Collegues 140 Rejected

[GC_ki_daud]

Hello Members and GURUS,

One of my coworkers I140 was rejected today. His application was made in year 2006 . The reason for his rejection was that too many GC petions filed by the company. And the USCIS asked the Company to show the ability to pay him and all other "78' applications that were made by my employer. Out of the 78 many have their 140 cleared since last year or more than that.

My fear/question is weather the explanation asked by USCIS to show comapany's compentency to pay all 78 petitioners could jeopardize all of them ??

[GC_ki_daud]

bump

Please help with a reply

[GC_ki_daud]

Also if I leave this employer and work with another employer on AC21, Will the USCIS still question me if they do a full inquiry on the company (FYI it is a staffing/consulting company)

[GC_ki_daud]

bump

[GC_ki_daud]

Any body ..Any good suggestion/Advise

[GC_ki_daud]

:confused:

[GC Struggle]

Can you tell me if all the 140's have been applied and approved from the same service center.

The USCIS has the jusrisdiction to review all previously approved 140's to check that the company has the ability to pay all its 140 fillings - most of teh times this is done if the company has mutiple filings in the same calendar year.

To answer your question if USCIS can come after you.. I guess yes.. I remember seeing a post on IV (member / user name Dimpi) where the persons 140 was rejected 2.5 years after it was approved.. this after him using AC21 and moving to another company...

[EndlessWait]

if your case is clean..there shouldn't be anything to worry.. use ac21 and move on..u cant predict future..

[americandesi]

Here’s how it works. Suppose there are 78 pending GC applications each with a proffered wage of 80K/annum, then the employer should prove at least one of the following to prove “Ability to Pay” for all the applications to go through.

1) Company’s net profit exceeds or equals 78 x 80K = $6,240,000 per annum since the establishment of their Priority Dates
(or)
2) Company’s net assets exceeds or equals 78 x 80K = $6,240,000 per annum since the establishment of their Priority Dates
(or)
3) The company paid >= 80K in salary to all the 78 beneficiaries since the establishment of their Priority Dates
(or)
4) The company paid < 80K (say 70K) in salary to all the 78 beneficiaries since the establishment of their Priority Dates but the difference (10K) was matched by Company’s net profit or net assets (10K x 78 = 7,80,000)

Now let’s assume that the company sponsors GC for 79th employee, then the company should replace 78 with 79 in the conditions specified above and they can’t use the same old figures anymore to prove “ability to pay”.

In your case, I’m afraid that your employer didn’t even meet the condition specified for 78 employees and that resulted in your colleagues I-140 denial. In such situations, USCIS might even revoke previously approved I-140’s because the employer’s financials doesn’t support all the pending GC applications.

Refer http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15993

[lskreddy]

Which company is this?

[kaisersose]

This is the danger with a "green card shop" company. They constantly have people joining and leaving them. Not a problem for H-1b but a major problem with GC processing.

Here is an example with company X which has ability pay for up to 50 employees at any point.

X applies 30 I-140s in 2005 [less than 50]
X applies 25 I-140s in 2006, and 20 of the 2005 count have quit. Total employees are less than 50.
X applies 30 I-140s in 2007, and another 20 have quit. Total employees are less than 50.

One would think since they have less than 50 empoyees and ability to pay for 50 employees, they are safe. This will work for H-1b, but not for GCs.

Since GC is for future employment, the company is required to have the ability to pay all 85 employees after they become permanent residents. It does not matter if they have quit the company. The asumption is all 85 will be employed by X on GC approval and so X is expected to be able to pay all of them.

This is what has happened here. When such a problem comes up, then they can (and sometimes do) pull back previously approved 140s too.

[americandesi]

This is the danger with a "green card shop" company. They constantly have people joining and leaving them. Not a problem for H-1b but a major problem with GC processing.

Here is an example with company X which has ability pay for up to 50 employees at any point.

X applies 30 I-140s in 2005 [less than 50]
X applies 25 I-140s in 2006, and 20 of the 2005 count have quit. Total employees are less than 50.
X applies 30 I-140s in 2007, and another 20 have quit. Total employees are less than 50.

One would think since they have less than 50 empoyees and ability to pay for 50 employees, they are safe. This will work for H-1b, but not for GCs.

Since GC is for future employment, the company is required to have the ability to pay all 85 employees after they become permanent residents. It does not matter if they have quit the company. The asumption is all 85 will be employed by X on GC approval and so X is expected to be able to pay all of them.

This is what has happened here. When such a problem comes up, then they can (and sometimes do) pull back previously approved 140s too.

Most employees who leave the GC sponsoring employer either invoke AC21 or port their PD’s with another employer. Hence the GC sponsoring employer could very well go ahead and withdraw their I-140’s so that they are no longer burdened to prove ATP for all ex-employees.