H1B Visa Lawyer Blog

The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) Processing Times were released on March 2, 2010 with processing dates as of March 1, 2010.

If you filed an appeal, please review the links below to determine the applicable processing time associated with your particular case.

Administrative Appeals Office

The current processing time for an I-129 H-1B Appeal is 13 months. The current processing time for an I-140 EB2 Appeal for an Advanced Degree Professional is 24 months; for an I-140EB3 Appeal for a Skilled or Professional Worker is 24 months. Most other cases are within USCIS's processing time goal of 6 months or less.

The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) Processing Times were released on February 17, 2010 with processing dates as of February 1, 2010.

If you filed an appeal, please review the links below to determine the applicable processing time associated with your particular case.

Administrative Appeals Office

The current processing time for an I-129 H-1B Appeal is 14 months. The current processing time for an I-140 EB2 Appeal for an Advanced Degree Professional is 25 months; for an I-140EB3 Appeal for a Skilled or Professional Worker is 23 months. Most other cases are within USCIS's processing time goal of 6 months or less.

The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) Processing Times were released on January 28, 2010 with processing dates as of January 4, 2010.

If you filed an appeal, please review the links below to determine the applicable processing time associated with your particular case.

Administrative Appeals Office

The current processing time for an I-129 H-1B Appeal is 13 months. The current processing time for an I-140 EB2 Appeal for an Advanced Degree Professional is 24 months; for an I-140EB3 Appeal for a Skilled or Professional Worker is 23 months. Most other cases are within USCIS's processing time goal of 6 months or less.

The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) Processing Times were released on December 31, 2009 with processing dates as of December 2, 2009

If you filed an appeal, please review the links below to determine the applicable processing time associated with your particular case.

Administrative Appeals Office

The current processing time for an I-129 H-1B Appeal is 12 months. The current processing time for an I-140 EB2 Appeal for an Advanced Degree Professional is 26 months. Most other cases are within USCIS's processing time goal of 6 months or less.

The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) Processing Times were released on November 4, 2009 with processing dates as of November 1, 2009

If you filed an appeal, please review the links below to determine the applicable processing time associated with your particular case.

Administrative Appeals Office

The current processing time for an I-129 H-1B Appeal is 13 months. The current processing time for an I-140 EB2 Appeal for an Advanced Degree Professional is 27 months. Most other cases are within USCIS's processing time goal of 6 months or less.

The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has extended information collection for Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker until October 28, 2009.

During this period, USCIS will be evaluating whether to revise Form I-140.

Members of the public are encouraged to submit comments and/or suggestions to USCIS, especially comments regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time.

Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

These comments/suggestions should be directed to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), USCIS Desk Officer.

Comments may be submitted to:
USCIS,
Chief, Regulatory Products Division, Clearance Office,
111 Massachusetts Avenue
Washington, DC 20529-2210.

Comments may also be submitted to DHS via facsimile to 202-272-8352 or via e-mail at rfs.regs@dhs.gov.

Comments may also be submitted to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via facsimile at 202-395-5806 or via e-mail at oira_submission@omb.eop.gov.
**When submitting comments by e-mail, please make sure to add OMB Control No. 1615-0015 in the subject box.

Effective March 2, 2009, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will expand their premium processing service to certain Form I-140 petitions. This service will be expanded to include alien beneficiaries who have almost reached their limitation of stay on H-1B visa status.

For the specific details, please read the entire fact sheet

The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) recently dismissed an appeal brought by a U.S. petitioner, a convenience store. The issue of the appeal was whether or not the petitioner had the ability to pay the proffered wage as of the priority date and continuing until the beneficiary obtained lawful permanent residence. The petitioner sought to employ the beneficiary permanently as a Manager. The ETA 750 was accepted on March 28, 2001, and the proffered wage was $18.00 per hour ($37,440.00 per year). In order to prove the ability to pay, the USCIS requires that a petitioner demonstrate financial resources sufficient to pay the beneficiary’s proffered wages from the time the labor application is accepted until the beneficiary attains permanent resident status. According to regulations, evidence of this ability shall be in the form of copies of annual reports, federal tax returns, or audited financial statements.

In determining whether the employer has the ability to pay, the USCIS will first examine whether the petitioner employed and paid the beneficiary during that period. If the petitioner can show that it employed the beneficiary at a salary equal to or greater than the proffered wage, the evidence will be considered prima facie proof of the petitioner’s ability to pay the proffered wage. However, if the petitioner does not establish that it employed and paid the beneficiary, the USCIS will then examine the net income figure reflected on the petitioner’s federal income tax return. Net income results after subtracting costs and expenses from total revenue.

In the aforementioned case, at the time the labor was submitted, the beneficiary was not employed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the USCIS chose to review the petitioner’s net income figures. As a result, the petitioner’s federal income tax returns were insufficient to pay the beneficiary the proffered wage, therefore, the USCIS elected to review the petitioner’s net current assets. Net current assets are the difference between the petitioner’s current assets and current liabilities. To clarify, net current assets are assets that are continually turned over in the course of a business during normal business activity; they are in other words, the petitioner’s working capital. After thorough review, it was determined that the petitioner had insufficient funds to pay the beneficiary the proffered wage.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that by combining the petitioner’s net income with its net current assets, the petitioner had the ability to pay the proffered wage. However, the AAO did not accept that approach. The AAO’s view was that net income and net current assets are two different methods of establishing the ability to pay, and they cannot be combined to satisfy the ability to pay, its either one or the other. Accordingly, the petitioner had not met its burden, and the appeal was dismissed.