1803 map of united states

images Groveton, VA map

History of the United States

alex77

10-07 04:55 PM

Folks, Please let me know if anyone knows where to send G-28 form if one wants to revoke attorney and be one's own representative?

---

wallpaper History of the United States

Trails--West (U.S.)--Maps

sounakc

07-10 05:49 PM

thanks for your prompt reply...

cheers

You can not .. you will need to wait until EB-2 PD cut off is Jan 2004. family based is different kind of fruit (I don't want to call it animal) :-)

---

#1803-73 Map for Parcel

americandesi

10-21 07:41 PM

Refer http://www.murthy.com/news/n_staiss.html and search for "Multiple I-485 Filings Not Advisable"

---

2011 Trails--West (U.S.)--Maps

Cherokee, KS map

enggr

10-12 12:37 AM

Hi Friends/Gurus,

My attorney received an RFE on H1B extension last week.
The details of my case are

2004-Oct-01 -- My H1B started
2004-Nov-20 -- I entered the country on H1B for the first time
2008-Dec-25 -- Date till my current work authorization (I-797) is valid
2010-Sep-30 -- Date I complete 6 years under H1B. Since I entered only on 2004-Nov-20 my attorney said my 6 years is up to 2010 Nov 20th

2008-August-10th -- My attorney applied for my H1B extension under normal processing. He requested until 2011-Dec-25th (3 years from current I-797) expiration on the petition instead of 2010-Nov-20th
2008-Oct-8th -- Attorney received the RFE

When the petition for H1B extension was prepared on 2008 July, I asked the employer why the period of intended employment is put as 2011-Dec-25th instead of 2010 Nov 20th. The employer replied that its a usual practice to request 3 years of H1B extension and USCIS will only give the maximum possible

What's the RFE
Now we got the RFE and it says we have requested for an extension beyond 6 years and for getting that we should have a labor certification pending more than 365 days or an approved I-140.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a labor cert with priority date of 2006 August which was approved but the I-140 was denied on EB2 category for not meeting 5 years of progressive experience. Earlier this year in 2008 April we have filed another EB3 I-140 for the same 2006 Aug Labor
On the H1B extension petition attorney had requested until 2011-Nov 20th instead of 2010 Nov 20th. I saw the H1B extension application and it says Dates of Intended employment as 12/25/2008 till 12/25/2011
Do you think the attorney should have given the intended period only until 11/20/2010?

The attorney contacted me and said they are going to send a copy of my I-94 as of Nov 20th 2004 and a copy of my immigration port of entry stamp on my passport stamped on nov 20th 2004 and request to give the extension. The attorney mentioned that the I-94 and port of entry seal will help USCIS to determine the maximum period of H1B that can be granted

My worry
My worry is INS rejecting the petition saying these kinds of changes in dates (2010 nov instead of 2011 dec) cannot be done in the midde of the process and this will be rejected and we need to file again a new petition. I know that we can work until 240 days if we file for an extension on time. I want to get this extension obtained before 2008 dec 25th so that I don't have to go through a chance of denial after 2008 dec 25th which can put my status into illegal sometimes. I am thinking of premium processign also if the results of the RFE doesn't come by next month (November).

My questions

1) Do you think the attorney should have given the intended period of employment only until 11/20/2010 on the original petition?

2) Please advice me on how we should resopnd to the RFE and what date we should request for.

3) Should we ask USCIS to give extension until 2010 sep 30th if they don't agree for 2010 nov 20th? Does this has to be clearly mentioned in the RFE response letter?

Your help very much appreciated. Please reply to this as my legal stay is based on this.

---

more...

Close Up of the 1803 Map Photo

irrational

04-04 02:34 PM

Our company went with a cheapo attorney.

But, from the lessons I learnt over time, WE have to be monitoring all these even if there is an attorney, since ultimately its our life which will be miserable. :o

---

United States Of Mexico.

digitalborealis

01-10 10:51 AM

That probably was unnecessary and may triggered the additional check due to export control of high end researches.

I can imagine.. I work on Assisted GPS platform on US Wireless Carrier Phones. So When he heard GPS, he (VO) must have raised the flag. Having said that, I am a direct employee, not through any consulting company or so. it is just a matter of time. Just wait and watch.

I will update any reply I would get.
D

---

more...

In 1803, when the United

punjabi

07-17 06:10 PM

I joined IV just a week ago as someone referred me this website. Oh! I am indeed impressed and feel great to be a part of it!

Sure, I am going to donate!! You feel like you own it after you make the donation! So, I urge every new and old member to donate today so IV can continue to fight for us!!

Punjabi :)

---

2010 #1803-73 Map for Parcel

Groveton, VA map

MYGCBY2010

07-27 03:03 PM

The job order will contain the job description. This will be in the Labor Application. Usually when a 140 is being applied, the employer will provide you the job order and tell you to ensure your experience letters are in line with the Job order.

You will need the 140 number. See if you can get it somehow. Since it belongs to the employer, I doubt you can get the number by calling USCIS.

The 485 is yours and you should get a receipt. With this receipt, you can invoke AC21 without any problems. You will not need copies of Labor or 140.

But to Invoke AC21 and for subsequent adjudication of 485 without issues, nature of the Job should be same or similiar. What are the options by which I could find my Job nature.. Since I don't have a labour copy or i-140 info.. Any inputs ?

---

more...

Bearcreek, MT map

lostinbeta

10-21 02:03 AM

True.... but I don't have a camera to practice on :P

Not even a digital one :(


Oh well... I will get over it..

Have fun on your camping trip =) :beam:

---

hair Cherokee, KS map

Dated (1803) in the plate.

a_yaja

01-21 08:45 AM

Can soneone help me with this question.....please....

My husband is on H1B and I'm on Ead.....both of us have expired I-94 stamps.....we are planing to go to our home country this year...we want to apply for advance parole......my question is.....can we enter U.S both of us with AD?
I read on Uscis website that you need to have personal reason in order to go to your country while I-485 is pending....and you have to prove your personal reason.....is that true....we want only to visit our parents.

Thanks in advance!

Visiting your parents is a humanitarian reason. Anyways, as vin13 mentioned, they will usually not ask any questions. My wife and I came back from Jamaica after a vacation in Dec. 2008 and no one asked us any questions.

---

more...

Harding County, NM map

thomachan72

03-10 07:10 AM

If they take the trouble of selecting multiple applications from the same employer, I dont doubt that anybody with multiple applications (even from different employers) will get either rejected or get questions.

---

hot Close Up of the 1803 Map Photo

The United States Constitution

drona

09-28 07:21 PM

Southern California IV Meet-up on Saturday 6 October at 3pm in Los Angeles. We have several post-rally action items to work on. Join our yahoo group for further information.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SC_Immigration_Voice/

---

more...


house 1803-Roadblock.jpg‎ (734 × 413

Map of Courtyard By Marriott

yagw

12-10 03:01 PM

The dot system if used properly is a good system as other community members can privately control the reputation of each other. Community can also identify posters who are mischief makers by giving them reds and identifying them publicly. This reduces the need for moderators significantly as moderators cannot read every post and every thread everyday. Pls suggest better ways in which we should handle reputation system.

Pappu,
This reasoning may not apply here. Lets see, what is the positive effect of "other community members controlling reputation of each other"? We are not ignoring some one's post just because he got lot of red dots. Like wise, we don't value some one's post because he got more green dots. Do we? AFAI see here, we value the post based on its content.

Also, I am not sure how this reputation system helps moderators. From seeing the posts here, the members always alerts the admin to delete some offensive posts and not the reputation points.

So the better option is, remove this reputation system and let the users call out for admins to delete posts, if it is offensive. That way, the moderators/admins don't have to read all the posts.

Or at least remove the anonymous nature of the reputation system.

I personally think, this anonymous nature of affecting some one else' reputation brings the worst out of our human nature. I have got some red dots a while back with comments like "don't answer trivial questions." I know who that person is and I am pretty sure the real intention is different.

Even though it didn't put me off from visiting IV, things like this definitely makes it not a welcoming place.

YAGW.

---

tattoo United States Of Mexico.

Map of La Quinta Inn amp; Suites

akhilmahajan

04-30 02:25 PM

bumping up >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

---

more...


pictures In 1803, when the United

1803-SamuraiCord.jpg‎ (734

pragir

06-09 01:08 PM

His PD is sep 2003 which became current in April.. so it took him just over 2 months to get final approval.


Congratulations. How long did it take since your PD became current till you got the card production ordered email?.

---

dresses The United States Constitution

Featured on:File:1803-Tokyo.

zilmax007

04-16 03:47 PM

USCIS loves to have your money :-)

---

more...


makeup Bearcreek, MT map

1803-Roadblock.jpg‎ (734 × 413

reverendflash

10-21 02:22 AM

in a round about way, I'm a deadhead went to 23 shows in 16 months, backstage for 19 of them, kinda hard not to be at that point...

::crosses legs, goes into meditative state::

and yes, that was my first attempt at freehand drawing (albeit on sugar), and when I had my artistic epiphany... :P

Rev:elderly:

---

girlfriend Map of La Quinta Inn amp; Suites

Magnolia, WI map

Gravitation

12-19 12:32 AM

There's a quite a misconception that if h1 is canceled, it cannot be extended. It's nothing like that. Your friend can file for visa transfer (pay extra for premium processing) and get it in two weeks.

The only time you have to file a new H1 is when you leave US and remain outside for a year. Otherwise an transfer is all you need. This misconception is very widespread. Rajiv Khanna was at pains to try to exterminate this in one of his tele-conferences.

Anyhow, at this point, your friend should be talking to an attorney instead of having you make a post at this forum.

---

hairstyles Harding County, NM map

Goshen Hole, WY map

go_guy123

08-24 04:52 PM

ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS 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.

---

kgwithnogc

05-08 09:59 AM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/06/wchina06.xml

---

anilsal

10-12 01:04 PM

Don't post for receipts people... IV people don't like it.

IV people will not like new threads on receipts. Use the lengthy "Receipts Thread" to your heart's content.

---