enggr
10-12 12:37 AM
Hi Friends/Gurus,
My attorney received an RFE on H1B extension last week.
The details of my case are
2004-Oct-01 -- My H1B started
2004-Nov-20 -- I entered the country on H1B for the first time
2008-Dec-25 -- Date till my current work authorization (I-797) is valid
2010-Sep-30 -- Date I complete 6 years under H1B. Since I entered only on 2004-Nov-20 my attorney said my 6 years is up to 2010 Nov 20th
2008-August-10th -- My attorney applied for my H1B extension under normal processing. He requested until 2011-Dec-25th (3 years from current I-797) expiration on the petition instead of 2010-Nov-20th
2008-Oct-8th -- Attorney received the RFE
When the petition for H1B extension was prepared on 2008 July, I asked the employer why the period of intended employment is put as 2011-Dec-25th instead of 2010 Nov 20th. The employer replied that its a usual practice to request 3 years of H1B extension and USCIS will only give the maximum possible
What's the RFE
Now we got the RFE and it says we have requested for an extension beyond 6 years and for getting that we should have a labor certification pending more than 365 days or an approved I-140.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a labor cert with priority date of 2006 August which was approved but the I-140 was denied on EB2 category for not meeting 5 years of progressive experience. Earlier this year in 2008 April we have filed another EB3 I-140 for the same 2006 Aug Labor
On the H1B extension petition attorney had requested until 2011-Nov 20th instead of 2010 Nov 20th. I saw the H1B extension application and it says Dates of Intended employment as 12/25/2008 till 12/25/2011
Do you think the attorney should have given the intended period only until 11/20/2010?
The attorney contacted me and said they are going to send a copy of my I-94 as of Nov 20th 2004 and a copy of my immigration port of entry stamp on my passport stamped on nov 20th 2004 and request to give the extension. The attorney mentioned that the I-94 and port of entry seal will help USCIS to determine the maximum period of H1B that can be granted
My worry
My worry is INS rejecting the petition saying these kinds of changes in dates (2010 nov instead of 2011 dec) cannot be done in the midde of the process and this will be rejected and we need to file again a new petition. I know that we can work until 240 days if we file for an extension on time. I want to get this extension obtained before 2008 dec 25th so that I don't have to go through a chance of denial after 2008 dec 25th which can put my status into illegal sometimes. I am thinking of premium processign also if the results of the RFE doesn't come by next month (November).
My questions
1) Do you think the attorney should have given the intended period of employment only until 11/20/2010 on the original petition?
2) Please advice me on how we should resopnd to the RFE and what date we should request for.
3) Should we ask USCIS to give extension until 2010 sep 30th if they don't agree for 2010 nov 20th? Does this has to be clearly mentioned in the RFE response letter?
Your help very much appreciated. Please reply to this as my legal stay is based on this.
My attorney received an RFE on H1B extension last week.
The details of my case are
2004-Oct-01 -- My H1B started
2004-Nov-20 -- I entered the country on H1B for the first time
2008-Dec-25 -- Date till my current work authorization (I-797) is valid
2010-Sep-30 -- Date I complete 6 years under H1B. Since I entered only on 2004-Nov-20 my attorney said my 6 years is up to 2010 Nov 20th
2008-August-10th -- My attorney applied for my H1B extension under normal processing. He requested until 2011-Dec-25th (3 years from current I-797) expiration on the petition instead of 2010-Nov-20th
2008-Oct-8th -- Attorney received the RFE
When the petition for H1B extension was prepared on 2008 July, I asked the employer why the period of intended employment is put as 2011-Dec-25th instead of 2010 Nov 20th. The employer replied that its a usual practice to request 3 years of H1B extension and USCIS will only give the maximum possible
What's the RFE
Now we got the RFE and it says we have requested for an extension beyond 6 years and for getting that we should have a labor certification pending more than 365 days or an approved I-140.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a labor cert with priority date of 2006 August which was approved but the I-140 was denied on EB2 category for not meeting 5 years of progressive experience. Earlier this year in 2008 April we have filed another EB3 I-140 for the same 2006 Aug Labor
On the H1B extension petition attorney had requested until 2011-Nov 20th instead of 2010 Nov 20th. I saw the H1B extension application and it says Dates of Intended employment as 12/25/2008 till 12/25/2011
Do you think the attorney should have given the intended period only until 11/20/2010?
The attorney contacted me and said they are going to send a copy of my I-94 as of Nov 20th 2004 and a copy of my immigration port of entry stamp on my passport stamped on nov 20th 2004 and request to give the extension. The attorney mentioned that the I-94 and port of entry seal will help USCIS to determine the maximum period of H1B that can be granted
My worry
My worry is INS rejecting the petition saying these kinds of changes in dates (2010 nov instead of 2011 dec) cannot be done in the midde of the process and this will be rejected and we need to file again a new petition. I know that we can work until 240 days if we file for an extension on time. I want to get this extension obtained before 2008 dec 25th so that I don't have to go through a chance of denial after 2008 dec 25th which can put my status into illegal sometimes. I am thinking of premium processign also if the results of the RFE doesn't come by next month (November).
My questions
1) Do you think the attorney should have given the intended period of employment only until 11/20/2010 on the original petition?
2) Please advice me on how we should resopnd to the RFE and what date we should request for.
3) Should we ask USCIS to give extension until 2010 sep 30th if they don't agree for 2010 nov 20th? Does this has to be clearly mentioned in the RFE response letter?
Your help very much appreciated. Please reply to this as my legal stay is based on this.
wallpaper hair Nicki Minaj is the most
MArch172008
05-23 03:32 PM
I am on H1 since 2005 and renewed last year and it is valid till april 2010.
Last year i joined directly to the client and they are processing my GC.
When they hired me they gave me list of projects and future plans for more then 5 years but this work is not IT driven and manufacutring in having late back attitude so my fear is if there are not projects in the future i may loose the job then at that point i will have very little time to get my labour approves abd re start the process...
So as back up i want to have a labour approve based on future employment and if possible have 140 processed.
guide me if this is not the correct thing to do...
regards
Last year i joined directly to the client and they are processing my GC.
When they hired me they gave me list of projects and future plans for more then 5 years but this work is not IT driven and manufacutring in having late back attitude so my fear is if there are not projects in the future i may loose the job then at that point i will have very little time to get my labour approves abd re start the process...
So as back up i want to have a labour approve based on future employment and if possible have 140 processed.
guide me if this is not the correct thing to do...
regards
yabadaba
06-22 05:30 PM
bump
2011 Nicki Minaj-Barbie World (The
fromnaija
03-28 01:05 PM
You will need to have your H1 amended to show that you are employed part time. You should be fine with that.
My LC is languishing in Philly backlog center. Not sure if I beleive that they will have it completed by Sep 2007. In any case, I am blessed enough to be able to switch to a part time status at work. I am enrolling in a part time graduate program. My question is - will going part time at work hurt me with LC or even later with 140, 485, or maybe even green card interview?? Thanks.
My LC is languishing in Philly backlog center. Not sure if I beleive that they will have it completed by Sep 2007. In any case, I am blessed enough to be able to switch to a part time status at work. I am enrolling in a part time graduate program. My question is - will going part time at work hurt me with LC or even later with 140, 485, or maybe even green card interview?? Thanks.
more...
joeshmoe
09-04 12:35 PM
Congratulations man!
now here is the stream of questions :)
Your Service Center?
GC approved with Priority date April 2001 or Dec 2004?
485 was for underlying labor PD of Dec 2004.
I had applied for different labor (different employee and different job) in April 2001 but that case went nowhere and had to apply for new one in Dec 04 without the possibility of transferring the earlier PD.
now here is the stream of questions :)
Your Service Center?
GC approved with Priority date April 2001 or Dec 2004?
485 was for underlying labor PD of Dec 2004.
I had applied for different labor (different employee and different job) in April 2001 but that case went nowhere and had to apply for new one in Dec 04 without the possibility of transferring the earlier PD.
gulute
12-09 08:30 PM
Pardon my ignorance!
My understanding was American companies are setting up shops in India for cheap labor and still provide services for mostly American consumers and not Indians. And for Oracle they can bring any number of Indians here on H1/L1/B1 visas. So what make them pay $120K in India (I assume he is still a software engineer, else he would have been getting more than $120K here!)
My brother chose to leave USA on his own, after working for 6 years, without applying GC. He was getting 120K here in USA. In India, he joined Oracle Corp and his salary is almost same (about Rs.55Lacs). Indian salaries are becoming excellent these days.
My understanding was American companies are setting up shops in India for cheap labor and still provide services for mostly American consumers and not Indians. And for Oracle they can bring any number of Indians here on H1/L1/B1 visas. So what make them pay $120K in India (I assume he is still a software engineer, else he would have been getting more than $120K here!)
My brother chose to leave USA on his own, after working for 6 years, without applying GC. He was getting 120K here in USA. In India, he joined Oracle Corp and his salary is almost same (about Rs.55Lacs). Indian salaries are becoming excellent these days.
more...
GC_newbee
10-29 09:06 PM
I have same question......if for example as above someone changes to SAP....what should be done in terms of notification to USCIS..?
Do we just go ahead and join the new job / consulting firm and get a letter from them to match the O*NET code or description as above...?
Do we just go ahead and join the new job / consulting firm and get a letter from them to match the O*NET code or description as above...?
2010 Money#39;s Nicki Minaj is one
mashu
05-28 04:58 PM
Hi everybody,
please help - the lawyer filed the original EAD/AP applications.
Now I want to renew it myself - Should I fill an additional form (G - something for changing representation)
if I am filing paper EAD/AP forms???
Thanks....
please help - the lawyer filed the original EAD/AP applications.
Now I want to renew it myself - Should I fill an additional form (G - something for changing representation)
if I am filing paper EAD/AP forms???
Thanks....
more...
xela
04-23 06:00 PM
There is no Dead zone as such. They accepted all the applications received from July 2nd to Aug 17th. They have taken back the notice that they issued on July 2nd. So, they should accept all applications received in between the above period.
they withdrew it a couple of days or so later. So everyone that already had sent their applications was fine.
they withdrew it a couple of days or so later. So everyone that already had sent their applications was fine.
hair nicki minaj barbie world.
Templarian
01-01 07:06 PM
^That's a good idea glosrfc, AS3 only should be added to the guidelines.
jk/ing... actually not, but it would sound mean if I wasn't
jk/ing... actually not, but it would sound mean if I wasn't
more...
JunRN
01-27 06:42 AM
With the July filers coming into the picture, I think TSC and NSC will stick to the current trend. TSC will still be processing i-140 within 6 months and NSC within 10 to 12 months.
However, it will be totally different matter for i-485 as USCIS will prioritize processing those with "current" PD.
However, it will be totally different matter for i-485 as USCIS will prioritize processing those with "current" PD.
hot Barbie World Intro
bbct
02-11 06:01 PM
http://www.prweb. com/releases/ 2009/02/prweb200 0494.htm
There were empty spaces in the URL. Try this...
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2009/02/prweb2000494.htm
There were empty spaces in the URL. Try this...
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2009/02/prweb2000494.htm
more...
house the Barbie World mixtape,
kiran_k02
12-16 01:49 PM
A freind of mine had two years EAD and don't have H1 anymore. His drivers License was denied as EAD is not considered a valid document for drivers License extention.
This happened in Wayne , NJ.
I too will be going for the renewal soon. Did anyone else faced similar situtation. If yes, how did they resolve?
I used My EAD for license extention in East Brunswick DMV in NJ on Rt 18. They extended till EAD expiration date + 3months. I had 1 year EAD. This was back in Apr, 08.
This happened in Wayne , NJ.
I too will be going for the renewal soon. Did anyone else faced similar situtation. If yes, how did they resolve?
I used My EAD for license extention in East Brunswick DMV in NJ on Rt 18. They extended till EAD expiration date + 3months. I had 1 year EAD. This was back in Apr, 08.
tattoo nicki minaj barbie gaga
trueguy
08-11 02:55 PM
Doesn't work. When I select nationality as India, results are ZERO. I wish that was true :)
more...
pictures Nicki Minaj- Return Of The
pkv
02-08 08:17 PM
Thanks all of you for your responses.
But I'm still not clear about one thing... which center I should file EAD application with?
I'm in California, My I-140 was approved by Texas service center.
I-485 was filed with Nebraska but transfered to texas service center.
Now my I-485 is pending with Texas service center.
Thanks again...
But I'm still not clear about one thing... which center I should file EAD application with?
I'm in California, My I-140 was approved by Texas service center.
I-485 was filed with Nebraska but transfered to texas service center.
Now my I-485 is pending with Texas service center.
Thanks again...
dresses NICKI MINAJ | BARBIE WORLD
akhilmahajan
04-30 06:30 PM
If i check the dates for the I140 at Texas service center............. it say october, 2006............ but here we have few ppl who have been approved from november, februray,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
is it like something random, or USCIS holds a lottery ............. i am just curious........
is it like something random, or USCIS holds a lottery ............. i am just curious........
more...
makeup Nicki Minaj “Barbie World”
pappu
05-20 10:54 AM
It is surprising why your case is among the unfortunate ones in such background checks. There was a memo few years ago after IV's efforts that eliminated FBI name checks. Read http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=81&Itemid=61
I am also unable to understand why you are getting conflicting information from congressional inquiries.
If you think there might be a lot of people stuck in namecheck issue these days, please collect everyone on this thread to see how widespread this problem is. You can ask on IV and other websites and have them assemble here. The numbers will help us understand the extent of the problem. I personally do not think there are any such namecheck problems beyond the 6 month period as stated in the 2008 memo. Have not seen anyone reporting on IV except your thread. Some effort may be needed by you to explore the extent of the problem. In terms of resolving it, looks like you are doing what people do to get status.
I am also unable to understand why you are getting conflicting information from congressional inquiries.
If you think there might be a lot of people stuck in namecheck issue these days, please collect everyone on this thread to see how widespread this problem is. You can ask on IV and other websites and have them assemble here. The numbers will help us understand the extent of the problem. I personally do not think there are any such namecheck problems beyond the 6 month period as stated in the 2008 memo. Have not seen anyone reporting on IV except your thread. Some effort may be needed by you to explore the extent of the problem. In terms of resolving it, looks like you are doing what people do to get status.
girlfriend Nicki Minaj - Harajuku Barbie
sanju
10-09 05:07 PM
Hi! there,
Are you sure you talked to the Immigration Officer? The guys who pick-up the phone at USCIS are not Immigration Officers. They are working for the contracting company assigned to just handle the incoming calls. If you convince them for speaking to an Immigration Officer about a pressing issue, only then you get transferred to an Immigration Officer, that changes of this happening is 1 in 10.
And the chance of the representative of the contracting company saying this is very high. Others on the forum have report much more weird experiences/replies.
Could you please clarify if the call was actually transferred to an Immigration Officer who told you this?
Hi,
I called up and spoke to the IO and asked him about the rejection of I-485 due to old fees and he defended that the application would be rejected without the new fee, I tried to explain him about the July bulletin 107 and that people who were on employment based category and whose dates were current should have used only the OLD FEES till August 17th, he did not agree about it and I did not force the issue!
If the IO officers don't agree about the right facts how would the people who just check the fee! I am sure that is why my application was rejected!
I am not sure what to do! Can somebody suggest anything!
How to let those people know that when we applied in August there was a bulletin which said that we can apply with old fee!
Are you sure you talked to the Immigration Officer? The guys who pick-up the phone at USCIS are not Immigration Officers. They are working for the contracting company assigned to just handle the incoming calls. If you convince them for speaking to an Immigration Officer about a pressing issue, only then you get transferred to an Immigration Officer, that changes of this happening is 1 in 10.
And the chance of the representative of the contracting company saying this is very high. Others on the forum have report much more weird experiences/replies.
Could you please clarify if the call was actually transferred to an Immigration Officer who told you this?
Hi,
I called up and spoke to the IO and asked him about the rejection of I-485 due to old fees and he defended that the application would be rejected without the new fee, I tried to explain him about the July bulletin 107 and that people who were on employment based category and whose dates were current should have used only the OLD FEES till August 17th, he did not agree about it and I did not force the issue!
If the IO officers don't agree about the right facts how would the people who just check the fee! I am sure that is why my application was rejected!
I am not sure what to do! Can somebody suggest anything!
How to let those people know that when we applied in August there was a bulletin which said that we can apply with old fee!
hairstyles nicki minaj barbie world album
bzuccaro
11-09 08:40 AM
If the labor certification is approved and the I-140 has been or will be pending for 365 days or more prior to the H-1B worker�s requested H-1B start date, then the H-1B visa worker can file for the one year extension under AC21 106 (a).
zvezdast
07-02 06:03 PM
Yes, it's my case that just got approved. See my signature for dates.
Was this your case? Did you get approved in two months? Whats your PD?
Was this your case? Did you get approved in two months? Whats your PD?
krishna_brc
05-05 08:54 AM
Yes, we don't need original I-485 receipt notice to travel.
I traveled without original I-485.
see below for USCIS note on this
----
[Federal Register: November 1, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 211)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 61791-61793]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01no07-1]
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
__________________________________________________ ____________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
8 CFR Part 245
[CIS No. 2420-07; Docket No. USCIS-2007-0047]
RIN 1615-AB62
Removal of Receipt Requirement for Certain H and L Adjustment
Applicants Returning From a Trip Outside the United States
AGENCY: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This rule removes the requirement that certain H and L
nonimmigrants returning to the United States following a trip abroad
must present a receipt notice for their adjustment of status
applications to avoid having such applications deemed abandoned. The
purpose of this narrow change is to remove an unnecessary documentation
requirement from the regulations that the Department of Homeland
Security has determined causes an undue burden on H and L
nonimmigrants.
DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective November 1, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol Vernon, Regulations and Product
Management Division, Domestic Operations, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 20 Massachusetts
Avenue, Room 2034, Washington, DC 20529, telephone (202) 272-8350.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Travel outside the United States for an alien who has filed Form I-
485, ``Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status,''
to obtain lawful permanent resident status under section 245 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1255, may adversely
affect that application unless the alien takes certain steps before the
trip. Most applicants must obtain permission from U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS) to travel prior to the trip, a process
referred to as ``advance parole.'' See 8 CFR 212.5 (c) and (f). For
these applicants, departing the United States without advance parole
while their adjustment of status applications are pending results in
automatic abandonment of the applications and constitutes grounds for
denial. 8 CFR 245.2(a)(4)(ii)(A) & (B).
III. Rulemaking Requirements
DHS finds that this rule relates to internal agency management,
procedure, and practice and therefore is exempt from the public comment
requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(A). This rule does not alter substantive criteria by which USCIS
will approve or deny applications or determine eligibility for any
immigration benefit. Instead, this rule relieves a document
presentation requirement for certain applicants for immigration
benefits. Specifically, this rule removes the requirement that H-1/H-4
and L-1/L-2 nonimmigrants present a Form I-797 receipt notice for their
adjustment of status applications upon readmission to the United States
after a trip abroad in order to avoid having their applications
abandoned. This document presentation requirement is unnecessary since
it concerns information that is already available to DHS. This final
rule merely eliminates an unnecessary burden on these arriving aliens
and streamlines agency management of its processes. As a result, DHS is
not required to provide the public with an opportunity to submit
comments on the subject matter of this rule.
Moreover, DHS finds that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)
to make the rule effective upon publication in the Federal Register
without prior notice and public comment on the grounds that delaying
implementation of this rule to allow for public comment would be
impracticable and contrary to the public interest. As a result of
USCIS's July 17, 2007, announcement that it would accept employment-
based Forms I-485 filed by aliens whose priority dates are current
under Department of State Visa Bulletin No. 107, USCIS received an
unprecedented volume of employment-based applications for adjustment of
status, including those filed by H and L nonimmigrants. Because of the
recent surge in such filings, it will take several weeks for USCIS to
enter the necessary data and issue Form I-797 receipt notices for
employment-based adjustment of status applications. Therefore, it is
important for this rule to take effect as soon as possible to avoid
undue hardship on applicants who may need travel outside the United
States prior to receiving the receipt notice.
In addition, no substantive rights or obligations of the affected
public are changed by this rule. DHS believes the public will welcome
this change. The public needs no time to conform its conduct so as to
avoid violation of these regulations because the rule relieves a
requirement of the existing regulations. Further, this rule will have
no adverse impact on DHS' adjudicatory responsibilities or ability to
track the foreign travel of affected persons since DHS already records
the admission of all nonimigrants. For these reasons, this rule is
effective immediately under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) and (3).
This rule relates to internal agency management, and, therefore, is
exempt from the provisions of Executive Order Nos. 12630, 12988, 13045,
13132, 13175, 13211, and 13272. This rule is not considered by DHS to
be a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866,
section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review. Therefore, it has not
been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Further, this
action is not a proposed rule requiring an initial or final regulatory
flexibility analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
et seq. In addition, this rule is not subject to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., Title
II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. Ch. 17A, 25,
or the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. 3501, note.
Finally, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-
13, all Departments are required to submit to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), for review and approval, any reporting requirements
inherent in a rule. This rule does not affect any information
collections, reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the
Paperwork Reduction Act.
List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 245
Aliens, Immigration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, part 245 of chapter 1 of title 8 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 245--ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS TO THAT OF PERSON ADMITTED FOR
PERMANENT RESIDENCE
1. The authority citation for part 245 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1182, 1255; sec. 202, Pub. L.
105-100, 111 Stat. 2160, 2193; sec. 902, Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat.
2681; 8 CFR part 2.
2. Section 245.2 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(C) as
follows:
Sec. 245.2 Application.
(a) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) The travel outside of the United States by an applicant for
adjustment of status who is not under exclusion, deportation, or
removal proceeding and who is in lawful H-1 or L-1 status shall not be
deemed an abandonment of the application if, upon returning to this
country, the alien remains eligible for H or L status, is coming to
resume employment with the same employer for whom he or she had
previously been authorized to work as an H-1 or L-1 nonimmigrant, and,
is in possession of a valid H or L visa (if required). The travel
outside of the United States by an applicant for adjustment of status
who is not under exclusion, deportation, or removal proceeding and who
is in lawful H-4 or L-2 status shall not be deemed an abandonment of
the application if the spouse or parent of such alien through whom the
H-4 or L-2 status was obtained is maintaining H-1 or L-1 status and the
alien remains otherwise eligible for H-4 or L-2 status, and, the alien
is in possession of a valid H-4 or L-2 visa (if required). The travel
outside of the United States by an applicant for adjustment of status,
who is not under exclusion, deportation, or removal proceeding and who
is in lawful K-3 or K-4 status shall not be deemed an abandonment of
the application if, upon returning to this country, the alien is in
possession of a valid K-3 or K-4 visa and remains eligible for K-3 or
K-4 status.
Dated: October 15, 2007.
Michael Chertoff,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-21506 Filed 10-31-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-10-P
I traveled without original I-485.
see below for USCIS note on this
----
[Federal Register: November 1, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 211)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 61791-61793]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01no07-1]
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
__________________________________________________ ____________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
8 CFR Part 245
[CIS No. 2420-07; Docket No. USCIS-2007-0047]
RIN 1615-AB62
Removal of Receipt Requirement for Certain H and L Adjustment
Applicants Returning From a Trip Outside the United States
AGENCY: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This rule removes the requirement that certain H and L
nonimmigrants returning to the United States following a trip abroad
must present a receipt notice for their adjustment of status
applications to avoid having such applications deemed abandoned. The
purpose of this narrow change is to remove an unnecessary documentation
requirement from the regulations that the Department of Homeland
Security has determined causes an undue burden on H and L
nonimmigrants.
DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective November 1, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol Vernon, Regulations and Product
Management Division, Domestic Operations, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 20 Massachusetts
Avenue, Room 2034, Washington, DC 20529, telephone (202) 272-8350.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Travel outside the United States for an alien who has filed Form I-
485, ``Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status,''
to obtain lawful permanent resident status under section 245 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1255, may adversely
affect that application unless the alien takes certain steps before the
trip. Most applicants must obtain permission from U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS) to travel prior to the trip, a process
referred to as ``advance parole.'' See 8 CFR 212.5 (c) and (f). For
these applicants, departing the United States without advance parole
while their adjustment of status applications are pending results in
automatic abandonment of the applications and constitutes grounds for
denial. 8 CFR 245.2(a)(4)(ii)(A) & (B).
III. Rulemaking Requirements
DHS finds that this rule relates to internal agency management,
procedure, and practice and therefore is exempt from the public comment
requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(A). This rule does not alter substantive criteria by which USCIS
will approve or deny applications or determine eligibility for any
immigration benefit. Instead, this rule relieves a document
presentation requirement for certain applicants for immigration
benefits. Specifically, this rule removes the requirement that H-1/H-4
and L-1/L-2 nonimmigrants present a Form I-797 receipt notice for their
adjustment of status applications upon readmission to the United States
after a trip abroad in order to avoid having their applications
abandoned. This document presentation requirement is unnecessary since
it concerns information that is already available to DHS. This final
rule merely eliminates an unnecessary burden on these arriving aliens
and streamlines agency management of its processes. As a result, DHS is
not required to provide the public with an opportunity to submit
comments on the subject matter of this rule.
Moreover, DHS finds that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)
to make the rule effective upon publication in the Federal Register
without prior notice and public comment on the grounds that delaying
implementation of this rule to allow for public comment would be
impracticable and contrary to the public interest. As a result of
USCIS's July 17, 2007, announcement that it would accept employment-
based Forms I-485 filed by aliens whose priority dates are current
under Department of State Visa Bulletin No. 107, USCIS received an
unprecedented volume of employment-based applications for adjustment of
status, including those filed by H and L nonimmigrants. Because of the
recent surge in such filings, it will take several weeks for USCIS to
enter the necessary data and issue Form I-797 receipt notices for
employment-based adjustment of status applications. Therefore, it is
important for this rule to take effect as soon as possible to avoid
undue hardship on applicants who may need travel outside the United
States prior to receiving the receipt notice.
In addition, no substantive rights or obligations of the affected
public are changed by this rule. DHS believes the public will welcome
this change. The public needs no time to conform its conduct so as to
avoid violation of these regulations because the rule relieves a
requirement of the existing regulations. Further, this rule will have
no adverse impact on DHS' adjudicatory responsibilities or ability to
track the foreign travel of affected persons since DHS already records
the admission of all nonimigrants. For these reasons, this rule is
effective immediately under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) and (3).
This rule relates to internal agency management, and, therefore, is
exempt from the provisions of Executive Order Nos. 12630, 12988, 13045,
13132, 13175, 13211, and 13272. This rule is not considered by DHS to
be a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866,
section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review. Therefore, it has not
been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Further, this
action is not a proposed rule requiring an initial or final regulatory
flexibility analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
et seq. In addition, this rule is not subject to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., Title
II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. Ch. 17A, 25,
or the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. 3501, note.
Finally, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-
13, all Departments are required to submit to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), for review and approval, any reporting requirements
inherent in a rule. This rule does not affect any information
collections, reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the
Paperwork Reduction Act.
List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 245
Aliens, Immigration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, part 245 of chapter 1 of title 8 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 245--ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS TO THAT OF PERSON ADMITTED FOR
PERMANENT RESIDENCE
1. The authority citation for part 245 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1182, 1255; sec. 202, Pub. L.
105-100, 111 Stat. 2160, 2193; sec. 902, Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat.
2681; 8 CFR part 2.
2. Section 245.2 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(C) as
follows:
Sec. 245.2 Application.
(a) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) The travel outside of the United States by an applicant for
adjustment of status who is not under exclusion, deportation, or
removal proceeding and who is in lawful H-1 or L-1 status shall not be
deemed an abandonment of the application if, upon returning to this
country, the alien remains eligible for H or L status, is coming to
resume employment with the same employer for whom he or she had
previously been authorized to work as an H-1 or L-1 nonimmigrant, and,
is in possession of a valid H or L visa (if required). The travel
outside of the United States by an applicant for adjustment of status
who is not under exclusion, deportation, or removal proceeding and who
is in lawful H-4 or L-2 status shall not be deemed an abandonment of
the application if the spouse or parent of such alien through whom the
H-4 or L-2 status was obtained is maintaining H-1 or L-1 status and the
alien remains otherwise eligible for H-4 or L-2 status, and, the alien
is in possession of a valid H-4 or L-2 visa (if required). The travel
outside of the United States by an applicant for adjustment of status,
who is not under exclusion, deportation, or removal proceeding and who
is in lawful K-3 or K-4 status shall not be deemed an abandonment of
the application if, upon returning to this country, the alien is in
possession of a valid K-3 or K-4 visa and remains eligible for K-3 or
K-4 status.
Dated: October 15, 2007.
Michael Chertoff,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-21506 Filed 10-31-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-10-P
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento