Just called USCIS for AC 21 clarification

If you guys want to take the legal advice of an IIO on something that stumped the panels at the Annual AILA Conference (the panels that discussed this issue included Lynen Melmedm Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, DHS, Washinton D.C., William Yates, Associate Director, Operations, USCIS, Washington, DC, and other senior government officials and experienced immigration attorneys. Somehow I doubt that whoever the IIO spoke to was anywhere near that level.
 
This is slightly unrelated, but can employer "reuse" an LC after I-140 has been approved and beneficiary has switched jobs using AC-21 (if beneficiary stayed with employer until I-140 approval and 6 months after 485 filing)
 
Naanshi et al,
I dont understand how you guys can discuss the same thing everyday and come to the same conclusion and get drunk every night over this. How does it matter that ten of you called the CIS and got the same response from someone there in your favor? Is there any significant chance that the person you talked to could handle your 140 case? I am in the same boat guys. But I am not prepared to use this as an excuse to stop worrying about this gray area. Thats the only thing we can do at this point in time. It is painful and I wish it would end but hey "GET OVER IT". Just suck it up and be patient and pray. I dont think these non-stop calls to the CIS is solving anything. They could just pacify us over the phone and turn around and screw all of us. Nothing's for sure with the CIS and you guys, of all the folks here, should know this. It is painful to go nowhere with this concurrent processing piece of junk but what the heck can we do?????
 
bigbadwolf said:
Naanshi et al,
I dont understand how you guys can discuss the same thing everyday and come to the same conclusion and get drunk every night over this. How does it matter that ten of you called the CIS and got the same response from someone there in your favor? Is there any significant chance that the person you talked to could handle your 140 case? I am in the same boat guys. But I am not prepared to use this as an excuse to stop worrying about this gray area. Thats the only thing we can do at this point in time. It is painful and I wish it would end but hey "GET OVER IT". Just suck it up and be patient and pray. I dont think these non-stop calls to the CIS is solving anything. They could just pacify us over the phone and turn around and screw all of us. Nothing's for sure with the CIS and you guys, of all the folks here, should know this. It is painful to go nowhere with this concurrent processing piece of junk but what the heck can we do?????
Click to expand...

When some thing is not clear, it is always good to call the concerned authority and find out the truth. No harm in that. And also the main purpose of having this message board is to discuss and share our views and we are doing it daily. Everybody in this message board knows that nothing is 100% sure till you get the decision or at least a written memo.

naanshi.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jim Mills,
1. I did not understand your message. R u implying that the IIO was nowhere near the level of the distinguished panel and since the panel was stumped, the IIO is giving information of doubtful certainty?
 
bigbadwolf said:
............................. I dont think these non-stop calls to the CIS is solving anything. They could just pacify us over the phone and turn around and screw all of us. Nothing's for sure with the CIS and you guys, of all the folks here, should know this. It is painful to go nowhere with this concurrent processing piece of junk but what the heck can we do?????
Click to expand...

I have to agree with with you bigbadwolf, no written rules for I-140 portability, entirely grey area for interpretation, concurrent filers are in a weird situation - I think most of would only like to know is it YES or NO, and for example will my case be adjuducated in 1, 3 or 5 years, then I would just like to know it - if it is 5 years then OK, I can then organize my life/work in one way or another. Here they are adjuducating 2002 cases at NSC OK. But then, hop, there is RD February 2004 approved (I-485) today again (at Rupnet). Perhaps it is better just not to check these sites anymore and (if one could only forget about it).
 
Exactly my point. My activity here has been reducing over the last few weeks. I am still hopeful and every time naanshi or one of the veterans post something, I get excited and read every single message. I support efforts like the petition and I would also financially support any lawyer that is willing to sue the ins over this and make it a big deal. But c'mon guys, when the clarification doesnt mean anything, whats the point in calling the ins. Can you get them to give you something in writing or something official that you can use to sue them if things dont work out tomorrow? Please I see nothing these days but "Good news, I called the ins, the first officer required 140 but the second officer did not". Tell me guys, just honestly tell me that such a response gives you any more comfort or reassurance than you had before making the call! Lets just get real and try to get more petitions or lawsuits going. These shiteheads may respond only to hard stimulus.
 
if the new employer files AC21 with all supporting documents, but the old employer withdraws. what will happen? Is it correct that the new employer has to file before the old employer withdraw? My question really is: how soon do I need to file AC21, if I140 is still pening but pass 180 days mark.

2) Can the original petitioner (old employer) withdraw the I-140 case?
Answer: No they can't.
 
good points, inkink

i agree to most what inkink said in his analysis and conclusions.

there are some of us like me, naanshi, gc_gonecase who have decided to take this route that has some "dark areas", but we hope to find "light at the end road".

If situation with I140s does not improve, I am sure there will be some more amongst us who will be compelled to walk on the same route.

As said earlier in my starter thread "Doubtful about I140 portability......."
I had the same responses from 2-3 IO what inkink had. I have to keep some faith in what they said and take an audacious decision about my career..guess what is that?

-aws
 
i think u guys are on the right track, the law doesnt say anything about 140 period. so even if tommorrow u guys land up in trouble it will be debatable for sure.
 
I agree using AC21 without approved I-140 is a grey area and no one can say with 100% surety this or that, because there is no law or clarity in writing. If this was not the case we would not have such long and un-ending discussions on the topic. For obvious reason people will like to beleive the positive side. That is why when one rep says no and one says yes, we like to beleive the yes. But just because we are gettring contradicting answers the prudent thing is to wait till USCIS clarifies its position. There is no point in stating different points of view till then.

Therefore my position from the beginning is to NOT use AC21 until I-140 is approved, unless you really really have to. For those who have had to use AC21, with unapproved I-140s, I have to say, hope for the best, but be prepared for the worst.
 
registrationid said:
Jim Mills,
1. I did not understand your message. R u implying that the IIO was nowhere near the level of the distinguished panel and since the panel was stumped, the IIO is giving information of doubtful certainty?
Click to expand...

I'm saying that the panel members stated that there was no set policy on this, and to the extent that they did state a policy, they said that an I-140 would probably need to be approved. These panel members were about 10 levels over an IIO and I don't think that if they decided differently that the argument that an IIO said it was so would make a bit of difference.

YES, this information is definitely of doubtful certainty. It may end up being right, and it may not. You would probably learn just as much by flipping a coin as you do calling and discussing a matter such as this with an IIO.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
inkink said:
Dear Wolf and Jim,

That being said, please do recognize that this intrepretation is nothing NEW. It is merely the literal interpretation of the AC21 LAW. As the law is written today, 140 approval is not mentioned as a requirment. FO memo is merely an internal operational instruction, and as such cannot override the LAW.
Click to expand...

I-140 approval was a de facto requirement when AC21 was written since there was no such thing as concurrent filing. The problem with not requiring I-140 approval at any point is that there is never any test of corporate ability to pay or the person's qualification for a certain preference category. This is a major problem and seems to be the sticking point for USCIS.

If there is no requirement for an approved I-140, why bother with a Labor Certification at all? Just put together an argument for a NIW, file it and port after 180 days. No way they will adjudicate a concurrently filed NIW I-140 in less than 180 days so if there is no need for I-140 approval, why bother with the LC at all? I can almost always make an argument for a NIW.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sertra2002 said:
I agree using AC21 without approved I-140 is a grey area and no one can say with 100% surety this or that, because there is no law or clarity in writing. If this was not the case we would not have such long and un-ending discussions on the topic. For obvious reason people will like to beleive the positive side. That is why when one rep says no and one says yes, we like to beleive the yes. But just because we are gettring contradicting answers the prudent thing is to wait till USCIS clarifies its position. There is no point in stating different points of view till then.

Therefore my position from the beginning is to NOT use AC21 until I-140 is approved, unless you really really have to. For those who have had to use AC21, with unapproved I-140s, I have to say, hope for the best, but be prepared for the worst.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%. If you have any choice at all, do not port prior to approval of the I-140. Of course, if you have no choice . . . you have no choice. I would suggest that anyone that ports prior to I-140 approval should file a new LC just to stay covered in the event of a denial.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top