AC21 for EB1 cases
- Thread starter pharmboy
- Start date
I also want to know its getting me confused here are the answers from the lawyers who says no and who says yes
from who says YES:
They say it is applied to all EB cases including EB1 and is on the bases of approved I-140 and I-1485 pending for more than 6 months and the new job is same or simmilar
From those who say NO
they say
1. AC21 was started for H1B guys
2. if some one enters on L1A and files I-140 in EB1 then you have not done the LC and that proves that you have not proved by law that you were required in US on the bases of what you do anywhere else other than your own company who provided the L1A.
And if you read the law it is pretty gray and if you read the guideline memo NS issued to its oficers it says only three things
1. I-140 aproved
2. I-485 pending for more than 180 day
3. The new job is same or simmilar
but you can see even Lawyer are confused I have no Idea why I'm failed to trace any single lawyer who had represented a simmilar case ..... here is one thread from past which has simmilar information
http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=95651
from who says YES:
They say it is applied to all EB cases including EB1 and is on the bases of approved I-140 and I-1485 pending for more than 6 months and the new job is same or simmilar
From those who say NO
they say
1. AC21 was started for H1B guys
2. if some one enters on L1A and files I-140 in EB1 then you have not done the LC and that proves that you have not proved by law that you were required in US on the bases of what you do anywhere else other than your own company who provided the L1A.
And if you read the law it is pretty gray and if you read the guideline memo NS issued to its oficers it says only three things
1. I-140 aproved
2. I-485 pending for more than 180 day
3. The new job is same or simmilar
but you can see even Lawyer are confused I have no Idea why I'm failed to trace any single lawyer who had represented a simmilar case ..... here is one thread from past which has simmilar information
http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=95651
read a post from jigesh
I dont remember the lawyer website but there they specifically say that EB1-EA and NIW are more protected because there is no job offer reqd. I guess the same may hold for OR.
About managers, murthy chat said that there were some concerns for executive positions ..for that you may refer to this and other forums.
My lawyer mentioned that I dont have to worry if I want to change jobs because of NIW/EA.
Also, if one reads ac21...it mentions the conditions under which that LC or the 140 remains valid, which ( i guess) means that self petitioned cases are also included. However again AC21 is irrelevant for NIW/EA.
But of course...I am not a lawyer just someone who spends time on these forums
I dont remember the lawyer website but there they specifically say that EB1-EA and NIW are more protected because there is no job offer reqd. I guess the same may hold for OR.
About managers, murthy chat said that there were some concerns for executive positions ..for that you may refer to this and other forums.
My lawyer mentioned that I dont have to worry if I want to change jobs because of NIW/EA.
Also, if one reads ac21...it mentions the conditions under which that LC or the 140 remains valid, which ( i guess) means that self petitioned cases are also included. However again AC21 is irrelevant for NIW/EA.
But of course...I am not a lawyer just someone who spends time on these forums
Pharmboy,
Please get many opinions before you do anything as you see in my post I did call atleast 10 different lawyer and everyone of them has a little bit different understanding so no one can say for sure we are not talking here NIW or EA we are talking only EB cases with OR.
So do it only if you cant wait.
Also please post what your lawyer has to say about it
Please get many opinions before you do anything as you see in my post I did call atleast 10 different lawyer and everyone of them has a little bit different understanding so no one can say for sure we are not talking here NIW or EA we are talking only EB cases with OR.
So do it only if you cant wait.
Also please post what your lawyer has to say about it
the bad thing about lawyers is most of them charge a heavy amount ~ 110 Dollars per 30 minutes and most of the famous lawyers charge double and give you a date in next two weeks........................ so most of my lawyers whom I called I managed to persue there secratories that it is not specific to my case but I still had to pay to two of them and that was a waste you can see all of them are confused in what they are saying and how do they understand it.......
I really hate this kind of situation when the law is not clear and people like us are in mud...
Also an attorney has not much to do in case of immigration because it is service not a right although it is law but if someone get a rejection an attorney really can't do much other then filing the re-opening petition and law is not clear .... it is all on the luck than......
I really hate this kind of situation when the law is not clear and people like us are in mud...
Also an attorney has not much to do in case of immigration because it is service not a right although it is law but if someone get a rejection an attorney really can't do much other then filing the re-opening petition and law is not clear .... it is all on the luck than......
help me to understand sec 106 in AC21 act (106-313)
I need to understand this law if this applies to EB1 - OR , case in which the I-140 is filed on bases of status L1A it has so many re-directions not a very complete one. can some one help me to understand it......... Lawyer are confused, and I don't have a good source to check Us codes so I'm .....
here is the link if you want to read the AC21 ( which I read):
http://www.feds.com/basic_svc/public_law/106-313.htm
I need to understand this law if this applies to EB1 - OR , case in which the I-140 is filed on bases of status L1A it has so many re-directions not a very complete one. can some one help me to understand it......... Lawyer are confused, and I don't have a good source to check Us codes so I'm .....
here is the link if you want to read the AC21 ( which I read):
http://www.feds.com/basic_svc/public_law/106-313.htm
Exile_2001
Registered Users (C)
Try this...
http://www.immigration.gov/lpBin/lp...-21?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm#slb-act
The Immigration and Nationality Act (with AC21 applied) has sections added for Labor Cert and I-140 remaining valid after the 180 days mark if the job is same or similar. These are 2 separate sections of the INA act, therefore both are mentioned in AC-21 as the AC21 provisions had to be added to 2 places.
The point about Labor Cert and I-140 both being mentioned is that if you need both, like H1Bs do, then both have to remain valid when changing job for AC21 to work. EB1s do not need Labor Cert so the section about Labor Cert is irrelevant.
There is nowhere in this section of AC21 or the implementation in the INA that says it is only for H1Bs. It only ever references EB, employment based.
It is true that the AC21 act was aimed at H1Bs but one of the few sections of the act that does not explicitly mention H1B's is the section we are talking about.
The law itself is pretty explicit, except for the comment in 204(j) about subsection (a)(1)(D) which makes no sense!
The attorneys everyone has spoken to have probably not all read either law. Neither have most immigration officials. That is why we are bound to have the odd problem. If the approval of EB1s using AC21 was a big no-no then I reckon they might have mentioned it in the August memo. Anyone who is rejected under it would have a decent reason to challenge that.
Please note that this is just my interpretation and if anyone reads the law differently, I would love to hear it as I am EB1 and need to use AC21 very very soon (I have no choice!)
http://www.immigration.gov/lpBin/lp...-21?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm#slb-act
The Immigration and Nationality Act (with AC21 applied) has sections added for Labor Cert and I-140 remaining valid after the 180 days mark if the job is same or similar. These are 2 separate sections of the INA act, therefore both are mentioned in AC-21 as the AC21 provisions had to be added to 2 places.
The point about Labor Cert and I-140 both being mentioned is that if you need both, like H1Bs do, then both have to remain valid when changing job for AC21 to work. EB1s do not need Labor Cert so the section about Labor Cert is irrelevant.
There is nowhere in this section of AC21 or the implementation in the INA that says it is only for H1Bs. It only ever references EB, employment based.
It is true that the AC21 act was aimed at H1Bs but one of the few sections of the act that does not explicitly mention H1B's is the section we are talking about.
The law itself is pretty explicit, except for the comment in 204(j) about subsection (a)(1)(D) which makes no sense!
The attorneys everyone has spoken to have probably not all read either law. Neither have most immigration officials. That is why we are bound to have the odd problem. If the approval of EB1s using AC21 was a big no-no then I reckon they might have mentioned it in the August memo. Anyone who is rejected under it would have a decent reason to challenge that.
Please note that this is just my interpretation and if anyone reads the law differently, I would love to hear it as I am EB1 and need to use AC21 very very soon (I have no choice!)
absolutely beautiful,
a great job man! sending you two gold stars
I checked all the clauses and stuff and I really don't know why people are speculating and misinterpreting the law..... It can not be clearer than this.......
and I'm also in the same position and I have no point in using it for now and the only thing I'm thinking of doing in case of the interview is taking a good informed lawyer with me..... to argue in case needed
a great job man! sending you two gold stars
I checked all the clauses and stuff and I really don't know why people are speculating and misinterpreting the law..... It can not be clearer than this.......
and I'm also in the same position and I have no point in using it for now and the only thing I'm thinking of doing in case of the interview is taking a good informed lawyer with me..... to argue in case needed
Exile_2001
Registered Users (C)
In answer to my own confusion, (a)(1)(D) has been redesignated as (a)(1)(F) according to the August memo.
http://www.immigration.gov/graphics/lawsregs/handbook/I140_AC21_8403.pdf
This makes the section 204 read even easier!
http://www.immigration.gov/lpBin/lp...?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm#slb-act204
204(j) JOB FLEXIBILITY FOR LONG DELAYED APPLICANTS FOR ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS TO PERMANENT RESIDENCE- A petition under subsection (a)(1)(F) for an individual whose application for adjustment of status pursuant to section 245 has been filed and remained unadjudicated for 180 days or more shall remain valid with respect to a new job if the individual changes jobs or employers if the new job is in the same or a similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
204(a)(1)(F) Any employer desiring and intending to employ within the United States an alien entitled to classification under section 203(b)(1)(B), 203(b)(1)(C), 203(b)(2), or 203(b)(3) may file a petition with the Attorney General for such classification.
Section 203
http://www.immigration.gov/lpBin/lp...?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm#slb-act203
203(b)(1)(B) = Outstanding professors and researchers = OR
203(b)(1)(C) = Multinational executives and managers = L1A
203(b)(2) = Professionals with advanced degrees or exceptional ability = NIW
203(b)(3) = Skilled, professional and other workers = H1B
Well that looks good!
http://www.immigration.gov/graphics/lawsregs/handbook/I140_AC21_8403.pdf
This makes the section 204 read even easier!
http://www.immigration.gov/lpBin/lp...?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm#slb-act204
204(j) JOB FLEXIBILITY FOR LONG DELAYED APPLICANTS FOR ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS TO PERMANENT RESIDENCE- A petition under subsection (a)(1)(F) for an individual whose application for adjustment of status pursuant to section 245 has been filed and remained unadjudicated for 180 days or more shall remain valid with respect to a new job if the individual changes jobs or employers if the new job is in the same or a similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
204(a)(1)(F) Any employer desiring and intending to employ within the United States an alien entitled to classification under section 203(b)(1)(B), 203(b)(1)(C), 203(b)(2), or 203(b)(3) may file a petition with the Attorney General for such classification.
Section 203
http://www.immigration.gov/lpBin/lp...?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm#slb-act203
203(b)(1)(B) = Outstanding professors and researchers = OR
203(b)(1)(C) = Multinational executives and managers = L1A
203(b)(2) = Professionals with advanced degrees or exceptional ability = NIW
203(b)(3) = Skilled, professional and other workers = H1B
Well that looks good!
AC-21 question
Gurus,
I am a Dec 2002 I-485 filer, with approved I-140 (EB-1 OR), which was company sponsored. I work for a very big company in Bay area, no danger of losing job. With turnaround in economy I have got a good offer from a very big company in Phoenix, which I want to take because it is cheaper.
My question is: How safe is it to invoke AC 21 (in case of future RFE) for EB-1 OR case, where there is no LC. The two jobs are roughly similar while not being the same.
Thank you!
Gurus,
I am a Dec 2002 I-485 filer, with approved I-140 (EB-1 OR), which was company sponsored. I work for a very big company in Bay area, no danger of losing job. With turnaround in economy I have got a good offer from a very big company in Phoenix, which I want to take because it is cheaper.
My question is: How safe is it to invoke AC 21 (in case of future RFE) for EB-1 OR case, where there is no LC. The two jobs are roughly similar while not being the same.
Thank you!