ganguteli
04-23 09:18 AM
Focus on your goal. Emotions may not take you there.
If I am in your place, i wont argue with that lawyer. I will try to get full co-operation from that lawyer, and make him file another LC, after proper review from your side. Obviously you need support from employer also.
It is your choice. And yes you can file legal case against law firm. But then what?
morchu, people like you who put their tail between their legs are the reason some are stuck in retrogression and exploited by our employers and have to face some unprofessional and bad lawyers.
yes you can file a complaint against the lawyer and his license will be revoked. See
http://immigrationvoice.org/wiki/index.php/HOW_TO_REPORT_A_BAD_IMMIGRATION_LAWYER
Just because your labor is cleared you have no feelings for the person on this thread who had to wait for 2 years. Can anyone give him back his lost time?
If I am in your place, i wont argue with that lawyer. I will try to get full co-operation from that lawyer, and make him file another LC, after proper review from your side. Obviously you need support from employer also.
It is your choice. And yes you can file legal case against law firm. But then what?
morchu, people like you who put their tail between their legs are the reason some are stuck in retrogression and exploited by our employers and have to face some unprofessional and bad lawyers.
yes you can file a complaint against the lawyer and his license will be revoked. See
http://immigrationvoice.org/wiki/index.php/HOW_TO_REPORT_A_BAD_IMMIGRATION_LAWYER
Just because your labor is cleared you have no feelings for the person on this thread who had to wait for 2 years. Can anyone give him back his lost time?
wallpaper house Bill amp; Sookie // I#39;d Come For true blood bill and sookie.
Marphad
01-08 02:49 PM
I read on www.immigration-law.com
01/08/2009: Bill Introduced in the House for Comprehensive Immigration Reform
Rep> Sheila Jackson-Lee of Texas introduced H.R.264 yesterday to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to comprehensively reform immigration law, and for other purposes. For the full text of the bill, please stay tuned.
Keep the fingers crossed :)
01/08/2009: Bill Introduced in the House for Comprehensive Immigration Reform
Rep> Sheila Jackson-Lee of Texas introduced H.R.264 yesterday to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to comprehensively reform immigration law, and for other purposes. For the full text of the bill, please stay tuned.
Keep the fingers crossed :)
billu
08-06 12:24 PM
DISH Network IPTV (http://www.dishworldiptv.com/index.html)
this is what i am talking about
this is what i am talking about
2011 True Blood Bill Compton by
cooldude
08-03 10:26 PM
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/ReceiptingTimes080307.pdf
Per this press note, Nebraska has issued receipts for I-485 upto July 11 and Texas 26th June....
But I don't think all the July 2 filers have their checks cashed out. And secondly for Nekraska the I-485 cut-off date is mentioned as "7/112007". May be it's a typo and it is infact 7/1/2007.
Per this press note, Nebraska has issued receipts for I-485 upto July 11 and Texas 26th June....
But I don't think all the July 2 filers have their checks cashed out. And secondly for Nekraska the I-485 cut-off date is mentioned as "7/112007". May be it's a typo and it is infact 7/1/2007.
more...
gccube
04-08 12:01 PM
and they gave a consistent reply all the three times that my NC is cleared. But I agree that there are no guarantees.
As per them the NC was initiated on Aug1st 2007. So probably the 180 day rule should cover me.
As per them the NC was initiated on Aug1st 2007. So probably the 180 day rule should cover me.
validIV
04-16 11:46 AM
See my answers in red
I did not wan to create a separate thread since I have similar questions:
My situation:
US pharmD graduating in may 09
H1B approved ( start oct 09)
OPT not approved yet
Married to F-1
child born in US
Country- Gabon (both)
city- nashville TN
Company-CVS
Facts:
My company told me I qualify for GC sponsoring after 90 days of full time as pharmacist and to just buzz them when I am ready. I will be full time rx on my OPT, which shoudl come out before graduation.
I pass my boards in June, I should be go to go for GC filing as soon as October.
Questions:
1. is changing address within the same city affect GC procress? Its not a big deal, people do it all the time. Its a two step process, much easier if you have a lawyer file your applications since they will usually get copies of all correspondences with USCIS and they will take care of this for you. If you are self filing, you will need to take care of both steps yourself. See this: https://egov.uscis.gov/crisgwi/go?action=coa
2. What r the pros and cons of filing GC that early into employment?The earlier the better. The CVS guy told me usually people prefer to wait longer before filing for GC. why? Corporations and businesses do not make it a habit to file GC/PERM apps for their employees if they are only temp or on probationary periods. Normally when they hire someone, they are on probation with the company for a year or so. If they like your work they will keep you and file your application for permanent residency. So normally businesses dont file your GC app until after 6 or 12 months. With CVS, consult your supervisor what the standard filing procedure is. Do not overstep the company policies and file yourself. You need them to file it for you when they are ready and willing.
3. When GC filing start can I include my husband from the start with his F1 status or do we have to switch him to H4 status first?. Does not matter what status your husbands is in as long as it is valid. You can research the pros and cons of H4 vs F1 yourself, that alone is another thread's worth of discussion. You specifiy your husband as a dependant of your GC application usually at the last step before your I485 approval, when your PD becomes current.
4. any suggestion, that you think I can benefit from on how to approach is welcomed. I 've been F1 for 5-6 years now..just looking forward to ending my life as an international student, but I don't want to rush into things out of ignorance. I was in the same boat as you, coming from F-1 to H-1. You are doing the right thing by expanding your knowledge base and asking people. Work hard at what you do and follow up once your application is filed. With the economy the hardest part is finding a job that will sponsor H-1 but youve already gone beyond that point.
I did not wan to create a separate thread since I have similar questions:
My situation:
US pharmD graduating in may 09
H1B approved ( start oct 09)
OPT not approved yet
Married to F-1
child born in US
Country- Gabon (both)
city- nashville TN
Company-CVS
Facts:
My company told me I qualify for GC sponsoring after 90 days of full time as pharmacist and to just buzz them when I am ready. I will be full time rx on my OPT, which shoudl come out before graduation.
I pass my boards in June, I should be go to go for GC filing as soon as October.
Questions:
1. is changing address within the same city affect GC procress? Its not a big deal, people do it all the time. Its a two step process, much easier if you have a lawyer file your applications since they will usually get copies of all correspondences with USCIS and they will take care of this for you. If you are self filing, you will need to take care of both steps yourself. See this: https://egov.uscis.gov/crisgwi/go?action=coa
2. What r the pros and cons of filing GC that early into employment?The earlier the better. The CVS guy told me usually people prefer to wait longer before filing for GC. why? Corporations and businesses do not make it a habit to file GC/PERM apps for their employees if they are only temp or on probationary periods. Normally when they hire someone, they are on probation with the company for a year or so. If they like your work they will keep you and file your application for permanent residency. So normally businesses dont file your GC app until after 6 or 12 months. With CVS, consult your supervisor what the standard filing procedure is. Do not overstep the company policies and file yourself. You need them to file it for you when they are ready and willing.
3. When GC filing start can I include my husband from the start with his F1 status or do we have to switch him to H4 status first?. Does not matter what status your husbands is in as long as it is valid. You can research the pros and cons of H4 vs F1 yourself, that alone is another thread's worth of discussion. You specifiy your husband as a dependant of your GC application usually at the last step before your I485 approval, when your PD becomes current.
4. any suggestion, that you think I can benefit from on how to approach is welcomed. I 've been F1 for 5-6 years now..just looking forward to ending my life as an international student, but I don't want to rush into things out of ignorance. I was in the same boat as you, coming from F-1 to H-1. You are doing the right thing by expanding your knowledge base and asking people. Work hard at what you do and follow up once your application is filed. With the economy the hardest part is finding a job that will sponsor H-1 but youve already gone beyond that point.
more...
cgs
04-03 09:34 AM
Renewal of passport doesn't invalidate the visas in old passport. You have to carry both the passports while traveling foreign country.
You can get correct information about passport renewal processing details by contacting near by Indian embassy. You can also check if there is same day (or faster renewal for extra fee) renewals.
You can get correct information about passport renewal processing details by contacting near by Indian embassy. You can also check if there is same day (or faster renewal for extra fee) renewals.
2010 makeup true blood wallpapers.
hebbar77
09-10 03:07 PM
extended review = "we got your money , now dont bother us"
also means nothing is happening to your case!
also means nothing is happening to your case!
more...
gc_check
07-14 07:18 PM
My lawyer has everything ready to go, Will monitor the situation and will decide accordingly... Most likely, looks like mine will be applied towards the end of July... Also depends on what August VB has to offer, but her concerns are what if USCIS not receipt nor reject and hold the papers, saying the cases are subject to litigation and will not process until a court decides....? etc... and mean time if the dates become current.... what needs to be done...
Also one thing, I observed, most of the updates from most attorneys seems to be the same... looks like all are going with what Aila/Ailf suggests....
Hope some interim relief is provided and this whole mess is cleared in favor of the applicants, as we are ones who are really affected
Also one thing, I observed, most of the updates from most attorneys seems to be the same... looks like all are going with what Aila/Ailf suggests....
Hope some interim relief is provided and this whole mess is cleared in favor of the applicants, as we are ones who are really affected
hair True Blood ..is Mine series
jsb
10-25 03:53 PM
I agree with you....You should be able to file the G28 form to get someone else to be yr representative 2 or 4
..
My understanding is that you need to send a Cancel G-28 notice (as a simple letter, or using a G-28 form) to USCIS. Your current attorney does not have to do anything. You hired your attorney, so you can drop him/her anytime and advise USCIS.
..
My understanding is that you need to send a Cancel G-28 notice (as a simple letter, or using a G-28 form) to USCIS. Your current attorney does not have to do anything. You hired your attorney, so you can drop him/her anytime and advise USCIS.
more...
.jpg "lood wallpapers. hooters")
ponvas
08-10 05:24 PM
This mustang may be GC or citizen holder already . Want to have fun with people who are crying for help!!!
hot lood wallpapers. True Blood
snathan
02-13 01:14 AM
H1B - LCA Related Issues - How can we save ourselves ???
HI
I guess everybody know by now that ICE arrested 11 H1 workers mainly due to mail fraud/wire fraud, and these frauds
I am starting this thread to discuss what we can do to save ourselves from LCA related issues.
** LCA is very important and H1 b employees should work as per LCA - Period.
Location, job and every thing should be as per LCA. No questions.
I am afraid, most of the H1b guys do not even have LCAs with them.
** This is very concerned for all the DESI Consulting companies H1 employees, as we never work at LCA place. I am going to give ultimatum to my employer to change LCA and keep all the docs in place. Otherwise i am going to change to employer, where they are good wrt papers.
Please throw your suggestions to make our H1 system clean and save H1 employees.
Whenever you move from one state to another....urge your employer to file the LCA amendment. Thats the only way to save ourself.
HI
I guess everybody know by now that ICE arrested 11 H1 workers mainly due to mail fraud/wire fraud, and these frauds
I am starting this thread to discuss what we can do to save ourselves from LCA related issues.
** LCA is very important and H1 b employees should work as per LCA - Period.
Location, job and every thing should be as per LCA. No questions.
I am afraid, most of the H1b guys do not even have LCAs with them.
** This is very concerned for all the DESI Consulting companies H1 employees, as we never work at LCA place. I am going to give ultimatum to my employer to change LCA and keep all the docs in place. Otherwise i am going to change to employer, where they are good wrt papers.
Please throw your suggestions to make our H1 system clean and save H1 employees.
Whenever you move from one state to another....urge your employer to file the LCA amendment. Thats the only way to save ourself.
more...
house #39;ill-sookie-sexy-1.jpg
add78
06-05 01:36 PM
My labour got approved on May 23rd .
Is it possible to switch company and use this labour whihc got approved by this company?
Thanks for all your support and sharing for knowledge.
Glad to see that you are getting help from senior members. Can IV get some help from you? Please donate to IV's and your own cause by participating in the funding drive here http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/sh...ad.php?t=19224
and actively participate in your state chapter's initiatives.
Thank You.
Is it possible to switch company and use this labour whihc got approved by this company?
Thanks for all your support and sharing for knowledge.
Glad to see that you are getting help from senior members. Can IV get some help from you? Please donate to IV's and your own cause by participating in the funding drive here http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/sh...ad.php?t=19224
and actively participate in your state chapter's initiatives.
Thank You.
tattoo True Blood Bill-Sookie-Eric
lazycis
10-29 03:02 PM
I found out (via attorney) that the right way to do it is to send a new G-28 form to USCIS. Put your name as a petitioner and as a representative, check box 4 (other) and write "I would like to represent myself in all matters related to my I-485 filing".
more...
pictures Let#39;s face it: quot;Vampire Billquot;
GC9180
06-19 05:59 PM
lets take i got MMR for my primary just two days back...then how can the clinic give me another dose within 2 days?? they cant and they SHOULD NOT. Yes they can do one thing..ask the person to bring proof of next shot the following month.
Well i feel the blood report might say something of that sort...just guessing!!
Well i feel the blood report might say something of that sort...just guessing!!
dresses true blood bill and eric,
willigetagc
08-11 11:36 PM
that makes it tough.... Check with your lawyers. I presume your BC also mentions the name of the hospital where you were born.
If it does'nt then get an affidavit from your parents saying you were born at home and your BC was registered incorrectly. If it does, I dunno what to do....
Also, ask your parents to consult a lawyer in India and see if BC can be corrected through other means.
If it does'nt then get an affidavit from your parents saying you were born at home and your BC was registered incorrectly. If it does, I dunno what to do....
Also, ask your parents to consult a lawyer in India and see if BC can be corrected through other means.
more...
makeup newest series True Blood
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:
girlfriend +and+tom+kaulitz+wallpaper
actonwang
06-16 02:05 PM
it sounds like PD is a MUST for approval but for actual processing order , as in backlog queue, it seems purely by luck :(
hairstyles lood wallpapers. hooters
joeshmoe
09-04 11:22 AM
Fellows in pain ...
It's been horribly long 10 years and many complications along the way but my journey seemed to have reached the end. This morning I got a magically enchanted email:
Application Type: I485 , APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
Current Status: Card production ordered.
I am still at awe and can't believe ... probably will never do until I get the physical card.
For those interested:
EB3 ROW - Dec 2004 (first application was April 2001)
I filed 765 and 485 in June of this year
It's been horribly long 10 years and many complications along the way but my journey seemed to have reached the end. This morning I got a magically enchanted email:
Application Type: I485 , APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
Current Status: Card production ordered.
I am still at awe and can't believe ... probably will never do until I get the physical card.
For those interested:
EB3 ROW - Dec 2004 (first application was April 2001)
I filed 765 and 485 in June of this year
Marphad
01-08 02:49 PM
I read on www.immigration-law.com
01/08/2009: Bill Introduced in the House for Comprehensive Immigration Reform
Rep> Sheila Jackson-Lee of Texas introduced H.R.264 yesterday to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to comprehensively reform immigration law, and for other purposes. For the full text of the bill, please stay tuned.
Keep the fingers crossed :)
01/08/2009: Bill Introduced in the House for Comprehensive Immigration Reform
Rep> Sheila Jackson-Lee of Texas introduced H.R.264 yesterday to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to comprehensively reform immigration law, and for other purposes. For the full text of the bill, please stay tuned.
Keep the fingers crossed :)
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.