Denied Baltimore Case

[dynobuoy]

Hi all,

I am not sure if this has been posted in this thread before.

An I485 Baltimore, Maryland case has been denied citing that the beneficiary was not working for the employer at the location from where the labor was approved.

The employer, Netguru Inc., had filed for the beneficiary's I-485 from Waltham, MA, based on a labor which was approved for the same place. (Waltham, MA seems like their US head quarters). The district director had cited that the labor was approved for a particular location and the applicant was not working at the location where the labor is approved and hence issued a NOID which then went to AAO. The AAO cited various reasons including entries found in I129 (H1B) and 325a (Bio-graphic info) and had denied the case.

http://uscis.gov/graphics/lawsregs/admindec3/a1/2004/mar2204_01a1245.pdf

This is a very scary scenario for many of the consultants (like me) who will be travelling from state to state depending on the clients available. 'Part 5' of the I129 (H1B) form has a section 'Address where the person(s) will work'.

[1] As far as I know many employers would leave that a blank. So if such an applicant happens to travel and move to different geographical locations within US, would it be unlawful?

[2] Does it mean such an application has violated the H1B and invalidates the H1B and hence will be ineligible for 485 (because 485 requires that the applicant is in valid status while his I-485 being processed)? (This is the reason cited by AAO to deny the 485).

Guys throw in your inputs and if anyone had their 485 approved inspite of the fact that they never worked at the employer's location share your expriences too!

TIA
dyno

 

[PremChopra]

The case might have been ended up with someone who is really crazy and would have been having a bad day.

Also it is hard to believe since GC is for future employment, they cannot predict if the candidate is going to join at the same office or not. I think something is really wrong here. I think there will be more to it.

 

[ETA-GC]

This is also being discussed here http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=146973.

From what I can tell, the conclusion was the employee should be able to move locations (the decision to deny the case was withdrawn) but there is a possible issue with his H visa since they never redid the LCA for the new location.

Given that you can change to a completely different company (and location) under AC21, it wouldn't make sense IMO if you couldn't change locations within the sponsoring company (as long as the job stays the same).

ETA

 

[dynobuoy]

dynobuoy, for peace of mind why don't you call netguru and ask them what ultimately happened to this person's case.

Thanks unitednations, I was planning to do this on Monday, but I am not sure if their counsel would agree to discuss their case with a stranger (my employer would never!). So if someone working in netguru can they check abt this case and post!

Thanks
dyno

 

[pralay]

However, aao said person may not be eligible to adjust status due to violation of h-1b. Since many people on these boards are in similar situations on h-1b and they are working at different locations they may not be able to adjust status if the h-1b didn't allow for them to work at different locations.

I think most of the consulting companies go by the rules - normally they obtain new LCAs when they move their employees to new locations. But obviously there are crazy consulting comapanies who just don't bother to get LCA for new locations. For H1 holders, it's always good idea to keep all immigration items in order (like copy of I129, copy of LCA etc).

I feel this Netguru case got more close review because not only Netguru violated H1 norms, but also the GC sponsorer for the beneficiary.
I guess the situation would not be so bad if Netguru was ex-employer (and not GC sponsorer) for the beneficiary.

 

[sg1973]

Well, One of the LCs I had seen mentions the work location as the "company headquarters and many other client locations in US" which I thought is very generic and covers all possible cases. However, this company is a consulting company so they might have mentioned it as a possibility and if the company is not a consulting comp, they might just specify the location where the employee is currently working, which might be the issue here.
Any ideas?

 

[dynobuoy]

I think people are missing the point. Under ac21 and for greencard purposes you can move around to different locations.

Exactly!


However, aao said person may not be eligible to adjust status due to violation of h-1b.

Yes. So the real issue here is H1B/LCA amendments and matching information in 325A.

dyno



Since many people on these boards are in similar situations on h-1b and they are working at different locations they may not be able to adjust status if the h-1b didn't allow for them to work at different locations.

 

[kannav32]

Hey Guys

THE CASE WAS NOT DENIED! The Adjustment of Status in this case is under process.

The person who posted this information has half knowledge about this case. I know this person being referred. I also think that it was either stupid or un-ethical on the part of the person who posted this document, not to blank out personal information like the name of the employer who he worked for.

This case is something that happens to a lot of us trying to get their Green Cards faster. We do not care to notice mistakes that we make during the process. More importantly EMPLOYERS think that they have the BEST LAWYERS on the face of earth and they know what they are doing. This case is also an out come of the employer messing up. Who pays the price????

 

[tellmewhy]

I am actually just made the decision to leave Ohio where I have been working for 4 years and started my gc process. I am moving to Baltimore. I am currently on EAD, and I have "Columbus OH" as the work place on my H1B application. Since I am on EAD, does that mean I do not have to worry about this problem? Should I notify my lawyer of this and make sure she takes care of the LCA?

This really worries me..

 

[dynobuoy]

Hey Guys

THE CASE WAS NOT DENIED! The Adjustment of Status in this case is under process.

The person who posted this information has half knowledge about this case. I know this person being referred. I also think that it was either stupid or un-ethical on the part of the person who posted this document, not to blank out personal information like the name of the employer who he worked for.

kannav32

I understand your concern. I think you haven't read the document in full. The document is a 2004 decision by the AAO and it has the seal 'public' in the front page. This means that the document is for public consumption and open for discussion. Infact the link is from the official USCIS official website. The name of the employer was NOT something I or other posters conjured up. The name is there in the document!

If you have more information it would help those who are in a similar situation and that would be appreciated!

hth
dyno


This case is something that happens to a lot of us trying to get their Green Cards faster. We do not care to notice mistakes that we make during the process. More importantly EMPLOYERS think that they have the BEST LAWYERS on the face of earth and they know what they are doing. This case is also an out come of the employer messing up. Who pays the price????

 

[functionalalert]

points regarding h1

quick: i posted a logn messagte but the board loigged me out so summary here.

rajiv please request a fix the software so if people type a long message it does not log out and foirce retying the message.

for purpose of gc the ac21 flexibility allowed by AAO IS COMMENDABLE.

IS THE DIGGING UP IF EVERYPLACE an employee worked an issue.

page 3 of
http://www.immigrationportal.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9195

MY QUESTION IS THAT IF THE EMPLOYEE VOLUNTARILY MOVED TO BE CLOSER TO HIS CLIENT WHERE HE HAS FREQUENT INTERACTION, WILL THAT BE CONSIDERED WRONG.

to clarify employer says travel weekly from ny to sfo. employee feels that he does not want to deal with stress of travel, profling by racist airport secuirty, and other stress,so he moves to be closer to his client. note: client does not require him to be there,only ocassionally ATTEND work. he is there for his convenience.the employee works at home on the internet,so there is no defineiton of actual physical worksite as it is done on the internet.


clarification again of my point:

1. employee visits client site frequently (different sites)
2. moves his home closer to client site (not office location fort his conveniecne,at hios own wish)

3 is there any violation. note it is normal to keep travelling,some people just dont want to do it weekly due to profiling and other abuses that immigrants and even american citizens face

please note: the intent here is to obtain if there is any h1 issue here
refer this doc before answering please (page 2 end and page 3)

http://www.immigrationportal.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9195

 

[kannav32]

kannav32

I understand your concern. I think you haven't read the document in full. The document is a 2004 decision by the AAO and it has the seal 'public' in the front page. This means that the document is for public consumption and open for discussion. Infact the link is from the official USCIS official website. The name of the employer was NOT something I or other posters conjured up. The name is there in the document!

If you have more information it would help those who are in a similar situation and that would be appreciated!

hth
dyno

Hey Dyno,

I was not referring to you. I understand that this was posted by USCIS. I was referring to the people who posted the document there! But my point was that the document does not say anywhere that the case was denied!

 

[pralay]

The person who posted this information has half knowledge about this case. I know this person being referred. I also think that it was either stupid or un-ethical on the part of the person who posted this document, not to blank out personal information like the name of the employer who he worked for.

In general, any AAO/immigration court matters are public in nature. USCIS publishes AAO/immigration court decisions periodically by policy. You will find that every immigration law office in USA has a copy of this decision (and other cases too). So, what ethics or stupidity are you talking about, dude?

 

[kannav32]

This was APPROVED. I spoke the person in discussion. Below is the information that I elicited from him:-

Here is what happened:-

* District director at Baltimore INS denied the case.

* Attorney appealed on AC-21.

* Then case sent to AAO for review and decision.

* AAO gave decision that District director at Baltimore INS is wrong and if the beneficiary hasn't violated H1-B status while working in various locations other than location specified in labor, then approve the case.

* Attorney submitted LCA's for other locations and
other supporting documents.

* Case is approved September 2004.

 

[dynobuoy]

This was APPROVED. I spoke the person in discussion. Below is the information that I elicited from him:-

kannav32

Thanks for this info. This brings a great deal of relief. My wife and I were discussing this for the past 2 days and were very concerned! Could you please pm me the email/phone number of the person concerned. We could talk to him and collect the proofs that they/their counsel submitted.

Again thanks for the info!

-dyno


...

 

[functionalalert]

dyno and kannav please more info

kannav please provide more info.


1. Points to assist:

synopsis of case after aao said that h1 violation may be there due to fact of working in different locations as on g325 but not having the words "and other locations" on h1-lca. your answers will bring relief to many people who are concerned that some small typo may result in gc denial after years of waiting


what did the attorney file when you said attorney filed LCAS for different locations?

what is the advice to people who may be in similar situations that may have some visits to cleint sites etc?


please provide the specifc info on how the lawyer proved that there was no H1 violation since the LCA said one location but the employee was in another location. What evidence was provided and what happened. it will be useful to understand the documents needed.

thanks,

 

[pralay]

synopsis of case after aao said that h1 violation may be there due to fact of working in different locations as on g325 but not having the words "and other locations" on h1-lca. your answers will bring relief to many people who are concerned that some small typo may result in gc denial after years of waiting

That's unlikely - typo does not cause denial. If adjucator have doubt they will send you RFE or call for interview. You will get enough chance to correct it. The problem is this Netguru case is that there are very long trail of discrepancies. And it appears that the applicant/appicant's attorney could not resolve it even in interview. That caused the initial denial.

 

[dynobuoy]

This was APPROVED. I spoke the person in discussion. Below is the information that I elicited from him:-

Here is what happened:-

* District director at Baltimore INS denied the case.

* Attorney appealed on AC-21.

* Then case sent to AAO for review and decision.

* AAO gave decision that District director at Baltimore INS is wrong and if the beneficiary hasn't violated H1-B status while working in various locations other than location specified in labor, then approve the case.

* Attorney submitted LCA's for other locations and
other supporting documents.
Also, did they already have the LCAs for those locations? Then why didn't the attorney submit it or atleast take it to the interview? Could you ask ur friend?

-dyno



* Case is approved September 2004.