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.
praying hands tattoos. prayer hand tattoos
sen
09-04 09:59 AM
I have a question for you guys. My wife was pregnant when she took her medicals. So skin test was not performed on her. Do i need to wait for the RFE or is it possible to update USCIS with another I-693 with the TB test?
praying hands tattoos. praying hands tattoo, healed
485Question
10-29 03:21 PM
Give a try if they can update it.
praying hands tattoos. praying hands tattoo.
Abhinaym
01-27 09:59 AM
Does anyone have a link to this bill/article? I don't see anything on the news yet.
more...
praying hands tattoos. and praying hands tattoo.
jsb
10-29 04:04 PM
I've done it. Well, basically my attorney sent a notice to the USCIS, but I think you can do it too by sending a simple letter to the Service Center. There is no form for that as far as I know.
It is clear to change from 'old' or 'new' attorney, but there is nothing mentioned for 'no attorney'. I think best is to call USCIS and find out the best way to do it.
It is clear to change from 'old' or 'new' attorney, but there is nothing mentioned for 'no attorney'. I think best is to call USCIS and find out the best way to do it.
praying hands tattoos. PRAYING HANDS TATTOO.jpg
redelite
08-27 05:18 PM
haha, good to know I'm not the only one.. and Thanks guys! :D
more...
praying hands tattoos. The praying hands tattoos are
manjunathk
07-18 01:00 AM
Let's send him "Get well soon" flowers with a letter explaining the REAL problem we (legal) immigrants face.
praying hands tattoos. Praying Hands Tattoo
diptam
02-18 05:38 PM
I've given you the details as a personal message (PM) in IV. check that and reply me there or to my email address. I will do the best that i can legally.
Thanks,
Diptam
Thanks Pritam , can u give me u r email id so that i can share resume
Thanks,
Diptam
Thanks Pritam , can u give me u r email id so that i can share resume
more...
praying hands tattoos. Cross / Hands Tattoo
immigrationvoice1
03-06 02:21 PM
I filed my I485 mid 2003. I missed the boat end of 2004, some where in 2005 and then in 2007 when my dates were current. My pd is in 2002. People who filed with me have been approved and they are ready for citizenship next year :mad:, while I got my 6th EAD approved
You mean all these years you were stuck in name check or something ? Are you EB3 India ? 6th EAD is too many EADs to believe....wish you get your GC soon.
You mean all these years you were stuck in name check or something ? Are you EB3 India ? 6th EAD is too many EADs to believe....wish you get your GC soon.
praying hands tattoos. mom dad praying hands
Janisaris
11-06 05:31 PM
Hi,
did u gout ur receipt notice. I am still wating on my receipt. I called USCIS yesterday still not there in the system.
Please let me know if u got ur receipt number.
any one else who are wating on receipt number who filed I-485 on july 2nd.
I am July 19th Filer. They did not have my information in the system till Oct 31st. But when I called this Monday I got my receipts as they were entered on Nov 1st. As per USCIS they are done receipting all the applications received in July- Aug.
You might want to call and create a service request.
did u gout ur receipt notice. I am still wating on my receipt. I called USCIS yesterday still not there in the system.
Please let me know if u got ur receipt number.
any one else who are wating on receipt number who filed I-485 on july 2nd.
I am July 19th Filer. They did not have my information in the system till Oct 31st. But when I called this Monday I got my receipts as they were entered on Nov 1st. As per USCIS they are done receipting all the applications received in July- Aug.
You might want to call and create a service request.
more...
praying hands tattoos. Holding Hands Tattoo Designs
hsd31
05-12 10:44 AM
In principle the main criteria would be whether the job requires a person with a masters or higher degree. If the company can prove that the job description and requirements match that for a person with masters then he would qualify. Again this is based on my awareness from reading various posts on the IV and similar websites. The attorney would be the best to decide. I know many of our friends in the IV have masters but the main problem they are facing is that the job description does not specify a masters. So the employer hesitates to reaply in EB2 catagory. If your husband fits in then I believe all he has to do is to file another 140 and port the PD of the EB3 application.
How frustating this can be, right? :(
The above statement is incorrect. You will have to re-file the LC in addition to the I-140 for a port. There is some more info on Eb3 to Eb2 here: Upgrading from EB3 to EB2 (http://www.imminfo.com/Library/green_cards/EB/upgrading_eb3_eb2.html)
How frustating this can be, right? :(
The above statement is incorrect. You will have to re-file the LC in addition to the I-140 for a port. There is some more info on Eb3 to Eb2 here: Upgrading from EB3 to EB2 (http://www.imminfo.com/Library/green_cards/EB/upgrading_eb3_eb2.html)
praying hands tattoos. hand tattoo designs.
kumar1305
01-22 07:27 PM
I hate the word Donate but somehow I donated blood which will be sent to Haiti. I did some in monies. Life is life no matter who it is.
more...
praying hands tattoos. tattoo cross praying hands
siravi
11-23 10:22 AM
nihar,
a couple of members tried help you with this query you posted in another thread earlier... (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15594)
1) please write clearly. The SMS format (?) is not helping much :(
2) you need to provide some more/basic information as was also requested earlier (above thread, post # 28)
3) as suggested above, really, your best bet would be to talk to an international student advisor at your university/college, since you have been on F1.
a couple of members tried help you with this query you posted in another thread earlier... (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15594)
1) please write clearly. The SMS format (?) is not helping much :(
2) you need to provide some more/basic information as was also requested earlier (above thread, post # 28)
3) as suggested above, really, your best bet would be to talk to an international student advisor at your university/college, since you have been on F1.
praying hands tattoos. prayer hand tattoos. Praying
spicy_guy
07-30 02:27 PM
Can someone translate (if you have patience)?
more...
praying hands tattoos. praying hands tattoos. Praying Hands Tattoo Pictures; Praying Hands Tattoo Pictures. Slip. Jan 13, 12:29 PM. Wow, that #39;packuaging#39; is nice ;)
Ramba
05-04 05:37 PM
If you are confident that the denial is purly the mistake of USCIS, then contact the Omdusman about this and explain to him that, it is a pure mistake of USCIS and the fee to MTR is not justifyable. Perhaps, Omdusman office will help you.
(I assume that you have submitted all the required documents as per RFE, and those documents meets the eligiblity for your approval)
(I assume that you have submitted all the required documents as per RFE, and those documents meets the eligiblity for your approval)
praying hands tattoos. Prayer Hand Tattoo Design on
TheCanadian
01-02 02:24 AM
That's goofy, I wonder why.
more...
praying hands tattoos. praying-hands-tattoo-designs-7
pappu
05-08 02:14 PM
Subscription Payment Sent (Unique Transaction ID #82G15598SR169690U)
In reference to: S-4UL2252729966384J
-cheers
kris
Thanks. Great to see someone active and contributing despite getting the greencard.
If we have more people like you we can work on trying to get the eligibility start time for citizenship counted from the time I140 gets approved rather than the day you get Greencard.
This maybe a big change and even help us politically as more people will become citizens earlier and can vote.
This is something for all IV GC holder members and all other GC holders everywhere to think about. They are invited to have a dialogue and participation in such an effort if interested.
In reference to: S-4UL2252729966384J
-cheers
kris
Thanks. Great to see someone active and contributing despite getting the greencard.
If we have more people like you we can work on trying to get the eligibility start time for citizenship counted from the time I140 gets approved rather than the day you get Greencard.
This maybe a big change and even help us politically as more people will become citizens earlier and can vote.
This is something for all IV GC holder members and all other GC holders everywhere to think about. They are invited to have a dialogue and participation in such an effort if interested.
praying hands tattoos. tattoo on the hand are visible
chanduv23
07-17 07:37 AM
Getting innovative is the Key here. Keep your paperwork ready (You must do it in the background). Tell your employer through email that all you need is an employer letter and he can fax it to you, tell him you will personally come over to the place where he is to get signature and you have no issues, remember in your communications "Just praise him" . Tell him he is great, and you respect him and and u love him etc....... tell him that he must definitely enjoy his vacation and you will come to wherever he is or arrange for a pickup from Fedex and he has to do nothing.
All you need from him is a signature and copy of 140 approval. Your lawyer has to give you a copy if u requested, now if they are also playing it by your employer, you can tell them that you will come over to their office, and you need a copy so that you can file 485. Just be very poliet with them - be extremely polite and at equal intervals of time keep sending them polite reminders, tel, them you will come to their place and collect it personally - keep praising them and tell them how much you adore them.
In the background, workout your way, talk to a different lawyer. If a lawyer requests previous lawyer for necessary documentation, they HAVE TO GIVE. This approach may be a bit difficult because your previous lawyer may use delay tactics.
Remember - your employer is unethical and your lawyer is egoistic. You have to deal with crap.
After things go well for u- screw them big time, expose them on the internet and desi crunch.
All you need from him is a signature and copy of 140 approval. Your lawyer has to give you a copy if u requested, now if they are also playing it by your employer, you can tell them that you will come over to their office, and you need a copy so that you can file 485. Just be very poliet with them - be extremely polite and at equal intervals of time keep sending them polite reminders, tel, them you will come to their place and collect it personally - keep praising them and tell them how much you adore them.
In the background, workout your way, talk to a different lawyer. If a lawyer requests previous lawyer for necessary documentation, they HAVE TO GIVE. This approach may be a bit difficult because your previous lawyer may use delay tactics.
Remember - your employer is unethical and your lawyer is egoistic. You have to deal with crap.
After things go well for u- screw them big time, expose them on the internet and desi crunch.
praying hands tattoos. Prayer hands tattoo designs
waitingnwaiting
05-20 11:00 AM
I have completed. :)
Thank you for spreading my teachings to you. :D
Thank you for spreading my teachings to you. :D
mhtanim
10-07 01:39 PM
So, you can keep driving in Maryland with your Ohio license as long as it's valid but you cannot get a Maryland drivers license because of some stupid notes written on the Ohio license?
This is really frustrating to see how some states target (segregate?) the legal immigrants.
This is really frustrating to see how some states target (segregate?) the legal immigrants.
webm
04-22 04:03 PM
Hello,
My company's HR rep informed me that my application was selected in this godforsaken lottery. however the validity dates of H1 have been screwed up. they say valid from Oct 1st 2008-Oct 1st 2008.
Now the lawyers are saying hopefully they will correct things before they mail out either the actual recipts or when they issue the visa. If this is not corrected they are going to apply for corrections.
I am a little worried, should they be waiting until the visa arrives or make a move now?
Has anyone faced this issue and if yes any advice on how to correct things.
It could be a typo..it always happens with great uscis...
Wait until you get receipts/actual I-797 approval notice..
My company's HR rep informed me that my application was selected in this godforsaken lottery. however the validity dates of H1 have been screwed up. they say valid from Oct 1st 2008-Oct 1st 2008.
Now the lawyers are saying hopefully they will correct things before they mail out either the actual recipts or when they issue the visa. If this is not corrected they are going to apply for corrections.
I am a little worried, should they be waiting until the visa arrives or make a move now?
Has anyone faced this issue and if yes any advice on how to correct things.
It could be a typo..it always happens with great uscis...
Wait until you get receipts/actual I-797 approval notice..
No comments:
Post a Comment