January 2025 – Alan Lee

Alan Lee, Esq. Q&As published on the World Journal Weekly on January 26, 2025：1. Regarding I-485J on porting 2. An I-485 application should be filed with full documentation, including form DS-2019 3. 80% of the EB-1A petitions submitted are taking 12-14 months to process

1. Regarding I-485J on porting

A reader asked:
I got the I-140 approval for EB-3 from my previous employer, and I changed jobs to my current employer after more than 180 days. After my priority expired, my current employer applied for both the I-485 and I-140, and I-140 approved, but there was no progress on the I-485 after more than 180 days. Now, I suddenly received an RFE, which required I-485j, fingerprints, and medical examination which I already submitted before. What should I do in this situation? If I submit the 485j, will the overall I-485 processing be delayed? Does the I-485j also need approval?

Alan Lee, Esq. answers,
Under immigration rules, where there is an EB-3 I-140 approval from a previous employer which has not been revoked within 180 days, the beneficiary can move to another employer that would go through the labor certification and/or petition process again, picking up the old priority date with the new I-140 approval. I assume from what you said that that is what is being done in your case as you say that the second employer has filed and had approved a new I-140 petition. You also say that the I-140 and I-485 were filed together. If so, the I-485 J request sounds inappropriate, and your attorney or legal representative should so state to USCIS in the RFE response. An I-485J would seemingly only be necessary and must be approved where there is a second employer and an attempt to have the immigration case approved on the basis of switching to the same or similar occupation without taking any other steps such as obtaining a new labor certification or immigrant visa petition. The rule on porting where there is no new labor certification or I-140 petition is that an I-485J application for the new job after I-485 filing should be submitted for the same or similar occupation where the I-140 has been approved and at least 180 days have passed after the filing of the I-485 application.

2. An I-485 application should be filed with full documentation, including form DS-2019

A reader asked:
I must submit I-485 immediately, but found that I could not find my DS-2019 from ten years ago. Ten years ago, I entered the United States as a J-1, stayed for five months, and then returned to my home country for two years. The two-year residency requirement was implemented, so I should not need a J-1 waiver. More than two years later, I entered the United States as an F-1 and am currently on OPT. I am now filing I-485 with the principal applicant, but I found that I could not find the DS-2019 form. I contacted the school I exchanged with before, but no one was working. So I want to ask, will there be any critical issues if I do not attach the DS-2019 to the I-485 initial filling? I consulted a lawyer, and the reply was that I can file without the DS-2019. USCIS may or may not issue an RFE, because this document is ten years old. What I can do is: I can ask the school official first to see if I can find a copy. If you don’t have it, you can write a declaration to indicate that you can’t find your DS-2019. Then, submit your previous J-1 visa to show that you followed the two-year rule. Is that a problem?

Alan Lee, Esq. answers,
USCIS expects that an I-485 application will be filed with full documentation, including form DS-2019. Your plan is to ask the school official for a copy and, if such cannot be found, write an explanation as to why it is not available and what efforts you have made. You should also submit your old J-1 visa and proof that you returned to your home country for two years. I cannot tell you that this approach will work without receiving a request for information, but it sounds reasonable.

3. 80% of the EB-1A petitions submitted are taking 12-14 months to process

A reader asked:
My major is computer artificial intelligence, with more than 10,000 citations and various journal editors and reviewers, and many award-winning papers. I applied for outstanding talent, EB-1A submitted in March this year, and received a receipt, but then nothing happened. I have been waiting until now, and I saw on the Internet that some people were approved in a few days or one or two months. Please tell me, what is my situation?

Alan Lee, Esq. answers,
According to the published processing times of USCIS, 80% of the EB-1A petitions submitted to either processing center handling these petitions are taking a year and more – the Nebraska Service Center 12 ½ months and the Texas Service Center 14 months. The process can be speeded up by submitting the petition with or even submitting after the petition is filed Form I-907 Request for Premium Processing with additional filing fee of $2805 under which USCIS will reach the petition for adjudication within 15 business days. During that time, the agency will either approve, deny, or issue a Request for Evidence or Notice of Intent to Deny.

Arthur Lee, Esq. Q&As published on the World Journal Weekly January 19, 2025: 1. If the PERM position changes, there should be some coordination between your attorney and your employer. 2. Leaving your job before I-485 approved, your future N-400 application may face challenges 3. Standard processing for EB-1A I-140 petitions takes 13 -14 months. 4. NIW and O-1 can be submitted with premium processing at the same time

1. If PERM position changes, there should be some coordination between your attorney and your employer.

A reader asks:
My current position is QA, and I want to transfer internally to SDE position, and the work location remains unchanged. PERM is still in the advertising stage. Some people say that in my case, I will most likely have to go through the PERM process again because my job title and job content have changed. But some people say that I can ask my lawyer to submit a PERM according to the original title, get the PD first, and then submit a PERM with the current title. I wonder if this is feasible. Or can I communicate with the boss of the new group, although the position has changed, the job content should remain the same as before. Do I need to resubmit the PERM in this case? I didn’t dare ask the lawyer, mainly because I was worried that they would notify my current boss. If the group is not transferred, I will be embarrassed.

Arthur Lee Esq. answers:
In this situation, there should be some coordination between your attorney and your employer. If it is in the best interests of your company to keep you on as an employee, then your boss should make all efforts to ensure that your employment there will work for your immigration solution. Therefore, if there is a promotion or a transfer of your job, your attorney should know and work with your employer to make it work for you.
As you are aware, if your job changes at your company now, your ETA 9141 prevailing wage is no longer valid and you will need to put in a new prevailing wage with your current position. Advertising your current position and submitting an ETA 9089 with your old position would be fraud unless your company planned to employ you in your old position upon your receipt of permanent residence. The best advice here would be to get the parties to cooperate with one another, with your input as well, and figure out how to make the company’s needs align with your immigration needs.

2. Leaving your job before I-485 approved, your future N-400 application may face challenges

A reader asks:
180 days after I submitted my I-485, I resigned from my previous company, but before I joined the next company, I received a notification that my green card was approved. The new company said that if I submitted an I-485J, the immigration office would not accept it, and told me that there was no problem. May I ask how to deal with this situation? Will it affect the renewal of my green card or naturalization in the future?

Arthur Lee Esq. answers:
Generally leaving your job that was the basis of your I-485 application soon after or before your I-485 is approved will attract more scrutiny on your green card renewal applications and your N-400 applications. So while you have the green card, your future applications may face challenges because USCIS officers may question whether your PERM labor certification jobs were fraudulent and your PERM employer did not truly intend to employ you in the stated job on your I-140 petition. To mitigate the risks in the future, you could take the following steps. First, you should maintain all documentation of your change of job. This includes your resignation documentation from your PERM employer; and your job offer with your new company including position title and description, salary, and start date. While USCIS will not accept your new I-485J application at this time, you should maintain documentation that your new position would have been one in which an I-485J was approvable—your new position is in a “same or similar” job occupation as the one that you left—and that you just were unable to submit the I-485J due to the timing of the I-485 approval. You should bring any and all of this evidence to an N-400 interview. Second, you may wish to submit your N-400 at a later date than the 5 year green card anniversary since the N-400 form only asks you to disclose your employment history for the previous five years. Third, you may decide to keep your permanent residence card and not apply for naturalization.

3. Standard processing for EB-1A I-140 petitions takes 13 -14 months.

A reader asks:
My major is computer artificial intelligence, with more than 10,000 citations in various journals, and many more editorial review and award-winning papers. In March this year, I applied for EB-1A and submitted I-140. The immigration office also received it and gave me receipt, and then nothing happened. I have been waiting until now, and I have seen others get approved in a few days or one or two months. May I ask, what is my situation?

Arthur Lee Esq. answers:
It appears that the others you heard about who were approved within a couple of months or a few days were either very fortunate in their processing times, or applied for premium processing. Standard processing for EB-1A I-140 petitions are taking 13 months at the Nebraska Service Center, and 14 months at the Texas Service Center. Therefore, it appears that your I-140 petition is still being adjudicated within standard processing times. If you wish to speed up your adjudication, you may apply for premium processing, which costs $2,500 and will guarantee further action on your case (approval, denial, or request for further evidence) within 15 calendar days. The merits of your case do not appear to have much bearing on the speed of your adjudication here. Best of luck to you.

4. NIW and O-1 can be submitted with premium processing at the same time

A reader asks:
I want to apply for an O-1 visa and prepare to apply for a national interest waiver. May I ask, can I submit NIW and O-1 applications both at the same time, and then pay an accelerated processing fee to accelerate both applications at the same time?

Arthur Lee Esq. answers:
Yes it is possible to submit both with premium processing at the same time assuming that you are willing to pay the expenses. To premium process the O-1 petition, you may submit Form I-907 premium processing request to the service center with a payment of $2,805 to ensure that you receive further action from USCIS (decision or request for further evidence) within 15 calendar days. For the EB-2 NIW, you may submit Form I-907 premium processing request with the appropriate service center along with payment of $2,805 to ensure that you receive further action with USCIS (decision or request for further evidence) within 45 calendar days. Good luck to you.

Article: H-1B MODERNIZATION RULE EFFECTIVE 1/17/25 – A LOOK AT COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

As published in Lexisnexis.com on January 16, 2025

As published in the Immigration Daily on January 22, 2025

USCIS’s second part of the H-1B proposed regulations, “Modernizing H-1B Requirements, Providing Flexibility in the F-1 Program, and Program Improvements Affecting Other Nonimmigrant Workers”, finalized on December 18, 2025, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/12/18/2024-29354/modernizing-h-1b-requirements-providing-flexibility-in-the-f-1-program-and-program-improvements goes into effect on January 17, 2025, three days before President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration. The following are most of the changes with numbers in parentheses referring to the specific pages of the 400+ page rule:

Deference to prior adjudications is in and the rule accords deference to any Form I-129 petition – not just extension requests as DHS agreed with the benefits of applying it to all nonimmigrants using form I-129 involving the same parties and the same underlying facts, not just to those seeking extension of stay – “Those seeking a change of status, amendment or extension of stay, or consular notification of approval warrant the same deference unless there is a material error involved with the prior approval, material change in circumstances or eligibility requirements, or new, material information adversely impacting the petitioner’s, applicant’s, or beneficiary’s eligibility.” (122). However, when there has been a material change in eligibility requirements, USCIS adjudicators do not need to give deference. (123-124). Also, the deference policy will not be grandfathered in when changes in eligibility of the specialty occupation occur including the revised definition of and criteria for “specialty occupation” promulgated in this rule. (128). Further for amendments, DHS declined to give deference saying that if the change in client location requires a new LCA, the new location would constitute a material change. (129).
For “nonprofit research organizations”, the regulation recognizes that qualifying organizations may have more than one fundamental purpose and the final rule expands the definition of “nonprofit research organizations” to include entities with research as a fundamental activity, even if it is not their primary mission by replacing “primarily engaged” and “primary mission” with “a fundamental activity”. It would still have to be an important and substantial activity, although it need not be the organization’s principal or foremost activity. DHS declined to state that later stages of research, such as technology development and transfer, qualify for the exemption which is for basic and applied research (166). Documentation to prove nonprofit or tax-exempt status are tax returns, tax exemption certificates, references to the organization’s listing in the IRS most recent list of tax-exempt organizations, articles of incorporation, bylaws, or other similar documentation. It can of course be in the form of an IRS letter. (167). Use of a Professional Employer Organization (PEO) will not, standing alone, negate an employer’s cap-exempt qualification as USCIS will consider all relevant factors and review the totality of the evidence for each petition using the preponderance of the evidence standard to determine cap-exempt status (169).

USCIS also recognized in this context that beneficiaries may qualify for an exemption when not directly employed by a qualifying organization but still spending at least half of their time providing essential work supporting or advancing a fundamental purpose, mission, objective, or function of the qualifying organization (171-172).

Clarification that “normally” does not mean “always” in deciding specialty occupation degree is in. DHS backed away from reliance on the Occupational Outlook Handbook (OOH) and declined to define the word to mean “more often than not” saying the such a change would essentially require the petitioner to demonstrate a specific percentage of positions that require a bachelors degree and could potentially make it more difficult for petitioners to demonstrate eligibility if the evidence that they submitted such as the OOH does not specify a percentage. It also said that it declined to be wholly reliant on O*Net data to demonstrate a degree requirement as there are gaps in the data, particularly as the data does not provide information on whether the degrees required must be in a specific specialty directly related to the occupation and may also be lacking for new and emerging fields of technology or occupations not covered in detail. It emphasized that no one factor alone, including O*Net, is determinative on whether a particular position qualifies as a specialty occupation (91).
Range of qualifying degrees may have to be explained. However, also in is that although petitioners may accept a range of qualifying degree fields as qualifying, the required fields must be directly related to the job duties. It reiterated that “each of the fields must be directly related to the duties of the position.” “To only require the petitioner to justify that the degree of the beneficiary relates to the occupation conflates these two requirements. DHS does not agree that it is overly burdensome for the petitioner to establish how each field of study is in a specific specialty providing ‘a body of highly specialized knowledge’ that directly relates to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position….” (87-88).
Cap-gap extension is extended until April 1 of the next year.
A petitioner must establish that it has a bona fide position in the specialty occupation available as of the requested start date – this shocked many in the IT consulting industry and other staffing company advocates as seen in the rule’s comments and responses. To the concern that employers should assume the risk of finding sufficient productive work for an employee to perform and that USCIS has repeatedly confused speculative employment with a speculative project, and that the provisions are “individually and collectively incompatible with the entire practice of contracting specialized IT services”, USCIS did not agree that codifying the requirement of bona fide employment would eliminate IT staffing companies and countered that the position must be there at the time of filing the I-129 and without having the job there, there was no way to see if it is a specialized occupation (201-206). USCIS continued that it has long held that the H-1B classification is not intended as a vehicle for person to engage in a job search within the United States, or for employers to bring in temporary foreign workers to meet possible workforce needs arising from potential business expansions with the expectation of potential new customers or contracts (208). It further added that it was not proposing to require non-speculative projects for the entire validity period requested, but as noted in the proposed rule, the petitioner must demonstrate that at the time of filing, it has a nonspeculative position in a specialty occupation available to the beneficiary as of the start date of the validity period as requested on the petition (221).
Where the beneficiary is being staffed to a third party, the work to be performed by the beneficiary for the third-party must be in a specialty occupation and it is the requirements of the third party and not the petitioner that are the most relevant. A commenter complained that the provision for staffing companies to prove job requirements would place the staffing company in an impossible position if the end customer is unwilling to provide the necessary information; that there may be difficulty in obtaining necessary documents where there are second and third level staffing companies in between the petitioner and the end customer; and that customers may want no involvement with attesting to the requirements of the positions stating that these noncustomers have concerns over joint employment liability – to which DHS said that it remains the petitioner’s burden to establish eligibility for the benefit sought and stated the type of evidence that the petitioner could produce, e.g. master services agreement or statement of work, or documents reasonably obtainable from the third-party, e.g. letter from the client. (282).
Beneficiary-owners will be allowed to file, but USCIS will limit the validity of the initial H-1B petition and first extension to 18 months each. The final rule removes the reference to an employer-employee relationship requirement since it is now allowing beneficiary owners with more than 50% or with majority voting rights to qualify with 18 months on initial and extension petitions and further extensions in three year increments as long as they are performing specialty occupation duties the majority of the time although they may perform duties that are directly related to owning and directing the business. Commenters had concerns about the wage to be paid. For beneficiary owners, this would be a combination of occupations, and DHS said that the higher prevailing wage determination must be used, even when the beneficiary owner is performing nonspecialty occupation duties as authorized by USCIS in accordance with the final rule. (245). On commenters requesting flexibility on prevailing wage requirements reasoning that many startups may not see positive cash flow for a long period of time making it challenging for owners to both adhere to wage requirements and make investments to grow their business, and that LCA wage requirements force many entrepreneurs to take on entry level roles, as startups have limited cash reserves to pay market rate salaries for CEO and other C suite roles, DHS emphasized that it does not have the authority to alter statutory requirements or DOL regulations related to LCA’s and cannot provide any exceptions. (254).
Specialty occupation is changed from requiring a degree “in the specific specialty” to a degree “in a directly related specific specialty” and the definition of “directly related” is “a logical connection between the required degree, or its equivalent, and the duties of the position.” On a trade association suggestion that USCIS issued guidance that any engineering degree would support any engineering position in meeting the definition of specialty occupation, the response was that USCIS regularly approves H-1B petitions for qualified beneficiaries who are to be employed as engineers. (83) DHS further emphasized on software developers that the petitioner would have the burden to establish how the fields of study within any engineering degree provide a body of highly specialized knowledge directly relating to the duties and responsibilities of the software developer position (83).
The regulation revamps the language of the one in four criteria that a petitioner must meet to prove specialty occupation–

The degree or equivalent is normally the minimum requirement to enter the occupation with USCIS now defining normally as characterized by that which is considered usual, typical, common, or routine – and that normally does not mean always.
Clarifies that parallel positions among similar organizations is in the employer’s industry in the United States.
The occupation normally requires a bachelors degree to perform the job duties of the position instead of the old definition “for the position”. Also if placing the H-1B by contract at a third party, the “normally” required refers to the third-party.
The knowledge required for filling the specific duties of the proffered position are so specialized, complex, or unique that the knowledge required to perform is normally associated with the now revised degree or equivalent requirements.

The regulation also requires that the LCA “supports and properly corresponds to” the H-1B petition and comments and responses strongly indicate that DHS will be exercising its expanded codified authority in this area. To a commenter inquiry whether USCIS would now assert that a position should be wage level II or wage level III when the petitioner has followed DOL guidance in determining a wage level I position, or if USCIS would now assert the SOC code is not correct on the LCA after the petitioner has reviewed the SOC codes and selected the one that they feel is best aligned with the position, USCIS gave an example that “if the petitioner and other supporting documentation indicates that the beneficiary’s position and associated job duties requires a wage level 2 or wage level 3 per DOL guidance, but the LCA is certified for a wage level 1 position, that may call into question whether the petition is supported by an LCA that properly corresponds to the petition or whether the offered position was accurately described in the petition. Similarly, USCIS may find a material discrepancy in cases where the SOC code on the LCA is inconsistent with the job duties as described in the H-1B petition” (227).
The rule codifies USCIS authority to conduct site inspections and impose penalties for failure to comply with unannounced worksite visits, enter businesses and homes without a warrant to question, obtain information and use it against the applicant. Comments were raised concerning the authority or desirability of FDNS to enter employees’ homes and third-party companies. DHS said that it declined to restrict USCIS officers from going to homes as to do otherwise would create a loophole wherein any petitioner may exempt themselves from their evidentiary burden simply by locating workers at the residences (265-266). FDNS can also inspect third-party locations, DHS saying that there is no requirement that a petitioner place a beneficiary at a third party location – but if a petitioner chooses to petition for a beneficiary that is placed at a third party location, it remains the petitioner’s burden to demonstrate eligibility, meet all requirements of the H-1B petition, and employ the H-1B worker consistent with the terms of the approved petition. (268). It cited the same loophole strategy for not exempting beneficiaries at third-party locations.

The regulation was finalized in the last weeks of the Biden Administration, and it is difficult to predict whether it will stand or be rescinded by the incoming Trump team. It cannot be undone by Executive Order but could be under the Congressional Review Act which allows a joint resolution of Congress by majority vote to nullify regulations finalized in the last 60 days of the legislative session if such is done in the first 60 legislative days of the new Congress. On the plus side for not canceling it are that the changes are mostly conservative and that the President-elect in the recent war of words in the Republican camp over the H-1B program supported Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, his nominees for heading up The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), both supporters of the H-1B program, saying in a phone interview that “I have many H-1B visas on my properties. I’ve been a believer in H-1B. I have used it many times. It’s a great program.” https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/28/politics/trump-musk-foreign-worker-visas-backlash/index.html On the negative side are that it is a Biden regulation and Mr. Trump is loath to give credit to him for anything, and it does not go nearly as far as his proposals in his previous term to change the H-1B program.

So we will see.

(For further information on the regulation when first proposed, see the author’s articles Proposed Changes to the Evidence Required for Establishment of H-1B “Specialty Occupation” Continued Reliance on OOH Expanded Authority of DHS To Compare LCA Position With H-1B Petition Etc Mean Tightened Adjudication Standards https://discuss.ilw.com/articles/articles/498435-article-proposed-changes-to-the-evidence-required-for-establishment-of-h1b-specialty-occupation-continued-reliance-on-ooh-expanded-authority-of-dhs-to-compare-lca-position-with-h1b-petition-etc-mean-tightened-adjudication-standards-by-alan-lee-esq and Clear Beneficial Changes to the H-1B Program in the Proposal https://discuss.ilw.com/articles/articles/498821-article-clear-beneficial-changes-to-the-h-1b-program-in-the-proposal-by-alan-lee-esq

Alan Lee, Esq. Q&As published on the World Journal Weekly on January 5, 2025： 1. USCIS can take any action such as issuing notices for information or denial prior to the priority date becoming current 2. You are allowed to take the priority date with you if new employer successfully applies for a new labor certification and/or I-140 petition 3. A common reason for advance parole denial is if the applicant left the US prior to the time that the advance parole application was approved 4. Many factors are taken into account, and a $20,000 decrease is a factor to be looked at 5. On EB-1A case, a magazine is asking you for money in order to interview you is not something that most recognized magazines would do. 6. USCIS is asking for separate checks for each of the benefits that you are requesting

1. USCIS can take any action such as issuing notices for information or denial prior to the priority date becoming current

A reader asks:
My I-485 suddenly changed to “Case Remains Pending”. What happened? I applied for EB-2 in October 2023, downgraded to EB-3, and applied for I-485 at the same time, and sent in the medical examination materials. In late November 2023, I took fingerprints, and finally waited until the end of March 2024. The I-140 downgrade was approved, but I received an RFE for the medical examination. In April, I resubmitted the medical examination materials, and the status remained at NBC for a long time. In July, the status was updated to Case Remains Pending. The PD is June 2020, and the table A is current, so why is it pending? A week after July, I received a letter from USCIS saying that the visa number is gone and the case has been transferred to NBC again. What should I do?

Alan Lee, Esq. answers,
I will assume that you are a native of China for purposes of the question. With a priority date of June 2020, and with the downgraded I-140 approved in March 2024, there was a window of time through September 2024 where final visa availability for China born was open to those who had filed labor certification applications or I-140 petitions prior to 9/1/20 to have their pending I-485 applications approved. However, the visa bulletin changed in October 2024 to reflect availability date for EB-3 China of 4/1/20. I do not know what happened with your case previously and why it was not acted upon between March-September 2024, but at this time, the visa number is no longer available, and you will have to wait until it once again becomes available to your priority date before USCIS can approve your downgraded application for adjustment of status. (I note that USCIS can take other action such as issuing notices for information or denial prior to the priority date becoming current if it decides that those actions are appropriate).

2. You are allowed to take the priority date with you if new employer successfully applies for a new labor certification and/or I-140 petition

A reader asks:
I am a PD in August 2022, and I applied for EB-2. I don’t know if the new fiscal year will make a big leap forward, whether the deadline will be met or downgraded. Now, I have an offer and can change jobs, but the new company does not have a batch, and I need to go through all the application procedures again. At present, it will take at least one and a half years to get I-140 again. The current company culture is a bit toxic. I can work until the end of the year, but it is not very stable and the career development opportunities are not very good. The new company should be good and very stable. May I ask, what should I do?

Alan Lee, Esq. answers,
I will assume that you are China born which in the month of December 2024 has EB-2 availability dates of 3/22/20 and 10/1/20 on Charts A and B of the visa bulletin. If the I-140 petition has already been approved with a priority date of August 2022 and the company has not taken steps to revoke the approval within 180 days, you are allowed to take the priority date with you if another employer successfully applies for a new labor certification and/or I-140 petition. The timeline for your final immigration would not fit within your statement that you can stay until the end of the year at your current company. Therefore, if the new company seems good and is very stable and is willing to take on your processes for permanent residence, you may certainly wish to switch to the new company.

3. A common reason for advance parole denial is if the applicant left the US prior to the time that the advance parole application was approved

A reader asks:
My I-765 was approved on July 25, and I-131 was approved on July 27, which should be a combo. However, on July 29, I-131 became reopened. What does this mean? Was it approved or not? What is the reason for reopening?

Alan Lee, Esq. answers,
It is in the discretion of USCIS whether to issue a combo card or not. If you have a combo card, the travel privilege will be indicated on the bottom of the EAD. In such case, it would be unusual for USCIS to reopen a request for advance parole once it is approved. USCIS can generally reopen an adjudication if there is new evidence indicating that the benefit should not have been given. A common reason for advance parole denial or revocation is if the applicant left the US prior to the time that the advance parole application was approved.

4. Many factors are taken into account, and a $20,000 decrease is a factor to be looked at

A reader asks:
I have submitted my I-485 and recently received an offer base that is 20,000 yuan less than the base of the old company. I would like to ask, if I accept the offer and submit I-485J through the new company, and the salary is 20,000 less than the old company, will it affect the approval of I-485?

Alan Lee Esq. answers,
You would be relying upon a transfer of your case under I-485 J, which allows the labor certification and I-140 petition to remain valid if the I-140 petition is approved and the I-485 application pending 180 days, and the new job is in the same or similar occupation. Many factors are taken into account including job duties, SOC codes, job title, of which a $20,000 decrease is a factor to be looked at. It should be noted that $20,000 less when an individual is making a salary of $150,000 is less concerning than when the individual is making $50,000 or so under the labor certification.

5. On EB-1A case, a magazine is asking you for money in order to interview you is not something that most recognized magazines would do.

A reader asks:
I am a computer professor at a 985 university in China. I am preparing to apply for EB-1A and am preparing the materials. An editor of a scientific magazine in China wants to interview me, but charges 20,000 to 30,000 RMB. This magazine is considered a national magazine. I don’t know if this is useful for my EB-1A application? Is this considered media coverage?

Alan Lee Esq. answers,
The regulations on media state that it must be published material about you in a professional or major trade publications or other major media relating to your work in the field for which classification is sought. USCIS generally looks to see a magazine circulation compared to other magazines in the field and who is the intended audience of the publication. The fact that the magazine is asking you for money in order to interview you is not something that most recognized magazines would do. You may want to further look into the bona fides of the scientific magazine to determine whether it is truly a respected publication in China. A big boost in whether it would really convince USCIS is if it has international renown.

6. USCIS is asking for separate checks for each of the benefits that you are requesting

A reader asks:
I submitted I-485, I-131 and I-765 two months ago. So far, the lawyer has replied that only the signature of FedEx has been received. It has been almost 2 months, and the check has not been cashed. Is this normal?

Alan Lee, Esq. answers,
It is slightly unusual that USCIS has not receipted your applications and it has been almost 2 months. It is not unheard of, however. Is there a chance that USCIS is getting ready to reject and return your applications? Possibly. Other than through the check not having been cashed, your attorney could have received indication from USCIS of an acceptance if he or she possibly sent in G-1145 E-Notification of Application/Petition Acceptance with your package. I also note that you mention “check” and you and your attorney should know that USCIS is asking for separate checks for each of the benefits that you are requesting.