General Immigration Discussion

[qesehmk]

Mean to say MNC. Doesn't even have to be a US MNC. It could be Tata or Samsung or Al Zajheera as long as they can prove they are MNC!!

I don't think that is true Q. But even if it is, why do you think this applies to only "big" US corporations.

[qesehmk]

Well ... the history is:

As far as I remember 4-5 years back the requirement was that the person shouldv'e worked for the same company outside of his home country (country of chargeability) and outside of US as a manager for 1 year within last 3 years and now trying to come to US as a manager.

Then last 2-3 years they dropped the "outside home country and outside US" condition silently. So suddenly infosys and all Indian managers became eligible.

Now I see that the slide doesn't even mention outside US.

I do not know if this is true. But if I were one of you and stuck in a backlog, the first thing I would do is check w company lawyer if the "outside US" condition is dropped for EB13.

Q,
I think that is the requirement for L1A only, and majority of the EB1C applicants enter on L1A!

[nishant2200]

got it....

Mean to say MNC. Doesn't even have to be a US MNC. It could be Tata or Samsung or Al Zajheera as long as they can prove they are MNC!!

[Spectator]

Veni

Thanks. Here is something that caught my eye!! And this could be seriously good for all EB23IC.

Look at the eligibiity for EB13 ie. multinational manager.

　
E13 – Multinational Executive or Manager
In general, the petition must be accompanied by evidence that:In the 3 years preceding the time of the beneficiary's application for classification and admission into the United States:

1. The beneficiary has been employed for at least 1 year by a firm or corporation or other legal entity or an affiliate or subsidiary thereof, and
2. The beneficiary seeks to enter the United States in order to continue to render services to the same employer or to a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a capacity that is managerial or executive.

IF TRUE (A BIG IF) this means they have removed the "having worked outside US" condition. I am really surprised and can't believe this. I personally would've been eligible 6 years back. Dang! Lets discuss this. If true, this could be the ticket to a lot of backlogged managers in big US corporations.

Q,

The requirement still appears to be there, albeit the way it is presented, obscures it a bit.

In the 3 years preceding the time of the beneficiary's application for classification and admission into the United States

The beneficiary has been employed for at least 1 year by a firm or corporation

The beneficiary seeks to enter the United States in order to continue to render services to the same employer

Those conditions can only be met if the beneficiary was working for the Company outside the USA beforehand.

More importantly perhaps, it is not something that can be "silently" dropped.

The conditions are enshrined in the INA.

203 (b)(1)(C)

(C) Certain multinational executives and managers.

An alien is described in this subparagraph if the alien, in the 3 years preceding the time of the alien's application for classification and admission into the United States under this subparagraph, has been employed for at least 1 year by a firm or corporation or other legal entity or an affiliate or subsidiary thereof and the alien seeks to enter the United States in order to continue to render services to the same employer or to a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a capacity that is managerial or executive.

The language in the SCOPS document is really just reiterating the language used in the INA.

[qesehmk]

Spec .... it seems they already silently dropped the "non-home-country" condition. I am very confident it was there earlier on.
Now if I look at the rules, again.... one can file CP to enter US. So as long as USCIS is willing to turn a blind eye the condition will be met. I do think its worth a shot.

I am actually encouraged by the INA description you provided. It keep the place of employment prior to entry to US vague.

Q,

The requirement still appears to be there, albeit the way it is presented, obscures it a bit.

In the 3 years preceding the time of the beneficiary's application for classification and admission into the United States

The beneficiary has been employed for at least 1 year by a firm or corporation

The beneficiary seeks to enter the United States in order to continue to render services to the same employer

Those conditions can only be met if the beneficiary was working for the Company outside the USA beforehand.

More importantly perhaps, it is not something that can be "silently" dropped.

The conditions are enshrined in the INA.



The language in the SCOPS document is really just reiterating the language used in the INA.

[Spectator]

Spec .... it seems they already silently dropped the "non-home-country" condition. I am very confident it was there earlier on.
Now if I look at the rules, again.... one can file CP to enter US. So as long as USCIS is willing to turn a blind eye the condition will be met. I do think its worth a shot.

I am actually encouraged by the INA description you provided. It keep the place of employment prior to entry to US vague.

Q,

You have to realize that when the INA was originally written, there was no such thing as AOS, so the language will refer to entry using a visa after Consular Processing, since there was no other option when it was written.

Subsequent amendments may mention AOS, but the whole INA was never rewritten with conforming amendments to mention it.

If the 1 year employment is in the 3 years before the person enters the USA, then it must have taken place outside the USA. The use of the term "non-home-country" becomes entirely superfluous.

In any case, 8CFR provides further information about this, since that can be published to provide further information without having Congress amend the Law.

8CFR 204.5 (j)(3)(i)(A) and 204.5 (j)(3)(i)(B)

(3) Initial evidence--

(i) Required evidence.

A petition for a multinational executive or manager must be accompanied by a statement from an authorized official of the petitioning United States employer which demonstrates that:

(A) If the alien is outside the United States, in the three years immediately preceding the filing of the petition the alien has been employed outside the United States for at least one year in a managerial or executive capacity by a firm or corporation, or other legal entity, or by an affiliate or subsidiary of such a firm or corporation or other legal entity; or

(B) If the alien is already in the United States working for the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate of the firm or corporation, or other legal entity by which the alien was employed overseas, in the three years preceding entry as a nonimmigrant, the alien was employed by the entity abroad for at least one year in a managerial or executive capacity;

(A) covers Consular Processing, because the beneficiary is outside the USA;
(B) essentially covers Adjustment of Status, unless the beneficiary elects CP because the beneficiary is already in the USA.

In both cases, the requirement that the previous 1 year employment was outside the USA is explicit.

Possibly, it is this regulation that you have seen previously.

[qesehmk]

Spec,as you may be aware CFR is interpretation of law. It is not law by itself. So having said that .... if when INA was written there was no such thing as AOS, that would make it more probable that anybody seeking to enter has to take CP route no matter where he/she is employed - so effectively killing any talk of having to be employed overseas.

If you read carefully the CFR only the AOS case they require "employed by same employer abroad condition". For CP it is not mentioned. I do not know what to make of it. But I would say this, that just like they silently dropped employed in non-home-country condition, they can easily drop the employed-abroad or employed-abroad-by-same-employer conditions since INA itself doesn't mention those conditions. At best its the CFR that mentions it.

Q,

You have to realize that when the INA was originally written, there was no such thing as AOS, so the language will refer to entry using a visa after Consular Processing, since there was no other option when it was written.

Subsequent amendments may mention AOS, but the whole INA was never rewritten with conforming amendments to mention it.

If the 1 year employment is in the 3 years before the person enters the USA, then it must have taken place outside the USA. The use of the term "non-home-country" becomes entirely superfluous.

In any case, 8CFR provides further information about this, since that can be published to provide further information without having Congress amend the Law.



(A) covers Consular Processing, because the beneficiary is outside the USA;
(B) essentially covers Adjustment of Status, unless the beneficiary elects CP because the beneficiary is already in the USA.

In both cases, the requirement that the previous 1 year employment was outside the USA is explicit.

Possibly, it is this regulation that you have seen previously.

[skpanda]

Is it possible to validate this officially from USCIS or anybody else? Whom do we contact?

Spec,as you may be aware CFR is interpretation of law. It is not law by itself. So having said that .... if when INA was written there was no such thing as AOS, that would make it more probable that anybody seeking to enter has to take CP route no matter where he/she is employed - so effectively killing any talk of having to be employed overseas.

If you read carefully the CFR only the AOS case they require "employed by same employer abroad condition". For CP it is not mentioned. I do not know what to make of it. But I would say this, that just like they silently dropped employed in non-home-country condition, they can easily drop the employed-abroad or employed-abroad-by-same-employer conditions since INA itself doesn't mention those conditions. At best its the CFR that mentions it.

[qesehmk]

Better to contact a lawyer if you think you could benefit from such a thing. Another thing to do is, contact aila and ask when the next meeting with USCIS is. That point you can raise these questions.

Is it possible to validate this officially from USCIS or anybody else? Whom do we contact?

[iamdeb]

USCIS SCOPS Presentation for the I-140

Thanks Veni for the link.
Regarding I 140 porting it seems that only the copy of the approved I140 is required.
I wonder what will happen if the old employer withdraws the I 140?

[nishant2200]

http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/afm_ch22_091206R.pdf
page 27
read the determining priority date section

Thanks Veni for the link.
Regarding I 140 porting it seems that only the copy of the approved I140 is required.
I wonder what will happen if the old employer withdraws the I 140?

[piratla]

Looks like PWD issues have been resolved. Though there is no formal announcement yet.

Source: http://www.murthy.com/news/n_pwdiss.html

""
The Murthy Law Firm has started to receive Prevailing Wage Determinations (PWDs) from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) as of August 24, 2011. This is newsworthy, as the DOL had ceased processing such requests in July, as explained in our NewsBrief, DOL Not Issuing Prevailing Wages: PERM Delays (15.Aug.2011).
""

[makmohan]

Friends, keep up the good work and thanks for your effort!

Based on all the predictions till date, is it correct to say that PD of last week April 2008 will probably become current in summer of 2013 and there is no probability of filing for 485 before that?

- M

[ssvp22]

Friends, keep up the good work and thanks for your effort!

Based on all the predictions till date, is it correct to say that PD of last week April 2008 will probably become current in summer of 2013 and there is no probability of filing for 485 before that?

- M

Going by the numbers, you are correct. But given the fact that next year is an election year, anything can happen.

[nayekal]

http://www.immigration-law.com/Canada.html

08/25/2011: USCIS Clarifies Premium Processing Services Availability Schedule for EB-1C I-140 Petition for Multinational Corporate Executive and Manager

* According to the USCIS Notes of August 23, 2011 Service Center Operations Engagement Session, it is official that as of now, PPS is not available for either E13 (Multinational Executive or Manager) or E21 when requesting a National Interest Waiver. However, in light of Secretary Napolitano’s announcement on August 2, 2011, USCIS will likely begin offering PPS for E13 petitions in early calendar year 2012.

I guess, we will see lots of apps under this category in FY 2012, than what we have seen in FY 2011, which means spill over from EB1 will be reduced much further.

[ssvp22]

Funny that USCIS blog is focused on preparing for hurricane - http://blog.uscis.gov/2011/08/hurric...tire-east.html

[nishant2200]

Guys, I am again repeating, in the USCIS presentation which Veni posted earlier, it was written that EB1C PPS will only be considered from early calendar year 2012 onwards, and is not being done right now. I think that's a very good thing, as much that gets delayed.

[memk26]

Prevailing Wage Determinations started issuing...as per murthy..

[veni001]

Prevailing Wage Determinations started issuing...as per murthy..

Yes DOL started issuing PWD for PERM.
Now we can ignore the impact, if any, of about 4 week suspension of PW determinations for PERM.

[qesehmk]

Agree. No material impact to GC pipeline.

Yes DOL started issuing PWD for PERM.
Now we can ignore the impact, if any, of about 4 week suspension of PW determinations for PERM.

[veni001]

Updated as of 08/22/11

Analyst Reviews - May 2011
Audits - December2010
Reconsideration Requests to the CO - January 2009
Gov't Error Reconsiderations - Current

Getting ready for another wave of backlog reduction!

[qesehmk]

On a different topic - learned today about an event in Phoenix Arizona this Saturday. The event is in support of the fight against corruption going on in India.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/India-...58357424247501

Please spread the word if you are in Pheonix Valley.

[soggadu]

On a different topic - learned today about an event in Phoenix Arizona this Saturday. The event is in support of the fight against corruption going on in India.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/India-...58357424247501

Please spread the word if you are in Pheonix Valley.

I attended the 1 day fast last saturday in NJ... it was fun...

[qesehmk]

way to go!
The gandhi cap is in demand but if NJ didn't have one ... no chance we will have one in AZ.

I attended the 1 day fast last saturday in NJ... it was fun...

[krodhityogi]

Pleasantly surprised to see the 8 month only Lag in PERM audits. When I got audited in 07, it frigging took them two years to get back to me.

Updated as of 08/22/11

Analyst Reviews - May 2011
Audits - December2010
Reconsideration Requests to the CO - January 2009
Gov't Error Reconsiderations - Current

Getting ready for another wave of backlog reduction!