Priority Date Retention

[me2014]

Hello There ,

 

I need a small advice which at the moment is very crucial for me to get.  

·         On 7th year of H1B. Recently got 3 year extension from Aug 2015 until Aug 2018.

 

·

 Situation:

Changing job to company B from Company A. Job description/roles and responsibilities are similar in both companies. Company B has agreed to start the PERM process(and GC under category EB2)  from day 1 of joining them.

 

 Question:

Will I be able to retain my priority date of Dec 2012 with Company B? What are risk here? It seems nowadays it is not certain. 

 

 

 

Thanks

[jairichi]

That is correct. Nowadays it is not certain. It is up to you to take that risk.

[me2014]

Thank you.

 

Is this random decision from USCIS end. Or there is some logic of non retention.

[jairichi]

Thank you.

 

Is this random decision from USCIS end. Or there is some logic of non retention.

In my opinion it differs on a case to case to basis. Talk to an attonsey from Murthy law firm.

[nkalvaku]

Guys,

 

I think we shouldn't worry too much about the recent case(below) raising doubts  on the retaining PD from previous GC applications as I'm in the same boat too. We do not have precise details of this case , so as in what scenario the i140 was revoked. There has been lot of debate and confusion on terms "revoked" and "withdrawn" of I140. Current rules states that porting  PD  is not applicable only in cases when 140's  are revoked due to fraud/or any other inappropriate factors.

 

These kind of  instances  will help Attorney's make money by consulting. Also i urge folks on these forums not to provide wrong or improper information about something they are not sure of. All i can say is do your best and leave the rest to the almighty.

 

 

BIA Decision Casts Doubt on Priority Date Retention Policy

A recent, non-precedential (i.e. non-binding, except for the parties in the case) decision by the BIA ignores this established government policy. In the case know as In Re Grace Estrellado, the beneficiary had an approved I-140 with a 2006 priority date. She then moved to a new employer and was again sponsored for a green card, this time resulting in an approved I-140 with a 2011 priority date. In the meantime, the initial I-140 was revoked by the USCIS at the request of her former employer. The beneficiary asked to port the 2006 priority date to the new I-140. However, the BIA held that the beneficiary was not eligible to retain the 2006 priority date because that I-140 had been revoked.

The BIA based this decision on a strict application of the regulation, making no reference to the AFM, which, as noted above, only prohibits priority date retention if the revocation is based on fraud or misrepresentation. In fact, the BIA did not even acknowledge that this decision is a dramatic change from standard USICS policy dating back years.

that has been raising doubts about