perm2gc
08-02 02:22 PM
You probably meant to say that you are NOT an immigration lawyer. Correct?
Yes..sorry for the Mistake
Yes..sorry for the Mistake
wallpaper South Indian Actress Anjali
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.
kumar1
05-22 08:29 AM
Very few people know that there are categories like EB3-I and EB2-I.
I am kind of glad that I am in EB-3 India. At least my hope never goes up.
I am kind of glad that I am in EB-3 India. At least my hope never goes up.
2011 Vidya Balan Indian Actress
seahawks
09-18 09:23 AM
Why dont we take voting for name change and see what % of members will opt for the change.
not in favour. IV has established an identity with all the hard work from the founders, they are people like you and me who are putting their valuable time. Changing the name now will only add to confusion in the minds of all thousands of people who are involved or talked to from contributions, to news letter articles, appearing on news channels, to talking to law makers and so on. It will take extra efforts to say this " the newly called ... which used to be IV... ". In my opinoin IV is fine, just add a phrase below, as "legal aliens for immigration reform" or something like that.
not in favour. IV has established an identity with all the hard work from the founders, they are people like you and me who are putting their valuable time. Changing the name now will only add to confusion in the minds of all thousands of people who are involved or talked to from contributions, to news letter articles, appearing on news channels, to talking to law makers and so on. It will take extra efforts to say this " the newly called ... which used to be IV... ". In my opinoin IV is fine, just add a phrase below, as "legal aliens for immigration reform" or something like that.
more...
gcformeornot
07-26 03:43 PM
I think there is no truth to this. Can anyone point to a link to verify?
rbms
02-07 05:56 PM
I had been doing it for past couple of years. go to uscis.gov and look for instructions to file I-131. It only takes to fill out the application online. You have to submit the supporting documents.(copy of I485, I94 etc.). Read the "instructions for filling out I-131" document.
97 views... and no response..
has nobody filed EAD by self and after filing I-485???
97 views... and no response..
has nobody filed EAD by self and after filing I-485???
more...
immigrationvoice1
03-06 01:59 PM
It has been taking for ever to move. I had missed 3 times already to get it approved during the last 5 years. Lets see if it moves to 2002
What do you mean when you say you missed 3 times ? Please elaborate if possible.
What do you mean when you say you missed 3 times ? Please elaborate if possible.
2010 indian actress wallpapers
WeShallOvercome
07-23 04:11 PM
No responses :(
Can someone tell exactly how an FP notice looks?
Can someone tell exactly how an FP notice looks?
more...
logiclife
06-04 01:10 PM
This is the text that i see on Govtrack.us
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-1348
Are we missing some thing here, I see SKILL is part of this draft!!:confused:
That text is last years text that was initially put in place as a place-holder BEFORE the grand compromise was reached.
After the grand compromise was reached, the text of the grand compromise replaced the entire text of last year's bill (that has SKIL) was the next text.
Amendment # 1150 (S.A. 1150) Sponsored by Sen. Kennedy is a 400 page amendment that replaces the entire text that was intially in the bill with the new text. Its a "Substitute" amendment.
Read the S. A. 1150 text. Its also on IV homepage as PDF.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-1348
Are we missing some thing here, I see SKILL is part of this draft!!:confused:
That text is last years text that was initially put in place as a place-holder BEFORE the grand compromise was reached.
After the grand compromise was reached, the text of the grand compromise replaced the entire text of last year's bill (that has SKIL) was the next text.
Amendment # 1150 (S.A. 1150) Sponsored by Sen. Kennedy is a 400 page amendment that replaces the entire text that was intially in the bill with the new text. Its a "Substitute" amendment.
Read the S. A. 1150 text. Its also on IV homepage as PDF.
hair Indian Actress wallpapers
ronhira
04-26 07:44 PM
this is how cir will end..... with a procedural vote -
Financial regulation plan fails first Senate test - U.S. business- msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36770907/ns/business-us_business/)
bet $100?
Financial regulation plan fails first Senate test - U.S. business- msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36770907/ns/business-us_business/)
bet $100?
more...
pwilliams960
02-07 12:02 AM
The foreign-born spouse should submit an application for adjustment of status which is an application for a green card. Items which may accompany the green card application include green card photographs, an application for employment authorization, an application for a travel permit and numerous other INS forms.
hot cute indian actress
psaxena
06-30 01:13 PM
When I asked my attorney she said no you cannot.. thats what I quoted here.
Now with your suggestion, where this H1B gonna be coming from, the every year quota or will be the part of the existing H1B( that means one will not have to wait for the yearly quota.)
On visa revalidation visa stamp will show which H1B , the fulltime one or parttime?
This way everyone running out of the 6 years on Visa can actually use this route to have a total 11 years without filing the I-485. Moreover if this is true, everyone can have the backup H1B from any company in case they loose the jobs they can have the backup H1B to stay in status in the country. Now the other thing from that arises is if the main H1B is terminated on Layoff, which LCA will be in effect for salary condition.
I can work in the Software company fulltime but at the same time can work in a motel parttime, now when I get lay off from the software company ..I'll be in status but working for motel, also not full filling the condition of Highly skilled labor etc.
Can someone please explain all this. So far I know you cannot have this and this is what my attorney told me when I thought of doing that to open up a company and work as an employee partitme in it.
Mr Saxena
Please do not post misleading information. If you are not sure of something, please refrain from posting on such topics.
Now on to the OP :-
YES, you can have another H1. It is considered as a concurrent H1 or part time H1. You may work on it without any issues once you get it.
It would be a seperate case.
It should not have any effect on your current H1 or 140.
Now with your suggestion, where this H1B gonna be coming from, the every year quota or will be the part of the existing H1B( that means one will not have to wait for the yearly quota.)
On visa revalidation visa stamp will show which H1B , the fulltime one or parttime?
This way everyone running out of the 6 years on Visa can actually use this route to have a total 11 years without filing the I-485. Moreover if this is true, everyone can have the backup H1B from any company in case they loose the jobs they can have the backup H1B to stay in status in the country. Now the other thing from that arises is if the main H1B is terminated on Layoff, which LCA will be in effect for salary condition.
I can work in the Software company fulltime but at the same time can work in a motel parttime, now when I get lay off from the software company ..I'll be in status but working for motel, also not full filling the condition of Highly skilled labor etc.
Can someone please explain all this. So far I know you cannot have this and this is what my attorney told me when I thought of doing that to open up a company and work as an employee partitme in it.
Mr Saxena
Please do not post misleading information. If you are not sure of something, please refrain from posting on such topics.
Now on to the OP :-
YES, you can have another H1. It is considered as a concurrent H1 or part time H1. You may work on it without any issues once you get it.
It would be a seperate case.
It should not have any effect on your current H1 or 140.
more...
house South Indian Actress Sexy
coolmanasip
05-29 01:30 PM
Did you guys get a soft LUD before the RFE? How many days lag if any?
Also, is there anyone that got a soft LUD and did not get an RFE at all? or is everybody getting an RFE?
Also, is there anyone that got a soft LUD and did not get an RFE at all? or is everybody getting an RFE?
tattoo South Indian Actress Wallpaper
insbaby
08-10 08:23 AM
Only 45 votes so far. EB3-I people dont have 5 seconds to vote even, how can we expect any help from Govt.
There are couple of issues:
1. You are trying to form a small group inside a big one.
2. You PD should be in Jan/Feb/Mar so you worry about people just blocking your way.
Where would the people after 2004-Jan PD go, as we are reaching Jan-2009.
There are couple of issues:
1. You are trying to form a small group inside a big one.
2. You PD should be in Jan/Feb/Mar so you worry about people just blocking your way.
Where would the people after 2004-Jan PD go, as we are reaching Jan-2009.
more...
pictures South Indian Actress
karthkc
05-24 12:38 PM
You are right about that. However, the situation when you try to switch to H1B from EAD while remaining in the US is what I was referring to...
Under that situation, you only get the remaining years on H1 but I was told by my attorney that you do count against the cap though..
This is such a grey area, I bet even USCIS is not clear on what they would do...
Do you have a basis that it has to be started from scratch. Why it needs to be started from scratch when there is still time on H1 say about 1.5 years?
I think u need to start afresh a new one only if you are out of country for one year.
Folks, if any one has done this please corraborate
Under that situation, you only get the remaining years on H1 but I was told by my attorney that you do count against the cap though..
This is such a grey area, I bet even USCIS is not clear on what they would do...
Do you have a basis that it has to be started from scratch. Why it needs to be started from scratch when there is still time on H1 say about 1.5 years?
I think u need to start afresh a new one only if you are out of country for one year.
Folks, if any one has done this please corraborate
dresses Indian actress Aishwarya Rai
mdcowboy
02-11 03:10 PM
Hi Folks,
What is the fastest and perhaps a little economic way to get documents over to chennai (Tamil Nadu) or Calicut (Kerala) from here in San Jose, ca.
USPS has this service called Express Mail ($27.95) or Priority Mail ($12.95)
I guess USPS is claiming 6-10 days (guess no gurantee) to india.
Other couriers seems to be $70+ (FedEx, UPS, DHL)..
Anyone has had good luck with USPS ? or do you suggest the couriers mentioned above ?
Need to get docs for an interview for parents on Feb 26th in Chennai...
Thanks in Advance for your reply !!
I had no issues with USPS. Used them thrice to send docs to Chennai. It goes within 7-10 days. They give you a tracking number also, but as one of the other members pointed out, its difficult for you to track it.
What is the fastest and perhaps a little economic way to get documents over to chennai (Tamil Nadu) or Calicut (Kerala) from here in San Jose, ca.
USPS has this service called Express Mail ($27.95) or Priority Mail ($12.95)
I guess USPS is claiming 6-10 days (guess no gurantee) to india.
Other couriers seems to be $70+ (FedEx, UPS, DHL)..
Anyone has had good luck with USPS ? or do you suggest the couriers mentioned above ?
Need to get docs for an interview for parents on Feb 26th in Chennai...
Thanks in Advance for your reply !!
I had no issues with USPS. Used them thrice to send docs to Chennai. It goes within 7-10 days. They give you a tracking number also, but as one of the other members pointed out, its difficult for you to track it.
more...
makeup South Indian Actress Divya
sunofeast_gc
11-07 02:19 AM
I checked my current labor certification. it has the following details :
ETA FORM 9089
A) PREVAILING WAGE INFORMATION
SOC/O*NET(OES) CODE
15-1031.00
OCCUPATONAL TITLE
COMPUTER SOFTWARE ENGINEER
B) JOB OPPORTUNITY INFORMATION
JOB TITLE: SOFTWARE ENGINEER(THIS IS CURRENT)
C) IDENTIFY THE JOB TITLE OF THE ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATE OCCUPATION:
PROGRAMMER ANALYST OR SYSTEMS ANALYST
D) JOB DUTIES
CREATE TEST PLANS, TEST CASES AND ANALYZE USER NEEDS AND CREATE AND
MODIFY APPLICATION SOFTWARE USING VARIOUS SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES
My question is based on the above can i switch to another field like SAP for example. I am not sure if companies will be ready to give me a offer letter with the above text for a SAP job.
Any ideas friends?
sundeep
as far similar job is concern you can check this below site
http://online.onetcenter.org/link/summary/15-1031.00
Summary Report for:
15-1031.00 - Computer Software Engineers, Applications
Develop, create, and modify general computer applications software or specialized utility programs. Analyze user needs and develop software solutions. Design software or customize software for client use with the aim of optimizing operational efficiency. May analyze and design databases within an application area, working individually or coordinating database development as part of a team.
Sample of reported job titles: Software Engineer, Application Integration Engineer, Programmer Analyst, Computer Consultant, Software Architect, Software Developer, Software Development Engineer, Business Systems Analyst, Programmer, Software Analyst
ETA FORM 9089
A) PREVAILING WAGE INFORMATION
SOC/O*NET(OES) CODE
15-1031.00
OCCUPATONAL TITLE
COMPUTER SOFTWARE ENGINEER
B) JOB OPPORTUNITY INFORMATION
JOB TITLE: SOFTWARE ENGINEER(THIS IS CURRENT)
C) IDENTIFY THE JOB TITLE OF THE ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATE OCCUPATION:
PROGRAMMER ANALYST OR SYSTEMS ANALYST
D) JOB DUTIES
CREATE TEST PLANS, TEST CASES AND ANALYZE USER NEEDS AND CREATE AND
MODIFY APPLICATION SOFTWARE USING VARIOUS SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES
My question is based on the above can i switch to another field like SAP for example. I am not sure if companies will be ready to give me a offer letter with the above text for a SAP job.
Any ideas friends?
sundeep
as far similar job is concern you can check this below site
http://online.onetcenter.org/link/summary/15-1031.00
Summary Report for:
15-1031.00 - Computer Software Engineers, Applications
Develop, create, and modify general computer applications software or specialized utility programs. Analyze user needs and develop software solutions. Design software or customize software for client use with the aim of optimizing operational efficiency. May analyze and design databases within an application area, working individually or coordinating database development as part of a team.
Sample of reported job titles: Software Engineer, Application Integration Engineer, Programmer Analyst, Computer Consultant, Software Architect, Software Developer, Software Development Engineer, Business Systems Analyst, Programmer, Software Analyst
girlfriend South Indian Actress
gceverywhere
06-10 08:00 PM
1000+ views in 8 hours but only 2 more people have called all representatives during the entire day today.
Seriously, what will it take for the rest of you to call?
Some of you don't like the title of the thread. I understand your concerns but I don't know how else to wake people up. Guys, I'm risking going from a 'green status' to 'red status' here on IV by continuing to push this thread but if that will make a few people call the representatives then I'm willing to pay the price.
Seriously, what will it take for the rest of you to call?
Some of you don't like the title of the thread. I understand your concerns but I don't know how else to wake people up. Guys, I'm risking going from a 'green status' to 'red status' here on IV by continuing to push this thread but if that will make a few people call the representatives then I'm willing to pay the price.
hairstyles south indian actress wallpaper
mayhemt
07-03 11:04 AM
You guys still dont get it..do you??
Why would they ban non-immigrants from investing when there is ZERO loss for the country?
Its upto each individual to evaluate their priorities and go ahead and move their investments. I have already done it as I am just an alien waiting for permanent residency and I do not want my money stuck in any of the investment vehicles in a foreign land making it difficult for me to take it along with me when the day comes to leave the country.
Well for the why part...Its absurd, I understand. But then why is there country limit? Why is H4 not same as L2? There are absurdities and depends on the perspective you look from.
Why would they ban?? If they have compelling point like "To protect Americans assets against speculation and to preserve capital within the country".
I also see that it is individual's prerogative, however the point here is to show some numbers we (L1, H1, EADs) are responsible for & hopefully, grease the wheels towards smoother status adjustments.
Why would they ban non-immigrants from investing when there is ZERO loss for the country?
Its upto each individual to evaluate their priorities and go ahead and move their investments. I have already done it as I am just an alien waiting for permanent residency and I do not want my money stuck in any of the investment vehicles in a foreign land making it difficult for me to take it along with me when the day comes to leave the country.
Well for the why part...Its absurd, I understand. But then why is there country limit? Why is H4 not same as L2? There are absurdities and depends on the perspective you look from.
Why would they ban?? If they have compelling point like "To protect Americans assets against speculation and to preserve capital within the country".
I also see that it is individual's prerogative, however the point here is to show some numbers we (L1, H1, EADs) are responsible for & hopefully, grease the wheels towards smoother status adjustments.
diqingshen
07-16 09:19 AM
How can we make the scale lean towards our side?
Phone campaign?
Phone campaign?
perm2gc
11-08 07:57 PM
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS FOR EXTENDING H-1B VISA STATUS
PAST THE PERMISSIBLE 6 YEARS OF H-1B STAY
________________________________________
1. AC21 104 (c) - Approved I-140 Petition = Extension of H-1B Visa Status in 3 Year Increments.
� Under Section 104 (c) of AC21, the beneficiary of an approved I-140 who is prevented from filing an adjustment of status application due to application of worldwide OR per-country limitations may be granted an extension of H-1B visa status in 3 year increments pending eligibility to apply for adjustment of status.
� There is no requirement that the foreign citizen have a Labor Certification or immigrant visa petition pending for one full year prior to the expiration of the foreign citizen's 6th year of H-1B visa status.
� However, there MUST be an approved I-140 to access this benefit.
� This benefit does not apply to dependents who have reached 21.
2. AC21 106 (a) - Pending Labor Certification or
Employment Based Immigrant Visa Petition = Extension of H-1B Visa Status for 1 Year.
� Section 106 (a) of AC21 permits H-1B non-immigrants to obtain an extension of H-1B visa status beyond the 6-year maximum period, when:
(a) 365 days or more have passed since the filing of any application for labor certification, Form ETA 750, that is required or used by the foreign citizen to obtain status as an EB immigrant; or
(b) 365 days or more have passed since the filing of an EB immigrant visa petition.
� Extensions may only be granted in one-year increments, but may be requested on a single (combined) extension request for any remaining time left in the initial 6-year period.
� Must establish that the above criteria were or will be met either on or before the requested start date on the H-1B extension application.
� Thus, a foreign citizen is eligible for an extension of H-1B visa status beyond the 6th year as long as either the qualifying labor certification application or I-140 immigrant petition has or will have been pending for at least 365 days prior to the foreign citizen�s requested start date, regardless of whether the H-1B extension application was filed prior to the passage of such period.
� If the foreign citizen would no longer be in H-1B status at the time that 365 days from the filing of the labor certification application or immigrant petition has run, thus leaving a gap in valid status, then the extension of stay request cannot be granted.
� A request for an H-1B extension beyond the 6-year limit should not be denied on the sole basis that an I-140 petition has not yet been filed.
Are you advertising your Law Office on the message board...????
PAST THE PERMISSIBLE 6 YEARS OF H-1B STAY
________________________________________
1. AC21 104 (c) - Approved I-140 Petition = Extension of H-1B Visa Status in 3 Year Increments.
� Under Section 104 (c) of AC21, the beneficiary of an approved I-140 who is prevented from filing an adjustment of status application due to application of worldwide OR per-country limitations may be granted an extension of H-1B visa status in 3 year increments pending eligibility to apply for adjustment of status.
� There is no requirement that the foreign citizen have a Labor Certification or immigrant visa petition pending for one full year prior to the expiration of the foreign citizen's 6th year of H-1B visa status.
� However, there MUST be an approved I-140 to access this benefit.
� This benefit does not apply to dependents who have reached 21.
2. AC21 106 (a) - Pending Labor Certification or
Employment Based Immigrant Visa Petition = Extension of H-1B Visa Status for 1 Year.
� Section 106 (a) of AC21 permits H-1B non-immigrants to obtain an extension of H-1B visa status beyond the 6-year maximum period, when:
(a) 365 days or more have passed since the filing of any application for labor certification, Form ETA 750, that is required or used by the foreign citizen to obtain status as an EB immigrant; or
(b) 365 days or more have passed since the filing of an EB immigrant visa petition.
� Extensions may only be granted in one-year increments, but may be requested on a single (combined) extension request for any remaining time left in the initial 6-year period.
� Must establish that the above criteria were or will be met either on or before the requested start date on the H-1B extension application.
� Thus, a foreign citizen is eligible for an extension of H-1B visa status beyond the 6th year as long as either the qualifying labor certification application or I-140 immigrant petition has or will have been pending for at least 365 days prior to the foreign citizen�s requested start date, regardless of whether the H-1B extension application was filed prior to the passage of such period.
� If the foreign citizen would no longer be in H-1B status at the time that 365 days from the filing of the labor certification application or immigrant petition has run, thus leaving a gap in valid status, then the extension of stay request cannot be granted.
� A request for an H-1B extension beyond the 6-year limit should not be denied on the sole basis that an I-140 petition has not yet been filed.
Are you advertising your Law Office on the message board...????
No comments:
Post a Comment