I140 Revoke

[arshad]

 

Vadi peru meda ..india vellopoyaka..chetabadi cheyinchu

 

musaloda neek mamuluga balavaledu ga G... cal cheste M meeda pedatalev 

[tennisluvr]

ledhu apply chesi untey chaalu deny avvakunda untey chaalu
 

This is only the case if the labor petition is filed one year before the H1B expiration date. If it's filed after that the labor petition has to be approved in order to apply for the one year H1B extension pending I 140 approval. 

[Srimantudu]

maha aithe priority date unchukovachu.. H1 extend chesukoledu once employer withdraw chesthe

ohk...

[argadorn]

you can file another perm with  another company too...if it approved before 6 year you can transfer to that company and i 140 approve cheyinchuko with premium processing....its my opinion not legal advice...

[tom bhayya]

This is only the case if the labor petition is filed one year before the H1B expiration date. If it's filed after that the labor petition has to be approved in order to apply for the one year H1B extension pending I 140 approval. 

 

ts inka 5th yr ey anta

[ParmQ]

Konchem manchi desi mestri la dhaggara cherandi man. Ippude oka mail vacchindhi.

 

Ganga Mantena Case Impacts Some “Green Card” Portability Dynamics

by Philip Eichorn, Esq.

 

What is Ganga Mantena v. Johnson and why should employers and I-140 beneficiaries care? This is a case decided by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on December 30, 2015 and it impacts all U.S. based employers who have filed portability letters on behalf of foreign nationals where the underlying I-140 is currently subject to possible revocation by USCIS or has been revoked. Additionally, it illustrates some common issues such as due notice, an employer’s financial ability to appeal an agency decision and the lengthy employment-based green card process.

 

Ganga Mantena is a foreign national from India who worked for Vision Systems Group (VSG). VSG filed a PERM labor certification application for her which the Department of Labor (DOL) certified. VSG then filed an I-140 visa petition based upon the PERM certification which USCIS approved. Ganga Mantena then filed to adjust her status from H-1B visa holder to permanent resident (or to get the “green card”). Her application to adjust status remained pending with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for more than six months thus giving her the legal ability to change jobs and “port” to a successor employer per the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act of 2000 or “AC-21”. Her current employer is CNC Consulting, Inc. (“CNC”).

 

VSG went out of business. The president of VSC pleaded guilty to mail fraud in connection with another foreign national’s immigration case. USCIS felt that because there was one fraud in a VSG case then all of VSG’s cases might be fraudulent. USCIS began seeking revocation of all the approved I-140’s such as Ganga Mantena’s.

 

USCIS issued a Notice of Intent to Revoke (“NOIR”) to VSG on Ganga Mantena’s case. As VSG was out of business and because USCIS did not issue an NOIR to Ganga Mantena or CNC (despite CNC submitting the required portability letter and supporting documentation), USCIS did not receive a response to the NOIR, revoked the I-140 approval and denied the visa petition. USCIS only notified VSG of both the revocation and the denial. Without an approved visa petition (the I-140) on file, USCIS properly denied Ganga Mantena’s application to adjust status. She appealed.

 

After much litigation, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that USCIS should have notified someone besides VSG as an “affected party” of the intended revocation. The court remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings to determine who the “affected party” is in this case and consequently who, such as the applicant, should have received notice in this case and who should receive notice in similar cases in the future. The message here is diligence, patience and stamina. All parties to a visa petition should monitor pending adjustment of status cases where the I-140 originates from a prior employer. All parties should be patient with litigation because although USCIS and the district court ruled against Ganga Mantena, she was never properly notified of USCIS action versus her past employer and so she ultimately prevailed before the circuit court. This also requires financial stamina as many times good things happen to those who appeal their cases to either the district court or circuit court.  

 

[tennisluvr]

ts inka 5th yr ey anta

If his new labor petition has been filed 365 days before his expiration date, he's safe. If it's less than that he needs to consult a lawyer, one way to extend this is to find out the dates/time he's been out of the US in the past 5 years on H1B and use that time as his buffer(extension time) before his labor gets approved. 

 

One of my friends did the same and got his H1B extension. 

[tom bhayya]

Konchem manchi desi mestri la dhaggara cherandi man. Ippude oka mail vacchindhi.

 

Ganga Mantena Case Impacts Some “Green Card” Portability Dynamics

by Philip Eichorn, Esq.

 

What is Ganga Mantena v. Johnson and why should employers and I-140 beneficiaries care? This is a case decided by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on December 30, 2015 and it impacts all U.S. based employers who have filed portability letters on behalf of foreign nationals where the underlying I-140 is currently subject to possible revocation by USCIS or has been revoked. Additionally, it illustrates some common issues such as due notice, an employer’s financial ability to appeal an agency decision and the lengthy employment-based green card process.

 

Ganga Mantena is a foreign national from India who worked for Vision Systems Group (VSG). VSG filed a PERM labor certification application for her which the Department of Labor (DOL) certified. VSG then filed an I-140 visa petition based upon the PERM certification which USCIS approved. Ganga Mantena then filed to adjust her status from H-1B visa holder to permanent resident (or to get the “green card”). Her application to adjust status remained pending with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for more than six months thus giving her the legal ability to change jobs and “port” to a successor employer per the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act of 2000 or “AC-21”. Her current employer is CNC Consulting, Inc. (“CNC”).

 

VSG went out of business. The president of VSC pleaded guilty to mail fraud in connection with another foreign national’s immigration case. USCIS felt that because there was one fraud in a VSG case then all of VSG’s cases might be fraudulent. USCIS began seeking revocation of all the approved I-140’s such as Ganga Mantena’s.

 

USCIS issued a Notice of Intent to Revoke (“NOIR”) to VSG on Ganga Mantena’s case. As VSG was out of business and because USCIS did not issue an NOIR to Ganga Mantena or CNC (despite CNC submitting the required portability letter and supporting documentation), USCIS did not receive a response to the NOIR, revoked the I-140 approval and denied the visa petition. USCIS only notified VSG of both the revocation and the denial. Without an approved visa petition (the I-140) on file, USCIS properly denied Ganga Mantena’s application to adjust status. She appealed.

 

After much litigation, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that USCIS should have notified someone besides VSG as an “affected party” of the intended revocation. The court remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings to determine who the “affected party” is in this case and consequently who, such as the applicant, should have received notice in this case and who should receive notice in similar cases in the future. The message here is diligence, patience and stamina. All parties to a visa petition should monitor pending adjustment of status cases where the I-140 originates from a prior employer. All parties should be patient with litigation because although USCIS and the district court ruled against Ganga Mantena, she was never properly notified of USCIS action versus her past employer and so she ultimately prevailed before the circuit court. This also requires financial stamina as many times good things happen to those who appeal their cases to either the district court or circuit court.  

 

 

[micxas]

If his new labor petition has been filed 365 days before his expiration date, he's safe. If it's less than that he needs to consult a lawyer, one way to extend this is to find out the dates/time he's been out of the US in the past 5 years on H1B and use that time as his buffer(extension time) before his labor gets approved. 

 

One of my friends did the same and got his H1B extension. 

_-_

[acuman]

revenge pakkana petti....3 year extension etla vastado alochinchu..talk to attorney

You mean 140 approve aythe H1 Ext 3 years ivvali Ana ?


If you have impression like that, change it. There is no rule saying like that.

I know bunch of people 140 approve ayyi kuda 1 yr ext vachindi.


These days 1 yr ext common. To generate more money. Don't say friend friend ki 3 yrs vachindi ani.

[arshad]

Dridram ante idhi 

Konchem manchi desi mestri la dhaggara cherandi man. Ippude oka mail vacchindhi.

 

Ganga Mantena Case Impacts Some “Green Card” Portability Dynamics

by Philip Eichorn, Esq.

 

What is Ganga Mantena v. Johnson and why should employers and I-140 beneficiaries care? This is a case decided by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on December 30, 2015 and it impacts all U.S. based employers who have filed portability letters on behalf of foreign nationals where the underlying I-140 is currently subject to possible revocation by USCIS or has been revoked. Additionally, it illustrates some common issues such as due notice, an employer’s financial ability to appeal an agency decision and the lengthy employment-based green card process.

 

Ganga Mantena is a foreign national from India who worked for Vision Systems Group (VSG). VSG filed a PERM labor certification application for her which the Department of Labor (DOL) certified. VSG then filed an I-140 visa petition based upon the PERM certification which USCIS approved. Ganga Mantena then filed to adjust her status from H-1B visa holder to permanent resident (or to get the “green card”). Her application to adjust status remained pending with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for more than six months thus giving her the legal ability to change jobs and “port” to a successor employer per the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act of 2000 or “AC-21”. Her current employer is CNC Consulting, Inc. (“CNC”).

 

VSG went out of business. The president of VSC pleaded guilty to mail fraud in connection with another foreign national’s immigration case. USCIS felt that because there was one fraud in a VSG case then all of VSG’s cases might be fraudulent. USCIS began seeking revocation of all the approved I-140’s such as Ganga Mantena’s.

 

USCIS issued a Notice of Intent to Revoke (“NOIR”) to VSG on Ganga Mantena’s case. As VSG was out of business and because USCIS did not issue an NOIR to Ganga Mantena or CNC (despite CNC submitting the required portability letter and supporting documentation), USCIS did not receive a response to the NOIR, revoked the I-140 approval and denied the visa petition. USCIS only notified VSG of both the revocation and the denial. Without an approved visa petition (the I-140) on file, USCIS properly denied Ganga Mantena’s application to adjust status. She appealed.

 

After much litigation, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that USCIS should have notified someone besides VSG as an “affected party” of the intended revocation. The court remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings to determine who the “affected party” is in this case and consequently who, such as the applicant, should have received notice in this case and who should receive notice in similar cases in the future. The message here is diligence, patience and stamina. All parties to a visa petition should monitor pending adjustment of status cases where the I-140 originates from a prior employer. All parties should be patient with litigation because although USCIS and the district court ruled against Ganga Mantena, she was never properly notified of USCIS action versus her past employer and so she ultimately prevailed before the circuit court. This also requires financial stamina as many times good things happen to those who appeal their cases to either the district court or circuit court.  

 

[EggBonda]

current employer tho file chesa labor ... dharidhram enti adhi query padindhi eroju telisindhi.....

This is only the case if the labor petition is filed one year before the H1B expiration date. If it's filed after that the labor petition has to be approved in order to apply for the one year H1B extension pending I 140 approval. 

 

[perugu_vada]

Konchem manchi desi mestri la dhaggara cherandi man. Ippude oka mail vacchindhi.

Ganga Mantena Case Impacts Some “Green Card” Portability Dynamics
by Philip Eichorn, Esq.

What is Ganga Mantena v. Johnson and why should employers and I-140 beneficiaries care? This is a case decided by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on December 30, 2015 and it impacts all U.S. based employers who have filed portability letters on behalf of foreign nationals where the underlying I-140 is currently subject to possible revocation by USCIS or has been revoked. Additionally, it illustrates some common issues such as due notice, an employer’s financial ability to appeal an agency decision and the lengthy employment-based green card process.

Ganga Mantena is a foreign national from India who worked for Vision Systems Group (VSG). VSG filed a PERM labor certification application for her which the Department of Labor (DOL) certified. VSG then filed an I-140 visa petition based upon the PERM certification which USCIS approved. Ganga Mantena then filed to adjust her status from H-1B visa holder to permanent resident (or to get the “green card”). Her application to adjust status remained pending with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for more than six months thus giving her the legal ability to change jobs and “port” to a successor employer per the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act of 2000 or “AC-21”. Her current employer is CNC Consulting, Inc. (“CNC”).

VSG went out of business. The president of VSC pleaded guilty to mail fraud in connection with another foreign national’s immigration case. USCIS felt that because there was one fraud in a VSG case then all of VSG’s cases might be fraudulent. USCIS began seeking revocation of all the approved I-140’s such as Ganga Mantena’s.

USCIS issued a Notice of Intent to Revoke (“NOIR”) to VSG on Ganga Mantena’s case. As VSG was out of business and because USCIS did not issue an NOIR to Ganga Mantena or CNC (despite CNC submitting the required portability letter and supporting documentation), USCIS did not receive a response to the NOIR, revoked the I-140 approval and denied the visa petition. USCIS only notified VSG of both the revocation and the denial. Without an approved visa petition (the I-140) on file, USCIS properly denied Ganga Mantena’s application to adjust status. She appealed.

After much litigation, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that USCIS should have notified someone besides VSG as an “affected party” of the intended revocation. The court remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings to determine who the “affected party” is in this case and consequently who, such as the applicant, should have received notice in this case and who should receive notice in similar cases in the future. The message here is diligence, patience and stamina. All parties to a visa petition should monitor pending adjustment of status cases where the I-140 originates from a prior employer. All parties should be patient with litigation because although USCIS and the district court ruled against Ganga Mantena, she was never properly notified of USCIS action versus her past employer and so she ultimately prevailed before the circuit court. This also requires financial stamina as many times good things happen to those who appeal their cases to either the district court or circuit court.

yeah e issues chala ekuva authunay off late
Opt is d golden period anedi andhu k
Manchi employer ni choose cheskovali, ledhante h1 lolli thereafter e gc process apudu lolli

[ParmQ]

yeah e issues chala ekuva authunay off late
Opt is d golden period anedi andhu k
Manchi employer ni choose cheskovali, ledhante h1 lolli thereafter e gc process apudu lolli

Thats true. Aa OPT period lo konchem experience gain chesi FT ki velladam better. GC konchem late ayyina peaceful ga untadhi.

[perugu_vada]

Thats true. Aa OPT period lo konchem experience gain chesi FT ki velladam better. GC konchem late ayyina peaceful ga untadhi.

hard work chesthe easy ga 2-3yrs lo fte adugutaru edo oka company that u work for, bcos of 2 reasons
1. They dont want to loose d candidate
2. Cost effective