Update to Murthy AAO Victory in Matter of V-S-G, Inc.

On May 14, 2018, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) reaffirmed the I-140 petition approval in Matter of V-S-G, Inc. and, shortly thereafter, approved the applicant’s I-485. This represents a huge victory for beneficiaries of approved I-140s and pending I-485s who port to new jobs. The hard work by the Murthy Law Firm convinced the USCIS to set this policy recognizing an individual’s right to be notified when porting to new employment under the portability provisions of AC21.

Previously Individual had No Right to Challenge Petition Denial After Porting to New Employer

As discussed in MurthyDotCom NewsBriefs, Murthy Success Story: AAO Recognizes Individual Rights in AC21 Case (15.May.2017) and Murthy Victory at AAO Leads to USCIS Policy Change Recognizing Individual Rights in AC21 Cases (06.Dec.2017), the USCIS historically viewed the I-140 as “belonging” solely to the petitioning employer. The foreign national worker sponsored for the green card (i.e. the beneficiary) had no legal standing related to the I-140 petition. All correspondence related to the I-140 petition typically was sent only to the petitioning employer (and/or the employer’s legal counsel), and the USCIS only accepted correspondence regarding the I-140 that was submitted by the employer.

This posed a big problem in cases where the employee had changed employers based on AC21 portability where an I-485 application to adjust status had been pending for more than 180 days. Any notice related to the I-140 was sent to the previous employer, who generally had little interest in contesting challenges to the I-140 petition for a former employee.

AAO Accepts Murthy Law Firm Arguments and Institutes New Policy

In Matter of V-S-G, Inc., the USCIS had sent a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) to our client’s former employer. The Murthy Law Firm intervened, arguing that our client should be permitted to respond to the NOIR, as the former employer no longer had any stake in the case. The AAO agreed with the arguments, finding in relevant part that “… [the] AC21 [statute] gives some beneficiaries a statutory interest that we will recognize … We will accordingly allow beneficiaries who have properly ported or who are eligible to port under AC21 to participate in proceedings to revoke underlying I-140 petitions filed on their behalf …” This represents a huge win for employees in this situation. In November of 2017, the USCIS designated this ruling as an adopted decision to apply the case’s reasoning as policy agency-wide.

USCIS Reaffirms Approval of the I-140 and Approves I-485

The decision in Matter of V-S-G, Inc. was not the end of our client’s immigration journey. While it gave him the right to challenge actions related to the I-140, it did not necessarily mean that his case ultimately would be approved. Following this victory, the USCIS issued a NOIR to our client. We responded on behalf of the client, and the questions on approvability were promptly addressed to the satisfaction of the USCIS. With a reaffirmed I-140 and current priority date, the USCIS issued a final request for evidence to update the I-485. Shortly thereafter, the USCIS approved our client’s I-485 application for adjustment of status.


The Murthy Law Firm is pleased and excited to have been able to achieve this victory on behalf of our client. It is all the more rewarding to know that other immigrants will be able to use this case to assert their own legal rights.

The Murthy Law Firm never reveals details of any case handled by our firm, nor the identity of any client, without first obtaining his/her express consent. We appreciate the generosity of our client in allowing us to use this case as an example to our readers. Please note that all cases are different. Even with cases that appear to be similar, past success does not guarantee a favorable result.


Copyright © 2018, MURTHY LAW FIRM. All Rights Reserved

Disclaimer: The information provided here is of a general nature and may not apply to any specific or particular circumstance. It is not to be construed as legal advice nor presumed indefinitely up to date.