Eye 140 Vere Emplyr Tho Undi..dhanni Actv Ga Unchadaniki..

[Raja123]

Even I-140 cancelled can we port ?

yes..if employers revoke..it doesnt harm ur porting..if uscis revokes thn its gone.

[KharjuraNaidu]

Even I-140 cancelled can we port ?

nenu ade adiga mayya... lets wait for answer

[BoltOptions]

yes..if employers revoke..it doesnt harm ur porting..if uscis revokes thn its gone.

 

how and why will USCIS revoke it ? any such situation ?

[Raja123]

how and why will USCIS revoke it ? any such situation ?

if emplyr is black listed..they will dig the shiTT out of the company n may cancel..

[Bongu..Boshanam]

140 port chesukovachu kada.... 

 

vadu revoke cheste issue avutunda?

 

140 port cheskovacha...? portng to new emplyr..?

 

perm pr0css motham frst nunchi cheyyalsi untadi new emplyr tho...PD date okkate stable ga untadi anthe kada.; new emplyr charges lot as attrny fee ani,bokka ani..sollu gallu...hidden charges. 

[vasu123]

PD retain avutundi even employer i140 withdraw chesukunna kooda. Dates current kaledu kabatti start GC with new employer and retain PD.

[KharjuraNaidu]

140 port cheskovacha...? portng to new emplyr..?

 

perm pr0css motham frst nunchi cheyyalsi untadi new emplyr tho...PD date okkate stable ga untadi anthe kada.; new emplyr charges lot as attrny fee ani,bokka ani..sollu gallu...hidden charges. 

140 port chesukovachu.

 

pd retain avutundi.

 

process malli first nunchi.... may be jd & role same undalemo old laaga.

[Maga_Jathi_Vajram]

Masthu chepinav thi - below is latest news from may 2015 and June 2015



BIA decision on Priority Date Retention at Odds with Longstanding USCIS Policy
JUNE 3, 2015 BY ASHEESH SHARMA
Recently, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) issued a non-precedential decision – In re: Grace Estrellado – that merits attention because the result appears contrary to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (USCIS) policy regarding priority date retention.

More specifically, under past practice, USCIS allows a beneficiary of a new I-140 to retain the priority date from a previously approved I-140 petition after the first I-140 was withdrawn or revoked as a result of the beneficiary’s move to a new employer. An exception to this policy occurs when the original I-140 is revoked based on a government finding of fraud or willful misrepresentation. In another related scenario, USCIS allows for priority date retention occasioned by the beneficiary’s “upgrade” to a different employment based category (i.e., EB-3 to EB-2) than originally approved.

The ability to retain the priority date applicable to an earlier approved I-140 is significant because it enables the beneficiary to change positions or employers without prolonging the wait for a green card based on a later priority date applicable to more recently approved I-140 petition. In the case of an “upgrade”, EB-2 priority dates may become current sooner than the EB-3 category. Therefore, a beneficiary may obtain a green card more quickly if the priority date applicable to the previously approved I-140 (EB-3) ports to a subsequently approved 1-140 under the EB-2 classification.

Under the facts of In re: Grace Estrellado, the respondent, Grace Estrellado, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition with a 2006 priority date. Ms. Estrellado subsequently obtained another job and was sponsored by the new employer for a green card. As a result, Estrellado became the beneficiary of a second approved I-140 with a 2011 priority date. Estrellado argued the 2006 priority date should apply to the new I-140 and enable her to immediately adjust status because the old priority date had since become current. However, the Immigration Judge, and the BIA on appeal, determined Estrellado was not eligible to retain the 2006 priority date because the first I-140 had been withdrawn by the earlier employer and its approval thereafter revoked. In so holding, BIA appeared to strictly apply regulations stating revoked petitions do not confer priority dates totally apart from the context of longstanding USCIS interpretation and policy allowing for (in the absence of fraud or willful misrepresentation) priority date retention in instances where the predecessor I-140 had been revoked by operation of changing employers.

It is important to emphasize In re: Grace Estrellado is a non-precedential BIA decision and, as such, is only binding as to the four corners of that particular case. Nevertheless, the holding – that the beneficiary may not utilize the priority date from her original I-140 petition because her prior employer withdrew the I-140 and its approval was thereafter revoked by USCIS – appears to ignore (or affords no weight) to prior government practice to the contrary.

The above case illustrates past government practice is not a guarantee and is – at times – subject to piecemeal and seemingly inconsistent interpretations. At Sharma Law Offices, we strive to keep current with respect to such contingencies, and likewise advise consultation with an experienced immigration attorney prior to a changing one’s employment status.

yes..if employers revoke..it doesnt harm ur porting..if uscis revokes thn its gone.

[vasu123]

Masthu chepinav thi - below is latest news from may 2015 and June 2015



BIA decision on Priority Date Retention at Odds with Longstanding USCIS Policy
JUNE 3, 2015 BY ASHEESH SHARMA
Recently, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) issued a non-precedential decision – In re: Grace Estrellado – that merits attention because the result appears contrary to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (USCIS) policy regarding priority date retention.

More specifically, under past practice, USCIS allows a beneficiary of a new I-140 to retain the priority date from a previously approved I-140 petition after the first I-140 was withdrawn or revoked as a result of the beneficiary’s move to a new employer. An exception to this policy occurs when the original I-140 is revoked based on a government finding of fraud or willful misrepresentation. In another related scenario, USCIS allows for priority date retention occasioned by the beneficiary’s “upgrade” to a different employment based category (i.e., EB-3 to EB-2) than originally approved.

The ability to retain the priority date applicable to an earlier approved I-140 is significant because it enables the beneficiary to change positions or employers without prolonging the wait for a green card based on a later priority date applicable to more recently approved I-140 petition. In the case of an “upgrade”, EB-2 priority dates may become current sooner than the EB-3 category. Therefore, a beneficiary may obtain a green card more quickly if the priority date applicable to the previously approved I-140 (EB-3) ports to a subsequently approved 1-140 under the EB-2 classification.

Under the facts of In re: Grace Estrellado, the respondent, Grace Estrellado, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition with a 2006 priority date. Ms. Estrellado subsequently obtained another job and was sponsored by the new employer for a green card. As a result, Estrellado became the beneficiary of a second approved I-140 with a 2011 priority date. Estrellado argued the 2006 priority date should apply to the new I-140 and enable her to immediately adjust status because the old priority date had since become current. However, the Immigration Judge, and the BIA on appeal, determined Estrellado was not eligible to retain the 2006 priority date because the first I-140 had been withdrawn by the earlier employer and its approval thereafter revoked. In so holding, BIA appeared to strictly apply regulations stating revoked petitions do not confer priority dates totally apart from the context of longstanding USCIS interpretation and policy allowing for (in the absence of fraud or willful misrepresentation) priority date retention in instances where the predecessor I-140 had been revoked by operation of changing employers.

It is important to emphasize In re: Grace Estrellado is a non-precedential BIA decision and, as such, is only binding as to the four corners of that particular case. Nevertheless, the holding – that the beneficiary may not utilize the priority date from her original I-140 petition because her prior employer withdrew the I-140 and its approval was thereafter revoked by USCIS – appears to ignore (or affords no weight) to prior government practice to the contrary.

The above case illustrates past government practice is not a guarantee and is – at times – subject to piecemeal and seemingly inconsistent interpretations. At Sharma Law Offices, we strive to keep current with respect to such contingencies, and likewise advise consultation with an experienced immigration attorney prior to a changing one’s employment status.

 

 

 

chinnaga cheppu enti saramsham indulo

[Raja123]

Masthu chepinav thi - below is latest news from may 2015 and June 2015



BIA decision on Priority Date Retention at Odds with Longstanding USCIS Policy
JUNE 3, 2015 BY ASHEESH SHARMA
Recently, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) issued a non-precedential decision – In re: Grace Estrellado – that merits attention because the result appears contrary to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (USCIS) policy regarding priority date retention.

More specifically, under past practice, USCIS allows a beneficiary of a new I-140 to retain the priority date from a previously approved I-140 petition after the first I-140 was withdrawn or revoked as a result of the beneficiary’s move to a new employer. An exception to this policy occurs when the original I-140 is revoked based on a government finding of fraud or willful misrepresentation. In another related scenario, USCIS allows for priority date retention occasioned by the beneficiary’s “upgrade” to a different employment based category (i.e., EB-3 to EB-2) than originally approved.

The ability to retain the priority date applicable to an earlier approved I-140 is significant because it enables the beneficiary to change positions or employers without prolonging the wait for a green card based on a later priority date applicable to more recently approved I-140 petition. In the case of an “upgrade”, EB-2 priority dates may become current sooner than the EB-3 category. Therefore, a beneficiary may obtain a green card more quickly if the priority date applicable to the previously approved I-140 (EB-3) ports to a subsequently approved 1-140 under the EB-2 classification.

Under the facts of In re: Grace Estrellado, the respondent, Grace Estrellado, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition with a 2006 priority date. Ms. Estrellado subsequently obtained another job and was sponsored by the new employer for a green card. As a result, Estrellado became the beneficiary of a second approved I-140 with a 2011 priority date. Estrellado argued the 2006 priority date should apply to the new I-140 and enable her to immediately adjust status because the old priority date had since become current. However, the Immigration Judge, and the BIA on appeal, determined Estrellado was not eligible to retain the 2006 priority date because the first I-140 had been withdrawn by the earlier employer and its approval thereafter revoked. In so holding, BIA appeared to strictly apply regulations stating revoked petitions do not confer priority dates totally apart from the context of longstanding USCIS interpretation and policy allowing for (in the absence of fraud or willful misrepresentation) priority date retention in instances where the predecessor I-140 had been revoked by operation of changing employers.

It is important to emphasize In re: Grace Estrellado is a non-precedential BIA decision and, as such, is only binding as to the four corners of that particular case. Nevertheless, the holding – that the beneficiary may not utilize the priority date from her original I-140 petition because her prior employer withdrew the I-140 and its approval was thereafter revoked by USCIS – appears to ignore (or affords no weight) to prior government practice to the contrary.

The above case illustrates past government practice is not a guarantee and is – at times – subject to piecemeal and seemingly inconsistent interpretations. At Sharma Law Offices, we strive to keep current with respect to such contingencies, and likewise advise consultation with an experienced immigration attorney prior to a changing one’s employment status.

 

baga saduko bhaya red line lo unadi.. nenu cheppindi kuda adey FYI.

[texas]

revoke sesina em kadu ga uncle? 

Revoke chesthe you can port but can't go back to same employer uncle if i140 ead rules vasthe

[Raja123]

Revoke chesthe you can port but can't go back to same employer uncle if i140 ead rules vasthe

pyna post saduvu, mana analysis ki exact opposite undi...employer requested to revoke anta, USCIS revoked anta..date not ported anta bisket bisket

[texas]

nenu ade adiga mayya... lets wait for answer

avunu port chesukovachu bhayya

[texas]

pyna post saduvu, mana analysis ki exact opposite undi...employer requested to revoke anta, USCIS revoked anta..date not ported anta bisket bisket

advocate ki email chesina..will get back to you uncle

[Raja123]

advocate ki email chesina..will get back to you uncle

me too !!