I am saying this based on advice from a very good lawyer. Once your H1 transfer is done (probably will have same end-date as the current 3-year H1 from your current employer), if the 140 is revoked AFTER that, then you should be fine. At the time of H1 transfer to your new employer, your 140 should be in good status and you should have a photocopy of your approved 140. If your previous employer cancels your I-140 after you leave and go to another employer, then USCIS will not go back and cancel your H1 because it was based on an approved 140 that is now revoked. If you have an H1 approved for 3 years after 140 approval, and you transfer jobs to a new employer and get another H1. For now, things are great as AFM is being followed. Legislation trumps regulation and regulation trumps the adjudicator's field manual. Currently USCIS is porting priority dates even if employer has revoked that 140, and they are following the AFM(adjudicator's field manual).
#Amores perros poster code#
The code of federal regulations says that you cannot.
#Amores perros poster manual#
USCIS adjudicator's field manual says that you can still port your PD. If 140 is revoked by employer then it falls into grey area. If it is revoked for fraud and willful misrepresentation, then you cannot port that PD under any circumstances. If your 140 is never revoked, you would be fine and able to port your priority date. Read that thread and you will learn all you want to learn and all the information out there in the immigration world about PD transfer from one 140 to another 140. There is a lot of information on this thread about priority date transfers ()from old approved 140 to a new 140. To get more H1 extensions based on this 140, until you have another labor and 140 going on with new employer. To port the priority date for future use in a subsequent Greencard petition.Ģ. You want to keep your 140 intact for 2 reasons:ġ. Is that so difficult to understand that we must credit outsourcing for the state of Indian economy. Indian economy is doing better because during a course of many decades, people and government have spent less than what they make/produce and more importantly, instead of throwing money on the wrong wars, they spent money on the right things. This is a simple explanation but the wrong explanation. Because some work is outsourced to India does not simply mean outsourcing is the reason for better economy. Outsourcing is the not reason why Indian economy is doing better than others. To the contrary, if OH was outsourcing, the State government would be more productive and without deficit. OH government is not outsourcing any work anyways. Get over it people, cry as you may but outsourcing aren't stopping. Just because it is hurting a few million people in rich countries, all of a sudden OUTSOURCING is a curse word. No one in the rich countries was oppose to the idea of open economies back then.
Back then everybody in rich countries thought that since they already have well placed institutions and larger companies, they will buy out all the local companies in smaller poor countries, creating more employment for people in rich countries. Back in 1980s and early 90s no one in rich countries were oppose to the idea of open business between all the countries. What is wrong with that? Its a fair business practice. India is growing of its own, using the talent and brains partially to fulfill orders outsourced from across the world. India should have their own economy and techonology and not OS money going around. PS:- If I am in India I will never say that OS is necessary, India should grow on its own pace with her talent and brains. These so called multinational companies are minting money and this is not benefitting any one except the higher executives and board of directors of those companies. Ban in private company out sourcing also is very much necessary for USA.
0 kommentar(er)
