2 H-1Bs approved for Analyst & Engineer to work for a newly established seed accelerator in SF with Stanford/Google DNA #visas
— Michael Ryvin (@immlawyr) July 23, 2013
Showing posts with label Nonimmigrant Visas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nonimmigrant Visas. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
H-1B Representative Work
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
San Francisco Immigration Lawyer Q & A: Traveling with Company A visa stamp and Company B approval notice
Question: I have been working with Company B since June 2009. Current I-797 for Company B expires in June 2012. Current H-1B visa stamp in passport is for Company A, and expires on September 7, 2011. I wish to take a quick trip to India this Friday and return on September 5, 2011. I do not have time to renew the H-1B visa stamp during this trip. If I arrive as per schedule, is there still risk that the immigration officer might not let me enter the US or only stamp my I-94 with validity till Sep 7th 2011? Also, current I-94 is valid till Dec 18th 2011. It was not stamped with I-797's expiry date of June 2012 because my passport was expiring on Dec 18th 2011; however, my renewed passport is now valid for another 10 years.
Answer: The Officer should grant you entry in H-1B status valid to the expiry date noted on your Company B I-94, June 2012. The expiry date on the visa stamp [9/7/2011] refers to the last day you may use that visa stamp to enter the US. However, it’s not uncommon for CBP to issue an I-94 valid only to the visa validity date, so don’t walk away from the counter until you have inspected your I-94 to make sure that a mistake was not made. I would also bring evidence of your current employment with B, including paystubs and/or an employment verification letter.
Please let me know if I may be of further assistance.
Michael Ryvin, Partner
Ryvin Wallace Group
1-415-765-0679
michael@ryvinlaw.com
Answer: The Officer should grant you entry in H-1B status valid to the expiry date noted on your Company B I-94, June 2012. The expiry date on the visa stamp [9/7/2011] refers to the last day you may use that visa stamp to enter the US. However, it’s not uncommon for CBP to issue an I-94 valid only to the visa validity date, so don’t walk away from the counter until you have inspected your I-94 to make sure that a mistake was not made. I would also bring evidence of your current employment with B, including paystubs and/or an employment verification letter.
Please let me know if I may be of further assistance.
Michael Ryvin, Partner
Ryvin Wallace Group
1-415-765-0679
michael@ryvinlaw.com
Sunday, August 14, 2011
San Francisco Immigration Lawyer: USCIS Denial Overturned by AAO on Appeal in L-1 New Office Extension Case
Below please find a copy of a January 2011 AAO [Administrative Appeals Office] decision which overturns a denial issued by USCIS in an L-1 “New Office” extension case.
L-1 “New Office” petitions are commonly used when an established foreign company wants to expand in the United States and send a manager/executive or specialized knowledge employee to work for the NEW U.S. entity.
New Office L-1s are granted for one year by showing, among other things, physical premises in the U.S. and the financial viability of the U.S. entity.
One of the hidden pitfalls of the New Office L-1 is securing an extension of L-1 status for the transferee. Commonly, the USCIS will determine the U.S. enterprise is not sufficiently developed to establish the transferee will continue to be employed in a qualifying capacity [manager/executive/specialized knowledge].
The decision below, which includes my highlights and handwritten notes, offers an excellent discussion of the issues surrounding the New Offices L-1 extensions.
AAO New Office L-1A Decision_1-2011
Michael Ryvin, Partner
Ryvin Wallace Group
1-415-765-0679
michael@ryvinlaw.com
L-1 “New Office” petitions are commonly used when an established foreign company wants to expand in the United States and send a manager/executive or specialized knowledge employee to work for the NEW U.S. entity.
New Office L-1s are granted for one year by showing, among other things, physical premises in the U.S. and the financial viability of the U.S. entity.
One of the hidden pitfalls of the New Office L-1 is securing an extension of L-1 status for the transferee. Commonly, the USCIS will determine the U.S. enterprise is not sufficiently developed to establish the transferee will continue to be employed in a qualifying capacity [manager/executive/specialized knowledge].
The decision below, which includes my highlights and handwritten notes, offers an excellent discussion of the issues surrounding the New Offices L-1 extensions.
AAO New Office L-1A Decision_1-2011
Michael Ryvin, Partner
Ryvin Wallace Group
1-415-765-0679
michael@ryvinlaw.com
Sunday, January 30, 2011
NEW OFFICE L-1 TRENDS IN ADJUDICATION
The following exchange between AILA and USCIS during a December 8, 2010 teleconference highlights the problem of USCIS adjudicators not taking sufficient time to clearly explain deficiencies in a petition for US immigration benefits.
It is not unusual to submit a petition to USCIS only to receive a lengthy Request for Evidence (RFE) or even a denial, neither of which includes a clear explanation as to what went wrong. However, as noted in the following exchange, USCIS adjudicators are trained and required to consider all evidence presented in support of a petition and clearly explain deficiencies in either a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) or a denial letter.
The following exchange also speaks to the requirements for “new office” L-1 intra-company transferee petitions. As the exchange between AILA and USCIS clearly shows, new office petitions are commonly granted for a period of one year, but the extensions of L-1status are being denied, based on a number of factors. These factors include the US enterprise not being sufficiently developed to support the need for a full-time manager or executive, or the US enterprise not following through with the commitments it made in the original petition.
Denials based on a U.S. enterprise not being sufficiently developed to justify the need for a full-time manager or executive are understandable, since this requirement is clearly stated in the regulations, but I find the “following through with the commitment” comment to be very curious.
It is not unusual to submit a petition to USCIS only to receive a lengthy Request for Evidence (RFE) or even a denial, neither of which includes a clear explanation as to what went wrong. However, as noted in the following exchange, USCIS adjudicators are trained and required to consider all evidence presented in support of a petition and clearly explain deficiencies in either a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) or a denial letter.
The following exchange also speaks to the requirements for “new office” L-1 intra-company transferee petitions. As the exchange between AILA and USCIS clearly shows, new office petitions are commonly granted for a period of one year, but the extensions of L-1status are being denied, based on a number of factors. These factors include the US enterprise not being sufficiently developed to support the need for a full-time manager or executive, or the US enterprise not following through with the commitments it made in the original petition.
Denials based on a U.S. enterprise not being sufficiently developed to justify the need for a full-time manager or executive are understandable, since this requirement is clearly stated in the regulations, but I find the “following through with the commitment” comment to be very curious.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)