smangc
06-10 12:58 PM
SSbaruah, Yes the employer needs to give you return tickets to your home town.
wallpaper high quality nature wallpapers
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.
godbless
07-18 09:08 PM
Thanks for great services..
My situation is as under : " My case is in removal proceedings for violating H1b status for 3 months due to laid off situation, i am working on H1b now and my labor is approved and I-140 is pending, now my priority date is become current for I-485 filing", now who will adjudicate my case, INS or EOIR court, where will i file my I-485.
will court close my removal proceedings based on PD current..
i will really really apprecate your help.
As yours is a really serious matter. You should take the advice of some attorney in fact as time available to know about the whole thing and then applying for I 485, in case, is very less.
My situation is as under : " My case is in removal proceedings for violating H1b status for 3 months due to laid off situation, i am working on H1b now and my labor is approved and I-140 is pending, now my priority date is become current for I-485 filing", now who will adjudicate my case, INS or EOIR court, where will i file my I-485.
will court close my removal proceedings based on PD current..
i will really really apprecate your help.
As yours is a really serious matter. You should take the advice of some attorney in fact as time available to know about the whole thing and then applying for I 485, in case, is very less.
2011 nature wallpaper high quality.
nikunj007
03-10 03:09 AM
Has anyone came across a person who filed multiple h1b through different employers and one got selected and other
rejected in lottery? Pls share.
rejected in lottery? Pls share.
more...
dealsnet
08-19 01:01 PM
Here almost 70% of EB2 India people are going to get their GC in couple of months. So the traffic for IV going to be down by about 50%. So to keep the people in focus and in loop and keep the network of immigrant community even after GC and help their onward journey. They might need info about certification, tests, health, financial advise etc.
I am now interested to go for PE license in NY state. Without GC, I am not able to appear before.
I am now interested to go for PE license in NY state. Without GC, I am not able to appear before.
go_gc_way
05-10 11:54 AM
I think too .. It helps people like me to read opinions and summarized comments on news articles and developments .. rather than links.
It would be nice , if they more closely relate to our problems.
Thanks Learning & Immi , for your efforts.
It would be nice , if they more closely relate to our problems.
Thanks Learning & Immi , for your efforts.
more...
lost
01-27 02:07 PM
We need to have a massive participation for our question to get noticed........and today is already Thrusday!
2010 HDTV Widescreen Wallpapers of
ramus
06-22 04:40 PM
You can go to AAA if you have their membership..You will get it for free.
IF you save some money, pleasr think to contribute to IV..
Thanks.
Which is the best place(Kinkos,Sears,Ritz) to take photos for I-485?
IF you save some money, pleasr think to contribute to IV..
Thanks.
Which is the best place(Kinkos,Sears,Ritz) to take photos for I-485?
more...
pd052009
09-13 02:51 PM
You save time when you port from one EB category to another EB category and your country of chargeability has a backlog. Switching b/w employers with same EB category will not save any time.
Hi pd052009,
Thank you for your help. I am just confused about one issue. I thought by porting my PD from and old EB2+ perm case to a new EB2+perm will save me time in waiting for the PD. Now you mentioned that if I port my PD from an old EB2 to a new EB2 (same category), I will not save any time. Please clarify.
Thanks.
Hi pd052009,
Thank you for your help. I am just confused about one issue. I thought by porting my PD from and old EB2+ perm case to a new EB2+perm will save me time in waiting for the PD. Now you mentioned that if I port my PD from an old EB2 to a new EB2 (same category), I will not save any time. Please clarify.
Thanks.
hair Amazing nature wallpapers high
shiva7
10-12 01:00 PM
Don't post for receipts people... IV people don't like it.
more...
Tejas
12-18 12:31 AM
Thank you for ur post. I checked my denial notice. There is no mention of MTR. It mentions that I can file an appeal with AAO within 30 days.
For MTR - Brief / Evidence need to be given within 30 days of denial.
For Appeal - A brief statement of what the error with the decision or what the new evidence is needed in the form, later actual evidences can be given within 30 days of filing form 290(B).
In either case, 290(B) have to be filed to keep it going.
Both Appeal and MTR should be sent to the service that made unfavorable change and later on when additional evidences are sent they need to be send to AAO directly.
Hope this helps.
For MTR - Brief / Evidence need to be given within 30 days of denial.
For Appeal - A brief statement of what the error with the decision or what the new evidence is needed in the form, later actual evidences can be given within 30 days of filing form 290(B).
In either case, 290(B) have to be filed to keep it going.
Both Appeal and MTR should be sent to the service that made unfavorable change and later on when additional evidences are sent they need to be send to AAO directly.
Hope this helps.
hot high quality nature wallpapers. nature wallpaper high quality.
GCard_Dream
04-05 04:32 PM
Is that really true? I am not so sure about that. I thought you can get unlimited H1B extension as long as you have your I-140 approved. Do you really have to be retrogressed? Can someone confirm this please.
If what you are saying is right then let's say that I have filed my I-485 already because PD is current and my H1B expires but haven't received my EAD yet, what would my status be then until I recieve EAD?
I gather that you can get a 3 year h1b extension when you have an approved I-140 and are retrogressed.
Update: I double checked this and you are right. Can get H1B extension after 6 years only if I-140 is approved and PD retrogressed or 365 have days have elapsed since the filing of labor. I guess the question now is what is your status if H1 has expired, I-485 is filed but EAD hasn't been received yet.
If what you are saying is right then let's say that I have filed my I-485 already because PD is current and my H1B expires but haven't received my EAD yet, what would my status be then until I recieve EAD?
I gather that you can get a 3 year h1b extension when you have an approved I-140 and are retrogressed.
Update: I double checked this and you are right. Can get H1B extension after 6 years only if I-140 is approved and PD retrogressed or 365 have days have elapsed since the filing of labor. I guess the question now is what is your status if H1 has expired, I-485 is filed but EAD hasn't been received yet.
more...
house High Quality wallpapers
dpp
06-28 03:03 PM
dpp,
I dont know why its wrong for you. sounds very logical to me. Dont bring in the discussion of unnecessary current employment verification. The letter has to state that the employer is willing to hire him as a future employee. NOT RIGHT NOW. So the title has to be the title stated in the PERM/Labor Cert
Do you know what letters you want for filing I-485 for yourself and spouse?
If not, here it is. Employer needs to give 2 letters,
1) Employment verification letter --- this is from current employment where you are working now
2) Employment offer letter. ---- this is from the future employer who filed your PERM
Please check with others before you comment on my words.
I dont know why its wrong for you. sounds very logical to me. Dont bring in the discussion of unnecessary current employment verification. The letter has to state that the employer is willing to hire him as a future employee. NOT RIGHT NOW. So the title has to be the title stated in the PERM/Labor Cert
Do you know what letters you want for filing I-485 for yourself and spouse?
If not, here it is. Employer needs to give 2 letters,
1) Employment verification letter --- this is from current employment where you are working now
2) Employment offer letter. ---- this is from the future employer who filed your PERM
Please check with others before you comment on my words.
tattoo Great wallpapers about nature,
freddyCR
July 27th, 2005, 10:44 AM
Ok Gary..this is my interpretation.
This is what I did:
In the RAW window :
Exposure -1.65
Brightness 71
(other values in Auto)
In PS window
Shadows 12
Brightness 36
Levels:
Input 18 0.89 255
Output 0 255
COlor Saturation +34
Unsharp Mask 300 0.3 0
Et voila:
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/500/gparrraw.jpg
This is what I did:
In the RAW window :
Exposure -1.65
Brightness 71
(other values in Auto)
In PS window
Shadows 12
Brightness 36
Levels:
Input 18 0.89 255
Output 0 255
COlor Saturation +34
Unsharp Mask 300 0.3 0
Et voila:
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/500/gparrraw.jpg
more...
pictures high quality nature wallpapers
Catherine
06-23 09:40 AM
Thanks for your thoughts. Unfortunately the marriage was the basis of my green card and I was divorced before being married for two years and, therefore, before applying jointly with my (ex-)husband for the conditions on that card to be removed.
The link you sent was helpful for people in my situation, however. For the information of others who may be in this situation, this part applies:
"Divorce Before Green Card Issued
Conditional permanent residence means that the permanent residence can be terminated if it is determined that the marriage was a sham. The marriage is considered a sham when the spouses marry only for the green card. The marriage is not a sham if the spouses married for any other reason and the marriage took place within two years before the immigrant was given a green card. Before the two-year anniversary of permanent residence being given to the immigrant, both the immigrant and spouse must file a joint petition to remove the conditions.
However, if the immigrant spouse is divorcing the U.S. citizen spouse, then the relationship may have deteriorated to a point where the U.S. citizen spouse does not agree to file the joint petition to remove the conditions. This is when a divorce involving a green card causes the most problems. The immigrant spouse must then file for a waiver from the joint petition rule.
If the divorce is finalized before the green card is issued, the immigrant spouse cannot get a green card based on the marriage. This is because the divorce terminated the conditional permanent residence.
But, the immigrant can also get a waiver of this termination. A waiver of the termination is granted if the marriage was in good faith and the immigrant was not at fault for failing to file the joint petition to remove the condition.
Applying for a Waiver
The immigrant spouse must prove grounds for the waiver. The following are grounds for a waiver of termination:
* Good faith marriage (if the divorce is finalized when you file for the waiver). A good faith marriage can be proved by showing that the couple had a child and that the couple owned property. You will also need to file a copy of the final divorce decree.
* Extreme hardship to the immigrant spouse if deported.
* Extreme cruelty and abuse from the U.S. citizen spouse.
Waivers often require an interview of the immigrant spouse to get approval."
The link you sent was helpful for people in my situation, however. For the information of others who may be in this situation, this part applies:
"Divorce Before Green Card Issued
Conditional permanent residence means that the permanent residence can be terminated if it is determined that the marriage was a sham. The marriage is considered a sham when the spouses marry only for the green card. The marriage is not a sham if the spouses married for any other reason and the marriage took place within two years before the immigrant was given a green card. Before the two-year anniversary of permanent residence being given to the immigrant, both the immigrant and spouse must file a joint petition to remove the conditions.
However, if the immigrant spouse is divorcing the U.S. citizen spouse, then the relationship may have deteriorated to a point where the U.S. citizen spouse does not agree to file the joint petition to remove the conditions. This is when a divorce involving a green card causes the most problems. The immigrant spouse must then file for a waiver from the joint petition rule.
If the divorce is finalized before the green card is issued, the immigrant spouse cannot get a green card based on the marriage. This is because the divorce terminated the conditional permanent residence.
But, the immigrant can also get a waiver of this termination. A waiver of the termination is granted if the marriage was in good faith and the immigrant was not at fault for failing to file the joint petition to remove the condition.
Applying for a Waiver
The immigrant spouse must prove grounds for the waiver. The following are grounds for a waiver of termination:
* Good faith marriage (if the divorce is finalized when you file for the waiver). A good faith marriage can be proved by showing that the couple had a child and that the couple owned property. You will also need to file a copy of the final divorce decree.
* Extreme hardship to the immigrant spouse if deported.
* Extreme cruelty and abuse from the U.S. citizen spouse.
Waivers often require an interview of the immigrant spouse to get approval."
dresses high quality nature wallpapers. 21 high quality nature
gc_chahiye
11-19 12:41 PM
i am going for the h1 stamping first time . in form 156 how long do you intend to stay in usa ? for that i wrote 3 years . is it ok ? and my sister is also in usa .so for one question i wrote the same thing because we should be honest thats why.
here what my question is will the interview people think that i wont come back to home coutry because of 3years and sister ?
should i take any guarantee supporting letter from my parents if yes how is the format ? please answer with your experiences? i appriciate your help .
+ 3 years is correct, as thats what your H1 petition is for. You will get a 3 year multiple entry visa, thats the standard for H1.
+ no problem with your sister being in the US. The H1-B is a dual intent visa. Unlike a student visa or a tourist visa you are not required to prove any ties to INdia or convince them that you'll return. Dont take any support letter from your parents, its not needed. As long as you have a bonafide job offer from the US and your degree certificate etc are in order, you are good to go.
If they ask you if you'll come back, the answer is upto you: you can say yes, you can say you'll evaluate in 3 years if you want to return or extend for another 3 etc. Typically it does not come up because of the dual-intent nature of this visa.
here what my question is will the interview people think that i wont come back to home coutry because of 3years and sister ?
should i take any guarantee supporting letter from my parents if yes how is the format ? please answer with your experiences? i appriciate your help .
+ 3 years is correct, as thats what your H1 petition is for. You will get a 3 year multiple entry visa, thats the standard for H1.
+ no problem with your sister being in the US. The H1-B is a dual intent visa. Unlike a student visa or a tourist visa you are not required to prove any ties to INdia or convince them that you'll return. Dont take any support letter from your parents, its not needed. As long as you have a bonafide job offer from the US and your degree certificate etc are in order, you are good to go.
If they ask you if you'll come back, the answer is upto you: you can say yes, you can say you'll evaluate in 3 years if you want to return or extend for another 3 etc. Typically it does not come up because of the dual-intent nature of this visa.
more...
makeup Tags: High Quality Nature
GooblyWoobly
08-08 04:49 PM
Yeah!! It was posted on USCIS site also!!
See, I mostly frequent this forum only (and I think that's true for a lot others), and didn't see it posted here. So, went ahead and posted it. The other thread is in members only forum!!
Sorry if it offends anyone. Moderators, please close this thread if you see deemed. If the Moderators are fine with this thread, don't worry about commenting if this is duplicate!!
See, I mostly frequent this forum only (and I think that's true for a lot others), and didn't see it posted here. So, went ahead and posted it. The other thread is in members only forum!!
Sorry if it offends anyone. Moderators, please close this thread if you see deemed. If the Moderators are fine with this thread, don't worry about commenting if this is duplicate!!
girlfriend high quality nature wallpapers
psaxena
06-29 06:56 PM
As per H1B you cannot do this.. the second job will be illegal
Hello,
Forum Gurus, i have a basic question. Currently i'm employed by a corporation and working full time for them under H1B. Now, i want to work for additional company as part time (approx. 20 hrs/week). This company cannot give me cash but only check. Is it possible to file additional H1B just for this company and start working for them under this new H1B?
My current status is: H1B approved with current company and I-140 approved.
Also, if the answer to my question above is yes, then could this affect my current H1B and approved I-140 in any ways. Thanks in advance.
Hello,
Forum Gurus, i have a basic question. Currently i'm employed by a corporation and working full time for them under H1B. Now, i want to work for additional company as part time (approx. 20 hrs/week). This company cannot give me cash but only check. Is it possible to file additional H1B just for this company and start working for them under this new H1B?
My current status is: H1B approved with current company and I-140 approved.
Also, if the answer to my question above is yes, then could this affect my current H1B and approved I-140 in any ways. Thanks in advance.
hairstyles Collection of the est nature
ggc
10-16 04:41 PM
No, I received interview cancellation letter for the interview that scheduled in 2009. Reason not mentioned in that letter. We moved to CA, this year and San Jose field office scheduled interview
pmat
01-26 11:16 AM
RTP... RTP... RTP... very good school districts, affordable housing and good desi community. Also, good amount of jobs in high-tech fields. Location is pretty good - you can drive anywhere from Florida to NY.
ZemtitoEvet
03-24 11:47 PM
Priofeseria Anne sexton poems (http://dmix.mx.am/xjgkpi.html)
Viaggi veneto (http://ogk.mx.am/bbbs.html)
:-|
:-@
Killer sex (http://dmix.mx.am/utkj.html)
:-v
biowbabiptoli College teens webcam (http://kladez.mx.am/ofdj.html)
biowbabiptoli :-?
Cause and effect of teen pregnancy (http://dmix.mx.am/sgbg.html)
Viaggi veneto (http://ogk.mx.am/bbbs.html)
:-|
:-@
Killer sex (http://dmix.mx.am/utkj.html)
:-v
biowbabiptoli College teens webcam (http://kladez.mx.am/ofdj.html)
biowbabiptoli :-?
Cause and effect of teen pregnancy (http://dmix.mx.am/sgbg.html)
No comments:
Post a Comment