feedfront
09-15 05:39 PM
Yes I got RFE like 1 month back about employment verification...
As 'sanju_dba' said, you should celebrate your freedom here as we appreciate this freedom more than anybody.
Congrats again and enjoy!!!!
As 'sanju_dba' said, you should celebrate your freedom here as we appreciate this freedom more than anybody.
Congrats again and enjoy!!!!
wallpaper real madrid copa del rey 2011
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.
saketh555
05-04 03:21 PM
I'm moving from MI to TX and need to do something address. Does premium mail forwarding service works for USCIS notices? I know regular mail forwarding doesn't work and they'll be returned to INS. Please let me know if premium service works or not.
Thanks.
Thanks.
2011 real madrid copa del rey 2011
ajaz
06-02 04:05 PM
I filed my eEAD 45 days back, competed finger printing 15 days back, still I don't see LUD on my case; However, my spouse who filed 30 days back had 3 LUD, and a recent after finger print.
Can guys suggest, is this common. Usually after FP I should see a LUD, right? What are my options..
You response is highly appreciated.
Thanks
Can guys suggest, is this common. Usually after FP I should see a LUD, right? What are my options..
You response is highly appreciated.
Thanks
more...
lazycis
12-22 08:48 AM
Appreciate all of your valuable inputs.
I am able to check my I-485 receipt date on uscis.gov. How can we know the notice date. As per my employer they sent it on July2nd and we know USCIS moved those dates again back and forth. When we are counting 180 days do we start counting from I-485 notice date or receipt date?
If my current employer agrees that I am moving to the new employer using my EAD and he don't object anything.. I heard if we use AC21 we may get RFE's for what is the current job description and all. Do I have to use AC21?
Check "Date received" field on the I-485 receipt notice. Do you have it? That's the date you should be using to count 180 days. Notice date does not really matter.
You do have to use AC21 if you want to keep GC process alive and yes, may get RFE. You do not have to notify the USCIS about the job change, but keep your employment offer handy in case RFE will follow. If you notify them, most likely RFE will follow, if not, you may never get RFE. Some people think it's safer to notify the USCIS, but I think it's better not to. It's up to you to decide.
I am able to check my I-485 receipt date on uscis.gov. How can we know the notice date. As per my employer they sent it on July2nd and we know USCIS moved those dates again back and forth. When we are counting 180 days do we start counting from I-485 notice date or receipt date?
If my current employer agrees that I am moving to the new employer using my EAD and he don't object anything.. I heard if we use AC21 we may get RFE's for what is the current job description and all. Do I have to use AC21?
Check "Date received" field on the I-485 receipt notice. Do you have it? That's the date you should be using to count 180 days. Notice date does not really matter.
You do have to use AC21 if you want to keep GC process alive and yes, may get RFE. You do not have to notify the USCIS about the job change, but keep your employment offer handy in case RFE will follow. If you notify them, most likely RFE will follow, if not, you may never get RFE. Some people think it's safer to notify the USCIS, but I think it's better not to. It's up to you to decide.
sandiboy
08-14 03:22 PM
Please update on who received their FP notices:
485 RD:
485 ND:
FP ND:
FP Date:
485 RD:
485 ND:
FP ND:
FP Date:
more...
adibhatla
06-16 11:52 AM
I have seen a letter from USCIS after a congressional enquiry that the "485 is pre-adjudicated and waiting for a visa number"
Hi Chandu,
Could you tell me what needs to be written to the congressman (looking at the content).
Appreciate your help in this regard.
MA
Hi Chandu,
Could you tell me what needs to be written to the congressman (looking at the content).
Appreciate your help in this regard.
MA
2010 real madrid copa del rey 2011
vinabath
03-24 03:12 PM
Dear VB,
I have noticed that you are creating new threads just for the heck of it. If you really have an issue that warrants a separate thread and discussion, please go ahead and do it. Please do not abuse the forum. Use your discretion wisely and stop creating threads that depict frustration.
Take it easy and cheer up brother!!
I have noticed that you are creating new threads just for the heck of it. If you really have an issue that warrants a separate thread and discussion, please go ahead and do it. Please do not abuse the forum. Use your discretion wisely and stop creating threads that depict frustration.
Take it easy and cheer up brother!!
more...
tiger05
03-01 07:45 PM
Hi Rocky,
Thanks for your reply
Ya I was on unpaid vacation and 2006 was my first year. I will discuss with my attorney also.
Thanks for your reply
Ya I was on unpaid vacation and 2006 was my first year. I will discuss with my attorney also.
hair Spain Soccer Copa del Rey
Templarian
11-11 11:20 PM
:lol: Bribery is hard.
more...
nlssubbu
12-12 07:30 PM
Hi!
I have an approved H1 until 2009 but expired visa in my passport. I have AP and EAD approved. My lawyer has the original I-485 receipt notice - I only have a fax of it. I am travelling to India in Jan-08.
I am planning to re-enter the USA on AP. Do I need original I-485 receipt to re-enter? OR is AP documents enough? Do I need to carry approved H1-B notice or any other docs?
Thanks for your help!
Vivek.
I-485 receipt notice belongs to you and I do not know why your attorney retained them. If your attorney is not appointed by you and employed through your company, it is all the more better, if you have this copy with you.
If you are planning to re-enter using AP, then have the original I-485 receipt notice and the company letter to be on the safer side.
Have a safe trip!
I have an approved H1 until 2009 but expired visa in my passport. I have AP and EAD approved. My lawyer has the original I-485 receipt notice - I only have a fax of it. I am travelling to India in Jan-08.
I am planning to re-enter the USA on AP. Do I need original I-485 receipt to re-enter? OR is AP documents enough? Do I need to carry approved H1-B notice or any other docs?
Thanks for your help!
Vivek.
I-485 receipt notice belongs to you and I do not know why your attorney retained them. If your attorney is not appointed by you and employed through your company, it is all the more better, if you have this copy with you.
If you are planning to re-enter using AP, then have the original I-485 receipt notice and the company letter to be on the safer side.
Have a safe trip!
hot Real Madrid enjoyed a
ramesh10
06-15 07:20 PM
Franklin,
I had OPT in 2003 , so should i be using that A# and should i mention YES for question, have you ever applied for employment authorization with USCIS
in G325A,
should i need to mention my part time jobs i worked while on F1 visa (i did not mention anything during 140)
I had OPT in 2003 , so should i be using that A# and should i mention YES for question, have you ever applied for employment authorization with USCIS
in G325A,
should i need to mention my part time jobs i worked while on F1 visa (i did not mention anything during 140)
more...
house Big LFP + Copa Del Rey Patch +
cal97
08-16 12:51 PM
The original post was from 2006, ignore it. Thanks for the detailed information
[QUOTE=gene77;147991]I plan to do this but I am waiting for my EB2 I-140 to be approved. Please see below, I have attached some info I got from Mathew Oh's website. Did you say you applied for your I-140 only 1 month ago and it got approved already? I applied for my EB2 I-140 in Nov and still don't have any approvals.
[QUOTE=gene77;147991]I plan to do this but I am waiting for my EB2 I-140 to be approved. Please see below, I have attached some info I got from Mathew Oh's website. Did you say you applied for your I-140 only 1 month ago and it got approved already? I applied for my EB2 I-140 in Nov and still don't have any approvals.
tattoo real madrid copa del rey 2011
sundarpn
07-20 08:13 AM
thx GC_ASP.
One clarification on question:
3. Can I file my spouses 485 whenever the dates become current (I meant despite myself working for a new employer on H1b.). Will dependent 485 filing need support from ex-employer?
One clarification on question:
3. Can I file my spouses 485 whenever the dates become current (I meant despite myself working for a new employer on H1b.). Will dependent 485 filing need support from ex-employer?
more...
pictures real madrid copa del rey 2011
webm
02-24 03:01 PM
I have e-filed along with spouse new SSN#..no issues...
When we sent cancel letter for ITIN,got a reply confirmation from IRS saying us to use ssn# for federal tax filing and we have revoked your ITIN..
HTH,
When we sent cancel letter for ITIN,got a reply confirmation from IRS saying us to use ssn# for federal tax filing and we have revoked your ITIN..
HTH,
dresses arcelona vs real madrid copa
chanduv23
07-11 05:08 PM
We can use this text, but it is better to use AILA links or contact list we have in IV
more...
makeup real madrid copa del rey 2011
priderock
07-12 02:47 PM
Can some one change the title a little bit. I thought some body got a rejection when I first saw the heading.
girlfriend real madrid copa del rey 2011
siddar
09-15 11:12 AM
USCIS is posting the processing times on the same date as they mentioned on the document......unbelievable, Hope its not a USCIS mistake.
hairstyles Real Madrid set up Spanish Cup
thomachan72
09-11 04:35 PM
There seems to be two waiting with PD 2003??? who are these people and what is their issue?? please let us know what your problem is? People with PD early 2005 are being aproved and you are still waiting? does not make any sense. You need to do something.
sledge_hammer
04-15 07:46 AM
See my answer in blue ...
All,
I know as you all have reached 485 stage so you might be experts who can help answering few of my questions...
1) I work with a company who applied for my labor last year, its approved and now they are filling 140
2) Am applied in EB3 so not sure how many years it will take to get 485 dates to priority dates of 2008 ... am thinking abt 5-8 yrs
3) My wife works in a company who wont apply for her Green Card they dont have a policy
4) Her visa expires after 2 yrs ...
5) If I ask one of the consulting companies X to apply for her green card for future employment and pay all the cost for the green card.
6) Assuming she gets 140 in next 2 yrs before her visa is expired.
Questions .....
a) Can she renew her visa for 3 yrs with her current employer based on 485 filling pending with company X ?
No
b) How much would it cost to apply a green card upto phase 1 and phase 2 ...I might not actually require 485 stage. I just need her processing upto 140 stage so that she can keep renewing the visa until I get my 485 cleared ...in case I leave my job then we might think for her to apply 485 but chances are less.
Depends largely on the attorneys. Anywhere from $2,000 to $7,000
Experts please guide me if this plan would work and if yes how much would it cost me ...
Thanks in advance ..
Lalit
All,
I know as you all have reached 485 stage so you might be experts who can help answering few of my questions...
1) I work with a company who applied for my labor last year, its approved and now they are filling 140
2) Am applied in EB3 so not sure how many years it will take to get 485 dates to priority dates of 2008 ... am thinking abt 5-8 yrs
3) My wife works in a company who wont apply for her Green Card they dont have a policy
4) Her visa expires after 2 yrs ...
5) If I ask one of the consulting companies X to apply for her green card for future employment and pay all the cost for the green card.
6) Assuming she gets 140 in next 2 yrs before her visa is expired.
Questions .....
a) Can she renew her visa for 3 yrs with her current employer based on 485 filling pending with company X ?
No
b) How much would it cost to apply a green card upto phase 1 and phase 2 ...I might not actually require 485 stage. I just need her processing upto 140 stage so that she can keep renewing the visa until I get my 485 cleared ...in case I leave my job then we might think for her to apply 485 but chances are less.
Depends largely on the attorneys. Anywhere from $2,000 to $7,000
Experts please guide me if this plan would work and if yes how much would it cost me ...
Thanks in advance ..
Lalit
sam_hoosier
12-11 12:39 PM
Does anybody know what is the current fee for H1B transfer (from one employer to another), and how long does it take.
$ 320 filing fees + $ 1500 employer fees = $ 1820
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=f56e4154d7b3d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCR D&vgnextchannel=db029c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
$ 320 filing fees + $ 1500 employer fees = $ 1820
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=f56e4154d7b3d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCR D&vgnextchannel=db029c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
Няма коментари:
Публикуване на коментар