ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers

Home Page

Advanced search


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

Chinese Immig. Daily

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily

 

Chinese Immig. Daily



The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of free
information!

Copyright
©1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

Immigration Daily: the news source for
legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers
Enter your email address here:



< Back to current issue of Immigration Daily < Back to current issue of Immigrant's Weekly

ILW.COM Web Hosting

< Back to current issue of Immigration Daily                        < Back to current issue of Immigrant's Weekly

Dear Editor:

I'd like to share with you my comment on the INSís irresponsible delay in issuing its official interpretation on the I-485 filer's change of employers after 180 days of filing I-485, which has indeed put tens of thousands of lives in limbo, including mine.

All immigrants, past and present, come to this country in pursuit of pretty much the same fundamental goals and values--freedom, equal opportunity, and economic prosperity. But none of these can be achieved if the current system exits and persists to restrict the portability of us skilled immigrant professionals. Even back in our home countries, job mobility and portability are routine practices. It is now time to root out this vice by the letter of and in the true spirit of the AC 21. Here's the fundamental question on section 106 of AC 21:

AC21 says that a petition for an individual whose application for adjustment of status has been filed and remained unadjudicated for 180 days or more "shall remain valid with respect to a new job." That means that the original underlying petition (I-140) will continue to be valid as long as he is still employed in the same job category that underlies his original petition regardless of what happens to the original I-485, whether itís later denied or the sponsor goes bankrupt or even the employer withdraws the petition after 180 days of filing I-485 (for whatever reasons, valid or ill-conceived). In other words, this alien beneficiary will NOT need to start the long and painful process all over again even if something goes wrong with the original I-485 (denied, withdrawn, or employer going bankrupt). His approved I-140 status will be protected/preserved and his case will proceed uninterrupted with the still valid I-140 petition under AC21 based on and ďwith respect toĒ the new employment in the same job category. Isnít that supposed to be the literal, truthful and responsible interpretation of the AC 21 yet to be released? The INS is not supposed to change or misinterpret the law without being challenged by the immigrant community in legal processes, is it? Then, what is holding the INS back from issuing its interpretation on this section of the law?

I may have misunderstood this portability section myself, in which case I really wish to see some enlightening discussion on this law at this urgent juncture.

With regards,
Donald Du

Share this page with a friend Share this page


Immigration Daily: the news source for
legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers
Enter your email address here: