immi_2006
10-09 10:47 AM
Which document to produce for people on EAD and AP?
wallpaper Justin Bieber Never Say Never
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.
GCchakravyuh
07-12 01:42 PM
yes we need to hear from Clinton.. time to repay
2011 Justin Bieber: Never Say Never
vdixit
04-22 03:09 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.
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.
more...
kart2007
10-13 07:48 PM
What if EAD and AP is lost in mail. Do I need to pay fee again for refiling?
if yes that sucks!!!!!!!
Unfortunately, yes, apply for a replacement EAD asap.
see this: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=22004
if yes that sucks!!!!!!!
Unfortunately, yes, apply for a replacement EAD asap.
see this: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=22004
indianabacklog
07-30 08:59 PM
The priority date for children who might age out is fixed at the time of your I140 filing. So if you I140 took six months to approve this can be taken off the age of the child when the labor priority date becomes current. So even if you file when a child is 20 and a half and you have to wait for two years for the date to become current, unless the I140 took 1 and a half years their age will be over 21 when the green card can be processed so they age out of derivative status.
Good luck to those who are facing this. I do understand your anxiety since my son aged out while I was waiting three and half years for my labor cert. It would seem that this 'black hole' in the employment based process is non existent to the people who can change it.
Not sure what the future holds for such children, maybe there is some greater plan which we are not aware of yet.
I do see one advantage they cannot be called up for military service (for the USA) on a non-immigrant visa whereas they can if they have a green card. While I understand fighting is a noble cause I would not want my son to fight for our country of origin either.
Good luck to those who are facing this. I do understand your anxiety since my son aged out while I was waiting three and half years for my labor cert. It would seem that this 'black hole' in the employment based process is non existent to the people who can change it.
Not sure what the future holds for such children, maybe there is some greater plan which we are not aware of yet.
I do see one advantage they cannot be called up for military service (for the USA) on a non-immigrant visa whereas they can if they have a green card. While I understand fighting is a noble cause I would not want my son to fight for our country of origin either.
more...
sbvw76
06-02 10:59 AM
Are you not suppose to go back to your country and come back in H1b since L1b is intra-transfer with in your company A?
Pl. consult an attorney..
Pl. consult an attorney..
2010 Justin Bieber Never Say Never
TheCanadian
01-01 10:27 PM
What about AS1?
more...
milind70
07-18 09:39 PM
Who said that concurent filing is available for PERM only ???
That is not true right ????
Somebody please clarify !
Concurrent Filing was introduced in 2003 .PERM came into picture after march 2003. So you are right, u can file concurrrently whether u r PERM or old Labor.
The only issue in this case is that he is substituting labor so he cant use premium processing other than that he could have applied 140.485 concurrently.
That is not true right ????
Somebody please clarify !
Concurrent Filing was introduced in 2003 .PERM came into picture after march 2003. So you are right, u can file concurrrently whether u r PERM or old Labor.
The only issue in this case is that he is substituting labor so he cant use premium processing other than that he could have applied 140.485 concurrently.
hair Views: 425. Justin Bieber:
sharadara
09-01 12:05 AM
Hi,
Hoping to get your opinion on my situation.
I am an Indian citizen, working in the US on an H1B, moving to Spain on a resident visa. My current US employer wants me to continue working from Spain. However, my Spanish visa doesn't permit me to work for a Spanish company, and my US employer doesn't have an office in Spain so they can't apply for a work permit for me. They do have Indian offices, though.
What are my options here? Some of the avenues I am exploring:
a. The company's Indian offices hire me as an external consultant and pay my Indian bank account. I declare my income in India and pay taxes in India, even though I reside in Spain.
b. The company (US or India) hires me as a Spanish consultant and pay me in Spain.
c. Any other opinion
I would greatly appreciate your opinion on my situation, or any references you can give me that I can discuss this with.
Thanks very much for your help.
- Sharada
Hoping to get your opinion on my situation.
I am an Indian citizen, working in the US on an H1B, moving to Spain on a resident visa. My current US employer wants me to continue working from Spain. However, my Spanish visa doesn't permit me to work for a Spanish company, and my US employer doesn't have an office in Spain so they can't apply for a work permit for me. They do have Indian offices, though.
What are my options here? Some of the avenues I am exploring:
a. The company's Indian offices hire me as an external consultant and pay my Indian bank account. I declare my income in India and pay taxes in India, even though I reside in Spain.
b. The company (US or India) hires me as a Spanish consultant and pay me in Spain.
c. Any other opinion
I would greatly appreciate your opinion on my situation, or any references you can give me that I can discuss this with.
Thanks very much for your help.
- Sharada
more...
sdrblr
09-09 10:21 AM
I had the similar mail "Welcome" and no CPO email or status. I got the "Official" welcome letter:D yesterday. The letter said welcome and card will be sent with in 3 weeks. I know couple of guys who go the card in a week. Waiting for the card today :)
hot Justin Bieber Never Say Never
gopi246
03-23 06:49 PM
At last I am able to get to the root of the issue. I went to Logan airport and spoke to Immigartion dept people. They have seperate cell called differed inspection for these kind of clarifications.
When I explained the situation they found that the i-94 number in their system is not matching with that of mine. So when SSA is searching the database they were not getting any details. They have issued a new i-94 card to me and asked me to re-submit the request to SSA. Hopefully they will be able to get it this time.
If any one faces similar problems, they may contact immigation dept of Logan at #617-568-1810 option 0 and ask for differed inspections.
Thanks for all your suggestions, have wonderful time:)
When I explained the situation they found that the i-94 number in their system is not matching with that of mine. So when SSA is searching the database they were not getting any details. They have issued a new i-94 card to me and asked me to re-submit the request to SSA. Hopefully they will be able to get it this time.
If any one faces similar problems, they may contact immigation dept of Logan at #617-568-1810 option 0 and ask for differed inspections.
Thanks for all your suggestions, have wonderful time:)
more...
house spit Justin Bieber Never Say
god_bless_you
04-06 12:44 PM
As far i know you should have a valid H1 status or approved EAD to work and keep your status as valid.
Once you start working on EAD there may be gaps with next EAD approval.
Simply you will not claim working during that period but this is possible only after you start working on your first EAD.
simply if you do not have a valid H1 until you get EAD and claim working on EAD with your Employer by filling W4 forms etc. you will be out of status..
Please check with a attorney on this!!
Once you start working on EAD there may be gaps with next EAD approval.
Simply you will not claim working during that period but this is possible only after you start working on your first EAD.
simply if you do not have a valid H1 until you get EAD and claim working on EAD with your Employer by filling W4 forms etc. you will be out of status..
Please check with a attorney on this!!
tattoo Views: 460. Justin Bieber:
karl65
10-27 08:46 AM
I got the same response about AP (same RD), approved Oct 17, not received yet.
Please let us know if you receive it. Good luck.
My and my family's APs were approved on Oct 03 (Date issued-according to the NOAs) I received email of approval on Oct 22 and my lawyer received the notification on Oct 25. So be pacient, yours is coming soon.
Good Luck:):):)
Please let us know if you receive it. Good luck.
My and my family's APs were approved on Oct 03 (Date issued-according to the NOAs) I received email of approval on Oct 22 and my lawyer received the notification on Oct 25. So be pacient, yours is coming soon.
Good Luck:):):)
more...
pictures Justin Bieber Never Say Never
Lasantha
09-04 09:45 AM
I don't think they are asking AILA for help. This looks like it was initiated by AILA.
Jeez! This is a really deplorable situation. USCIS has all the information and they are asking AILA for help? Why not just ask the guys who have their AOS cases pending? It's so unfortunate that this needs to be done.
Jeez! This is a really deplorable situation. USCIS has all the information and they are asking AILA for help? Why not just ask the guys who have their AOS cases pending? It's so unfortunate that this needs to be done.
dresses Justin Bieber: Never Say Never
vandanaverdia
09-10 02:59 PM
Thanks drona for your support!
Fellow Washingtonians & Oregonians, please join in & support the cause....
Fellow Washingtonians & Oregonians, please join in & support the cause....
more...
makeup images Justin Bieber Never Say
a_yaja
10-08 04:20 PM
I got my green card from Company A. During my labor process i renewed my H1B from Company B which expired last month.
Right now who is my employer Company A or B or none of the above?.
Your question is not clear. Your employer is whoever you are employed with right now. If you are not employed with either company A or company B, then neither is your employer.
Right now who is my employer Company A or B or none of the above?.
Your question is not clear. Your employer is whoever you are employed with right now. If you are not employed with either company A or company B, then neither is your employer.
girlfriend Justin Bieber Never Say Never
chanduv23
07-11 05:08 PM
We can use this text, but it is better to use AILA links or contact list we have in IV
hairstyles Justin Bieber: Never Say Never
arc
05-14 09:07 PM
Technically you will be considered a Bachelors in US + 3 yrs Experience = Masters Equivallent = EB2.
You should be a safe - EB2.
Disclaimer: I am not an attorney, pls. consult a immigration attorney for advice.
You should be a safe - EB2.
Disclaimer: I am not an attorney, pls. consult a immigration attorney for advice.
ajp5
11-02 12:31 AM
Talk to your company Liar (lawyer) first. My non-legal advise is
1. Ask lawyer to request more time for the RFE
2. If thats not possible - send what you can. eg W2 , paystubs etc etc. Try to get the client letter from your employer. If you get it in next 10 days, additional evidence is always welcome by USCIS I guess.
You cannot threaten your employer for something like this. Talk to them & resolve this with the help of your manager.....You have 1 last day ie Monday before last Fedex dropoff time.....reset your stopwatch.......maybe make a movie out of it and post it on youtube:)
1. Ask lawyer to request more time for the RFE
2. If thats not possible - send what you can. eg W2 , paystubs etc etc. Try to get the client letter from your employer. If you get it in next 10 days, additional evidence is always welcome by USCIS I guess.
You cannot threaten your employer for something like this. Talk to them & resolve this with the help of your manager.....You have 1 last day ie Monday before last Fedex dropoff time.....reset your stopwatch.......maybe make a movie out of it and post it on youtube:)
nomorelogins
06-25 02:26 PM
Since there has been a screw up in the payroll by your company, ask them to contact the CPA for advice. They should be able to work out how to issue a W2 ( amendment ) etc, refile company quarter results etc. So talk to company CPA ( else report to IRS )
No comments:
Post a Comment