So Far, Subst Cases Inherit the PD of the Labor Cert Being Used

tominavhech

Registered Users (C)
Rajeev just had a 1 hour conference call with all forum members. He was sure that the PD for labor subst. cases is I-140 filing date and not original date.
He said USCIS is known to make mistakes and the people who are seeing the PD as original labor date are plain lucky and once USCIS becomes aware of this, they may start correctly adjugating the cases.
 
Question

tominavhech

So you mean that people in EB3 category who have filed 140/485 by using sub labor in Dec -04, to avoid retrogession are not going to benefit ?

1) So the PD of their labor is no good, & the PD for the case will be thier 140 filing date ?

Thanks
Sandeep
 
Sandeep,
I am no expert at this. But I will tell you my observations.
1. Right now people using substitute labor are getting the benefits. You can even see some approvals on this forum.
2. According to Rajeev, if this is happening this is inconsistent with the laws that are in place.
3. More than 99% of the times Rajeev is correct (not my words). If Rajeev is correct here too, let us HOPE that USCIS does not realize this mistake and keep the current trend of approving applications with substitute labor going!
 
But Attorney Murthy told totally different thing. She told that the original PD will be applied to Sub case.
 
Thanks UnitedNations for those encouraging worrds.
My attorney ( one of the washington top attorney co) too said it should be original Labor receipt Date.
Thanks
-greeny
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My lawyer (big firm in Bay Area) insists that sub-LC PD is original LC PD though I argued with her. Still, she strongly believes she is right. I have no idea about all those contradicting arguments. Time will prove.

unitednations said:
this is one of those 1% areas where Rajiv, may be incorrect.

Department of state and uscis memos both say labor substitute beneficiary get original priority date.
 
The observation may be applicable from the section of the law but there were many memos (refer ealier threads-threre were lot of links and discussions)
and recently att. Murthy also opined sub.LC will get original PD.(check the threads or Murthy site).
 
Let us put it this way - for extension beyond 6th year, the FAMOUS Yates memo mentions that if a person uses sub LC the beneficiary gets the Priority date of original labour. Suppose your 6th year gets over on 28th february and you have not filed labor - but use a sub labor on 15th feb which was filed in year 2002, you will still get the benefit of extension. I don't know whether USCIS will interpret this logic differently for different purposes.
 
This is how I see it

I studied this issue back in the 1990's and have revisited my notes.

Folks there is always someone who knows something better than another lawyer. In my opinion, in labor substitution cases, the law should be that for filing 485/Visa Bulletin purposes, the PD is the date of filing the I-140 . But beacause of the strange (and good for us) language used in AC21, for 7th year extensions, the date of filing the Labor Cert is used. Also, I am aware that CIS has been approving cases otherwise, but their regs point in the opposite direction.

By the way, CIS Regulations 8 CFR Section 204.5(e) (which may or may not have application to LCert substitution cases - I think it does) states that "A priority date is not transferable to another alien."

(e) Retention of section 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) priority date. A petition approved on behalf of an alien under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act accords the alien the priority date of the approved petition for any subsequently filed petition for any classification under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act for which the alien may qualify. In the event that the alien is the beneficiary of multiple petitions under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act, the alien shall be entitled to the earliest priority date. A petition revoked under sections 204(e) or 205 of the Act will not confer a priority date, nor will any priority date be established as a result of a denied petition. A priority date is not transferable to another alien.

However, INS has given instructions contrary to their regs. So, it appears so far that CIS has been following the Crocetti memo (right or wrong):
See this link
http://www.immigration.com/newsletter1/submemoins.html

Note: This memo referes to subscetion (d) of 8 CFR 204.5 (again, which does not refer to substitition)

d) Priority date. The priority date of any petition filed for classification under section 203(b) of the Act which is accompanied by an individual labor certification from the Department of Labor shall be the date the request for certification was accepted for processing by any office within the employment service system of the Department of Labor. The priority date of any petition filed for classification under section 203(b) of the Act which is accompanied by an application for Schedule A designation or with evidence that the alien's occupation is a shortage occupation within the Department of Labor's Labor Market Information Pilot Program shall be the date the completed, signed petition (including all initial evidence and the correct fee) is properly filed with the Service. The priority date of a petition filed for classification as a special immigrant under section 203(b)(4) of the Act shall be the date the completed, signed petition (including all initial evidence and the correct fee) is properly filed with the Service. The priority date of an alien who filed for classification as a special immigrant prior to October 1, 1991, and who is the beneficiary of an approved I-360 petition after October 1, 1991, shall be the date the alien applied for an immigrant visa or adjustment of status. In the case of a special immigrant alien who applied for adjustment before October 1, 1991, Form I-360 may be accepted and adjudicated at a Service District Office or sub-office.


Bottomline, so far it is working. Why should we rock the boat. :) I do not know if this position will ever be revised.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
GC if for future job so USCIS has to consider the case independent of whether the would be immigrant is employed with the sponsoring employer or not.

The Labor belongs to an employer and thus employer has a right to substitute the person within the same and similar qualifications and experience. If on date X an employer makes a labor application to hire an immigrant for the job, and later on the person who was supposed to be hired for that job decides not to join, if the employer substitues the person with another person on date X + Y, why should the employer be penalized by shifting the priority date of the case thereby preventing him from hiring that substitute person on immigrant visa? By making the PD as the date of 140 filing, effectively USCIS is stopping the employer from hiring a immigrant for no fault of employer. This most likely is the explanation that USCIS also uses when it decides to keep the PD same as that of the original case.
 
Substitute PD is I-140RD only if..

My 2 cents..

Say someone got labor certified, filed I140, got approved and then left the company. Then the company can revoke I140 and use that LC to substitute another one. In this case, I think CIS is giving I140 RD as PD for the second beneficiary. CIS may be following this to protect the first immigrant's PD in case he is eligible for AC21.
 
Hello United nations

Can you please help me in this and also I gave an email to you. If you can look and respond at your convenience that would be great.

I got an RFE on 140 of ability to pay. Can you please tell me how this can be answered and what did u do when you go the RFE. Any suggestions are highly appreciated. Thank you.
 
waitingforGC200 said:
Hello United nations

Can you please help me in this and also I gave an email to you. If you can look and respond at your convenience that would be great.

I got an RFE on 140 of ability to pay. Can you please tell me how this can be answered and what did u do when you go the RFE. Any suggestions are highly appreciated. Thank you.

Hi,

Is your employer not responding to the 140 RFE? Are there more than 25 people working in your company? Then your financial officer can send a letter to confirm the ability of pay.
 
Dear friends,

I have two 485 pending from two different I140 and two different employers.
I did address change on I485 and got a letter today from USCIS stating that the address change has been accepted. They also mentioned that since the visa in 3rd preference is not currently available both of my cases will be pending until the visa is available.


First 485: Used my own labor PD May 2002, I 140 approved.
Second 485: Used substitute labor, I140 approved and mentions the PD of original labor which is Jan 2001.

What I can’t understand that why is USCIS telling me that the visa is not available for both the cases?

Please advice!



unitednations said:
That's what my thoughts were. I tried to spin this theory and then a few people posted that their 140's had original priority date of labor, even though the 140 had been approved and used by someone else.

I believe the main way this is being used is in 245i cases. Even though USCIS would allow person to get priority date of labor for labor substitution cases but they wouldn't allow someone to use that original priority date to make them eligible for 245i.

Just my two cents.
 
GeeSea said:
My 2 cents..

Say someone got labor certified, filed I140, got approved and then left the company. Then the company can revoke I140 and use that LC to substitute another one. In this case, I think CIS is giving I140 RD as PD for the second beneficiary. CIS may be following this to protect the first immigrant's PD in case he is eligible for AC21.

---- IF the first immigrant is eligible for AC21 and uses it then the labor is used. I don't think the petitioner can reuse the labor for someone else.
 
member77 said:
Dear friends,

I have two 485 pending from two different I140 and two different employers.
I did address change on I485 and got a letter today from USCIS stating that the address change has been accepted. They also mentioned that since the visa in 3rd preference is not currently available both of my cases will be pending until the visa is available.


First 485: Used my own labor PD May 2002, I 140 approved.
Second 485: Used substitute labor, I140 approved and mentions the PD of original labor which is Jan 2001.

What I can’t understand that why is USCIS telling me that the visa is not available for both the cases?


What WAC numbrer does it mention? Is it the one with own LC?

Thanks

Please advice!
 
Again my 2 cents..

The petitioner need not be aware of the previous beneficiary's AC21 eligibility. He does not care at all. The labor is the property of the petitioner until the beneficiary's 485 is adjudicated. I mean the employer(petitioner) can revoke the i140 petition at any time before the beneficiary's 485 is adjudicated.

But if the first beneficiary has left after 140 approved and 6 months passed after his 485 application, he is protected by AC21 act. This is the scenario of 'Two birds at one shot' . I mean two GCs for one labor. You are right it is a loop hole.

There is a discussion in the forum about this. Unitednations knows about this. You can take his advice. Why cann't you enquiry with the employer if the labor you substituted was used for applying 140 for the actual beneficiary?

You can also get the idea by looking into what you have sent (orginal ETA750 A of the orginal labor or copy of it along with ETA 750 B) to INS

member77 said:
---- IF the first immigrant is eligible for AC21 and uses it then the labor is used. I don't think the petitioner can reuse the labor for someone else.
 
GeeSea said:
Again my 2 cents..

The petitioner need not be aware of the previous beneficiary's AC21 eligibility. He does not care at all. The labor is the property of the petitioner until the beneficiary's 485 is adjudicated. I mean the employer(petitioner) can revoke the i140 petition at any time before the beneficiary's 485 is adjudicated.

But if the first beneficiary has left after 140 approved and 6 months passed after his 485 application, he is protected by AC21 act. This is the scenario of 'Two birds at one shot' . I mean two GCs for one labor. You are right it is a loop hole.

There is a discussion in the forum about this. Unitednations knows about this. You can take his advice. Why cann't you enquiry with the employer if the labor you substituted was used for applying 140 for the actual beneficiary?

You can also get the idea by looking into what you have sent (orginal ETA750 A of the orginal labor or copy of it along with ETA 750 B) to INS




What happens when I-140 is approved for original person and he leaves the company (I-485 never filed from tha company)?

Will the new person (beneficiary of the substitution) get PD of the original LC?

Two cases:
(a) Original beneficiary uses his earlier I-140 PD when he re-applies his GC at the new company

(b) Original beneficiary doesn't use the old PD
 
I saw my case and it had the original labor attached to it.
As per the Employer, I140 for the original beneficiary was never filed. I am checking with my lawyer now.

GeeSea said:
Again my 2 cents..

The petitioner need not be aware of the previous beneficiary's AC21 eligibility. He does not care at all. The labor is the property of the petitioner until the beneficiary's 485 is adjudicated. I mean the employer(petitioner) can revoke the i140 petition at any time before the beneficiary's 485 is adjudicated.

But if the first beneficiary has left after 140 approved and 6 months passed after his 485 application, he is protected by AC21 act. This is the scenario of 'Two birds at one shot' . I mean two GCs for one labor. You are right it is a loop hole.

There is a discussion in the forum about this. Unitednations knows about this. You can take his advice. Why cann't you enquiry with the employer if the labor you substituted was used for applying 140 for the actual beneficiary?

You can also get the idea by looking into what you have sent (orginal ETA750 A of the orginal labor or copy of it along with ETA 750 B) to INS
 
Top