy77
04-13 02:36 PM
So did you answer the RFE ? ....
Thanks Guys ..... Nah, I am still waiting for that, will update you once I got it ....
Thanks Guys ..... Nah, I am still waiting for that, will update you once I got it ....
hot hairstyles simple animal cell
roseball
03-17 11:52 PM
You can try re-sending the pkt with a label in bright color with text "Not to be opened by mailroom" so the package can be opened by an IO..Include a cover letter with the details/proof of your earlier application....You can give this a shot but its solely upto the IO to decide whether he accepts your application or not..In the meantime, I would also start a fresh LC process....Sorry about your situation, but there is nothing you can do.....One more case of lawyer screw up......
more...
house 2010 animal cell structure
greencard_fever
01-14 01:43 PM
Enjoy the freedom..congrats!!
tattoo hot simple animal cell with
lacrossegc
12-21 01:20 PM
Its in the Visa Bulletin itself
First: Priority Workers: 28.6% of the worldwide employment-based preference level, plus any numbers not required for fourth and fifth preferences.
Second: Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or Persons of Exceptional Ability: 28.6% of the worldwide employment-based preference level, plus any numbers not required by first preference.
Third: Skilled Workers, Professionals, and Other Workers: 28.6% of the worldwide level, plus any numbers not required by first and second
preferences, not more than 10,000 of which to "Other Workers".
Fourth: Certain Special Immigrants: 7.1% of the worldwide level.
Fifth: Employment Creation: 7.1% of the worldwide level, not less than 3,000 of which reserved for investors in a targeted rural or high-unemployment area, and 3,000 set aside for investors in regional centers by Sec. 610 of P.L. 102-395.
First: Priority Workers: 28.6% of the worldwide employment-based preference level, plus any numbers not required for fourth and fifth preferences.
Second: Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or Persons of Exceptional Ability: 28.6% of the worldwide employment-based preference level, plus any numbers not required by first preference.
Third: Skilled Workers, Professionals, and Other Workers: 28.6% of the worldwide level, plus any numbers not required by first and second
preferences, not more than 10,000 of which to "Other Workers".
Fourth: Certain Special Immigrants: 7.1% of the worldwide level.
Fifth: Employment Creation: 7.1% of the worldwide level, not less than 3,000 of which reserved for investors in a targeted rural or high-unemployment area, and 3,000 set aside for investors in regional centers by Sec. 610 of P.L. 102-395.
more...
pictures animal cell
PALLO
04-21 01:51 PM
[QUOTE=fromnaija;335920]Yes, if you are sure of moving back to the job location specified in the Labor Certification you may not have to restart the process. If you know you will not move back, youand your employer will be commiting immigration fraud if a new LC is not applied.
what kind of evidence you need to provide to show the intention that you will move back to the original location!
what kind of evidence you need to provide to show the intention that you will move back to the original location!
dresses hair simple animal cell with
vedicman
10-21 09:56 AM
Hey bhagwan, is budde ko dharthi se tu utha le..
(Oh almighty, summon this old man away from us)
Two choices God:
1. Amen
2. Give him some sense :)
(Oh almighty, summon this old man away from us)
Two choices God:
1. Amen
2. Give him some sense :)
more...
makeup structure of an animal cell
tharu
06-29 12:32 PM
Hi Ms Martin,
Thank you for your information. I understand that as long as my old visa expired and I get entry to US on my new approved extension visa (assuming that it is approved while I am away from US) it goes good.
What if my visa pettion gets dragged and I enter with my AP, after the expiry of my old visa. Is the extension pettition still good? If it is approved after i enter US, can i use the new visa ofcourse after getting out of US and get it stamped in a overseas consulate.
Thank you for your information. I understand that as long as my old visa expired and I get entry to US on my new approved extension visa (assuming that it is approved while I am away from US) it goes good.
What if my visa pettion gets dragged and I enter with my AP, after the expiry of my old visa. Is the extension pettition still good? If it is approved after i enter US, can i use the new visa ofcourse after getting out of US and get it stamped in a overseas consulate.
girlfriend Animal Cells
santb1975
03-09 11:06 PM
I talked to attorney Murthy about this issue a few weeks ago. My 140 was approved July 2007. The salary I currently make 485 is 10K less than the salary mentioned on my Labor. I work for a speciality Pharma company with steady revenues. They are a public company as well. Two years ago my company Attorney(Fragomen) and my HR said that should not be a problem since GC is for a future position etc. When I checked with Attorney Murthy she said that is true but if you get a strict immigration officer he can say that the prevailing wage determination for your job was done two years ago and you are still not making that money. She said it is better to make the $$ mentioned on my labor now. I am going to ask my company attorney the same question and see what he says. I have a lot of respect for my company's attorney
hairstyles labeled simple animal cell
Kalidindi
07-25 10:10 PM
I just received a confirmation email that I485 of my wife got approved just a couple of days back. But I myself have not received anything. Its kind of weird because she was my dependent and I was the primary applicant.
Can somebody please suggest if they have seen something like this before ?Do I need to do anything ?
Can somebody please suggest if they have seen something like this before ?Do I need to do anything ?
rahul2699
05-16 08:22 AM
May I know if H1 transfer has any affect on parent�s arrival during the transfer? I sponsored their visa using company A's employment letters and they have a valid visa. Do I need to get a letter from my new employer to avoid issues at POE? At the time of parent�s arrival, I would be working for company A, but by the time they return, I will be switching to company B and moving to a different city. My H1 transfer is already in process.
There should not be any issues with your parents arriving while your transfer is in progress since you'll be working with Company A at the time they enter the country.
There should not be any issues with your parents arriving while your transfer is in progress since you'll be working with Company A at the time they enter the country.
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.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий