jon kortajarena 2011

Tags: Jon Kortajarena Vogue




admin
02-08 01:21 PM
lghtsplr,

Thanks for informing us about this. I have replied in that thread mentioning that we can set up web fax with the same content. Web faxes are very easy for users to send.

Siva
---





Model Jon Kortajarena is made




kiranberu
03-14 07:16 PM
This is more pertinent to Physicians - I heard that following residency or J1 expiration one has to return to home country for 5 yrs. I have the following questions
- What are the options for Fellowships and how do they weigh against the fellowship options for H1 holders ?
- How difficult is it to obtain J1 waivers ?
- Is the new J1 conrad law beneficial ?
- Can someone share their success story of converting J1 to another visa, Thanks all
---





Jon Kortajarena for Lagerfeld




whiteStallion
05-15 03:16 PM
You are right. These certifications may add some value when applying for H1B Visa but not for GC Processing with USCIS. You can just ignore those certifications....

I would like to clarify one thing....

Are these Certifications from Sun Microsystems, Oracle and IBM consider as supporting documents for 4 year degree or equivalent to any educational qualifications or experience?
I mean, people are doing these certifications even with out a job or while on bench....

I do not want to degrade or project these certifications in low profile or so, I do know the value of these certifications while searching for a job, but could not understand how they will help you in education or experience with USCIS.

Correct me if I am wrong.....

- B+ve
---





Jon Kortajarena for David




kmdhar
10-12 04:09 PM
Here is my recent experience. I have only 2yrs out of 6yrs of H1B.Recently i applied for extension(applied for 3yrs instead of 2yrs based on approved 140) and received RFE from USCIS and asked for approved copy of 140. We send it and got the approval.

Thanks
---


more...



Jon Kortajarena for




DirCls
07-15 08:05 AM
They are entitled fro thier opinior and so are we as immigrants.
We are doing a great job so far, but have to do better.

Long live IV Core and its members!
---





jon kortajarena




crystal
08-02 01:06 PM
if you want to get something from India. I think DHL is ok so far for me. But make sure that you are shipping it from the DHL main center .Never ever do it from normal (shop)braches as they would take their own sweet time to deliver them to main center.

I was wanted to know what is the best way to get something from India, please share if you had any experience.

thanks
---


more...



jon kortajarena hamp;m spring




lbk
07-18 12:01 PM
Still I was confused. I got I-140 Approval, I have a benificiary no,
Can I use it in my I-485 application at A# and in my Wife I-485 application?
---





Jon Kortajarena: February 2011




Adam
08-27 04:50 PM
Don't feel too left out, I have no idea either :lol:

those Calvin and Hobbes are great!
---


more...



MORE JON KORTAJARENA FOR




dpp
08-02 12:56 PM
FedEx is the best shipping company for both domestic and international.

DHL is worse than UPS.

It is in this order

FedEX
UPS
DHL

I have very very bad experiance with DHL.
---





Jon Kortajarena,




dextro_a
02-05 02:24 PM
you have to give the H1 qualifying exam (I think Step 3), then you have to apply for Residency in universities. They all call you for personal interview, and the results are announced in mid march. Once you are selected, they'll process H1 for you. If you do not have step 3 cleared, then they'll process J1 visa for you. Most of these universities come under non-profit so, H1 quota is not a issue for them.
---


more...



Jon Kortajarena, Noah Mills,




Raju
07-05 06:20 AM
Actually it would have been greater mess if they would have allowed to file 500 to 700k persons if that number is correct. Mainly those who are missing the bus due to marriage and other reasons would have suffered a lot. PD date movement
should be as accurate as possible or gc number should be increased. Or if they allow to file everyone then processing of application should be based on PD.

Senthil1,
You are wrong. I-485 approval is based on the combination of PD and RD. When a PD is current for an application then they look at RD. So if the dates retrogress after applying then the apps will sit on the shelves till the PD becomes current. You are stupid to think that just because a few people cannot apply, no one should be allowed to apply. There is a reason why they have to wait and you will find this kind of people all the time.
---





Campaign: Jon Kortajarena




sri1309
03-25 05:36 PM
I think we all should vote for just one immigration related question

After logging in, if you search with "immigration", I think there are atleast 25-35 posts which are related to us. I created my question just now and went thru all the 171 questions and voted FOR all of them which are good for us.

Core Team,

Thursday is the deadline.. President is asking us to help him understand our issues. Can you please make this an action item.. Pleassseeeee....
---


more...



Erin Wasson amp; Jon Kortajarena




sreeanne
02-04 05:30 PM
Me and my were indian nationals with EAD etc. Our Kid was born here. We are planning to go to India and planning to apply for Visa for our kid.

I would like to know 10year indian visa is best of PIO card is best. I read some where that if any one has PIO card, and if they are staying more than 180days, we have to report to Foriegners Report cell in india.

Do we need to report the same if kid has india visa for 10years?

I am not sure how far this is true? Can anyone guide on this.

~Sree
---





9 notes. Jon backstage at the




SunnySurya
08-21 03:19 PM
I don't know, you tell me!
Does 25-30 lacs sound like a good deal to you ?
---


more...



Erin Wasson amp; Jon Kortajarena




alterego
10-09 05:57 AM
Another example of how this issue has now so clearly become a political hot potato in this country.
---





Spanish model Jon Kortajarena




vamsi_poondla
01-20 11:56 PM
I wrote two copies of handwritten letters. I will mail them tomorrow. Now I can bash all fence sitters with no guilt :-) Kidding.

Folks, please resolve to write the letter at least today Dr. MLK's Birthday. He fought for civil rights and we are fighting for human rights...well not really but still a serious issue for over half million future Americans (or parents of Americans)
---


more...



Alexa Chung, Jon Kortajarena,




santa123
07-30 11:43 PM
Hello,

I just received RFE for I-140.
I-140 Details:
I have applied I-140 under EB2 India.
I have BS(3 years) with computer science & MCA(MS 3 years) in computer science. So total 6 years of education in computer science(3 yrs BS + 3 yrs MS).
Also I have 1.5 years(18 months) of experience after completing my MS. I have submitted my experience letter at the time of filling labor But USCIS didn't ask anything regarding experience.

In labor(PERM) we mentioned Masters required
& Major field of study is Computers.

Do I qualify for EB2?? Plz let me know.

RFE details:
1) Degree evaluation(what's the procedure?)
&
2) They want most recent W2 for 2007.

In 2007(W2) I got paid $59K(gross) & in LCA(H1B) prevailing wage mentioned is $55k.

In labor(PERM) prevailing wage mentioned is $63K & offered wage mentioned is $65K.

Difference between W2 & Prevailing wage in labor(PERM) is $4000($63K - $59K).
Difference between W2 & Offered wage in labor(PERM) is $6000($65K - $59K).
Is this a serious problem???

My labor already got approved.
My company is financially very good.

Now which wage USCIS consider or match with W2??

I will really appreciate your response.

Thanks.

Didn't you submit your education eval when you filed your 140?
Is this in addition to the one you sent?
Get proper eval done ASAP and send it out. Try one or two evals even. Course by course cld be waste of money.

Didnt you submit the W2 copies also?
Looks like this could be just a case of missing docs... Dont worry...
Good luck!
---





Jon Kortajarena




GCmuddu_H1BVaddu
05-20 10:46 AM
I have completed. :)


Thanks for the link...Btw are you taking the same class...:)
---





Jon Kortajarena para Pepe




go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)

Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta

As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).

Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.

Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.

A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.

In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.

At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�

The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8

Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.

Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10

�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�

Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:

1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�

It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
---





smuggymba
10-08 04:54 PM
You have to actually work for company A- be on their staff, be on their payroll, be there full time employee. W2 is only issued if u work with them and draw salary.

Yeah question is what defines employment with them?
---





looneytunezez
08-19 08:04 PM
i would recommend renewing your passport here in the US before travelling as they recommend over 6 month validity.
Usually takes 2-3 weeks, but you might be able to emergency rush processing as you are already travelling.

when you get ur new passport, it will say that your h1b stamping is still valid, so you can present both passports on POE.

hth,

LT
---

Post Title

→

jon kortajarena 2011

Post URL

→

http://idephairstyles.blogspot.com/2011/06/jon-kortajarena-2011.html

Visit Idep Hairstyles for Daily Updated Idep Hairstyles