All of you should read - why his 485 denied?

Sounds like they decided to screw him. Initially they said you are not working for the same employer (AC21 to the rescue) and now they say the address is not same. They are so picky about this simple immigration and forgot actual terrorists
 
You are correct ijack1

You are 100% correct ijack1. Looks like they DECIDED to screw the applicant
from all directions.

I wonder how they have time to produce a six page document on the decision and not to adjudicate "age old" I140/I485 cases :confused:

One good thing is the AAO is helping the candidate to provide reasons.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ihack1 said:
Sounds like they decided to screw him. Initially they said you are not working for the same employer (AC21 to the rescue) and now they say the address is not same. They are so picky about this simple immigration and forgot actual terrorists
Click to expand...

The problem is from the Lawyer.

In ETA 750 Form of Part A and No 7(Address where alien will work) :
Lawyer wrote "Waltham, MA"

Usually for the consulting companies write :
"Various unanticipated work site locations throughout United States and Assignments generally 4 to 10 months in duration".

That is the difference. And more over his badluck the file transfered to Baltimore,MD for the Interview.

Small mistake by the lawyer ...and big punishment to the consultant....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TheRealCanadian said:
You did read the decision, right?

Because if you did, you would discover that the AAO overturned the denial.
Click to expand...
In page5 " Despite the withdrawal.... the application cannot be approved...."
 
sree1965 said:
The problem is from the Lawyer.

In ETA 750 Form of Part A and No 7(Address where alien will work) :
Lawyer wrote "Waltham, MA"

Usually for the consulting companies write :
"Various unanticipated work site locations throughout United States and Assignments generally 4 to 10 months in duration".

That is the difference. And more over his badluck the file transfered to Baltimore,MD for the Interview.

Small mistake by the lawyer ...and big punishment to the consultant....
Click to expand...
I guess they want to prove that they don't have common sense.
 
From the doc.--
1)The AAO maintain ed his supremacy by interpreting AC21 correctly
and 'chide' the district officer and showing the dist. officer that this is not the way to screw the 140 .Showed the other way to screw it up.
2)seems Employer played by reassigning employee to
wherever he can earn to him.(employee has no other go).
3)sems the attorney never bothered to link up various loose links
in the documenattion before or after submitting or ask.check the candidate for details .
4)In result,the candidate is screwed up for no faultof him and even might not be having chance normally to actively involve at 140 stage as many employer's &attorneys feel that 140 is their prized prerogative and candidate has nothing to do.
Now,seems,it is the employer is one who violated the terms of LCA as he has
deputed and paid the employee for at various palces to work.(and paid
to different addresses) and employee suffers.
 
Locations

But, how about, having a fixed location, but then visiting client sites on say 3 days or 5 days trips to attend meetings, installation issues, etc.? In that case, all that is needed is only one address. Right?
 
poongunranar said:
But, how about, having a fixed location, but then visiting client sites on say 3 days or 5 days trips to attend meetings, installation issues, etc.? In that case, all that is needed is only one address. Right?
Click to expand...

That's the ideal way - and that's the way "consulting" should to be executed. And many American consulting companies do consulting that way. But many consulting companies do "so-called-consulting" this way too (like the way Netguru did or does). This consulting companies are not willing (or sometimes cannot affort) to spend money for employee's (consultant's) convenience - air-fare, car-rental, hotel accomodation, food etc. So, they just dump the consultant to the location where he is supposed to work.
 
pralay

Now, I see why my employer had an addendum for ETA-750A and 750B in items 8 and 15a respectively to include "consulting services" in there. Because, I travel quite frequently for high-level design sessions at client-sites.
 
LCA is more of an issue here...

I think more than the different addresses in ETA 750 his H1B petition(s) are problematic because it indicates he should be working in Waltham while he worked everywhere else other than Waltham and INS is saying that this is a direct violation of H1B regulations and is grounds to say he has violated his non-immigrant status which leads to automatic denial of I-485. Just my two cents...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top