Discussion in 'Definitional changes/clarifications' started by cuckoo, Mar 24, 2015.
No, I was referring to the provisions of 8 CFR 204.5(e) and AC21 Section 106(c)
Porting is required to cover up any un-just treatment to a employee. Some companies as a policy only apply for EB3 greencards. This is not the candidates problem. If the candidate now moves to another company (or even within the same company) which is willing to file his greencard on EB2 based on his credentials, why should he not have the option.
I have responded to your other post which provides the answer.
Ron, has this policy memo made things clearer as far as L1B applications go? What do you think of this as an immigration lawyer? Does it effectively help in reducing fraud or it only makes it easier to get approvals now?
As I wrote earlier, it all depends on how it is implemented. To me, this is pretty commonsense. Congress intended the L1B program to benefit multinational companies with a legitimate need to bring their own specialized knowledge employees to the U.S. to work in a highly specialized capacity. Unfortunately, many large consulting companies abused this by using it as an alternative to the H1B process.
Consulting companies will always abuse the system in anyway they can. They abused the H1B and when it became stricter, more expensive and less quota, they shifted to L1B. They will always try to find a way around. It is up to USCIS to enforce the rules, isn't it?
Their idea of enforcement is to only approve half as many petitions (for everyone, not just the abusers) and do absolutely nothing about enforcement of the law.
Sorry to digress. Did you email USCIS with your suggestions after last week's session ?
Was reinterpretation one of the items ?
No. My comments were limited to opposing the idea of requiring advance USCIS approval for AC21 job portability. I explicitly cautioned them that they are looking at a massive number of mandamus actions if they go down that path.
So you provided your comments opposing the pre-approval form that USCIS talked about. Yeah, that's just a bad idea. I am sure when the comments opened in January, you submitted your justification for reinterpreting the statute. That was more important. USCIS did not want to hear much about recapture and reinterpretation on the 19th. They only said that they have submitted recommendations to WH and also said they are discussing all options with DOS.
In January, I joined with other groups. This time, I sent my personal comments. If they try to make AC21 subject to pre-approval, they will have to go through notice and comment rulemaking because they are talking about a new form. Also, there is nothing in the statute that suggests pre-approval is necessary.
True. An employee from a non-backlogged country can file I-140 and I-485 concurrently, get their EADs and can switch jobs in 180 days. They do not need to get prior approval from USCIS.
In the listening session, they suggested that they are thinking about changing this.
Hi Ron, do you have any inside information when they will be publishing draft memo for business immigration policies which they had tele conference on march 19th? I know you might have shared it if you have .... but just curious....
Not a clue
Hi Ron ,
will ac21 be applicable to l1b also from now on ?
No it will not.
Separate names with a comma.