how risky is job change after 3-4 months?

[immi_09]

Guys,
I have a question. My GC (140/485) was filed by one company and it layed me off a few months after applying concurrently (less than 6 monts). I moved to company B on the same job title, similar salary meeting all requirements of Ac21, finally I got my GC. did not explicitly invoke Ac21 but I know after 485 is pending for 6 months or more, I can port it to new employer. Now I got my GC (applied by company A) and still working or company B.

Now, if I want to (hypothetical situation!) change job after 3-4 months after getting GC from company B what are my risks? Would company B will have any right on my GC? (never explicitly invoked Ac21)

Is it better to wait till 6 months complete?

[qwertyisback]

Essentially, you used AC21. Company B became your sponsoring employer. So at the time of becoming a PR, you had to have the good faith intent to work for company B indefinitely.
Therefore, all the things explained here: http://boards.immigrationportal.com/...d.php?t=154533 and here: http://www.murthy.com/485faq.html#13 apply.

Not TRUE!!! Is there any CIS regulations says like that explicitely??? NO.
Its just your conclusion that company B becomes sponserer, good for you.
But bottomline is sponserer is the one who files/approves LC/I140 and apply for 485 application. AC-21 don't change sponserer but allows to change employers

[qwertyisback]

Yes, there is. INA 204.
It clearly states that the new employer becomes the sponsor.
Please do not provide clearly false advice.

I don't think so,it don't says that "new employer becomes the sponsor". Its your conclusion. Thats it. very debatable , unless CIS issues some memo on it.

[qwertyisback]

It says that the petition remains valid with respect to a new job or employer.
That is law-speak for "at every place where the old job or employer is mentioned, the new job or employer gets inserted."
That automatically makes the new employer the sponsor.
If you don't believe me, why don't you ask a lawyer? You suggest that in other cases, why not here???
And again, please stop giving clearly false advice.

Exactly, its not quoted in the law, you interpreted it in that way. And it doesn't fit in your theory as you said many times that "you always quote law not interpret it" And you force others also not to interpret it... RIGHT. Then why exception this time?? (personally.I don't mind if you interpret).
As well, I am not giving any advice, I am justing pointing facts. You like it or not. Thats your problem.

[qwertyisback]

It is not an interpretaion. It is the law. Period.

Read what you said in last post.It clearly shows that you interpreted. (Fine with me)

It says that the petition remains valid with respect to a new job or employer.
That automatically makes the new employer the sponsor.

.

But law don't says like that or even CIS haven't said like that in any memo or publication. Thats what I am pointing out to everybody. Does it look like to advice to anybody??

[qwertyisback]

I am just showing facts, but you constitute them as fight. Can't help.
memebrs, what others think about it?? Any thoughts?? Share it.

[qwertyisback]

Why don't you ask your lawyer? Your "facts" will quickly disintegrate.
Your lawyer will tell you that I am right. Are you afraid of that?

If you pay lawyers tab, then no problem whatsoever.

[qwertyisback]

Oh, are you chicken? Afraid you would be proven wrong?
As I said, any lawyer would confirm what I am saying.

Looks like someone wants to start fight with me again. Don't blame me later.

As I said, any lawyer would confirm what I am saying..

Your statement is just prediction, Have you started reading minds of lawyers as well??. Why don't you ask your lawyer, rather than predicting lawyers response.

I beleive in facts not in predictions. OK.

Unless CIS comes with some memo/publication, facts doesn't change i.e
sponserer is the one who files/approves LC/I140 and apply for 485 application. AC-21 don't change sponserer but allows to change employers.

[qwertyisback]

I don't predict anything. I know this because this is what the law says.
If you use AC21, the new employer becomes the sponsor.

Law doesn't say that. Period.

Show me where law says following line,mentioned in your quote.
"If you use AC21, the new employer becomes the sponsor"

Its your words and your conclusion. Again period.

[qwertyisback]

INA 204.
Of course the law doesn't use my lay-person language. Learn legalese...
And stop giving false, dangerous advice.

OK, so you agree that law doesn't say that "If you use AC21, the new employer becomes the sponsor". Very good.
Its your conclusion, in lay-persons language. Thats what I am saying all the time.

[qwertyisback]

If you don't believe me, ask a lawyer, and leave this board.

So you want me leave this board only because I don't agree with you. That is what your agenda on picking all those silly fights(whoever disagrees with you, should leave the board)?? So why didn't you just asked it before... everybody could have saved lot of trauma of fights.

Let me think about "leaving board"? I will let you know ....

members, do you think that I should leave board as I don't agree with ****... Please post your thoughts.

[gb111]

So you want me leave this board only because I don't agree with you. That is what your agenda on picking all those silly fights(whoever disagrees with you, should leave the board)?? So why didn't you just asked it before... everybody could have saved lot of trauma of fights.

Let me think about "leaving board"? I will let you know ....

members, do you think that I should leave board as I don't agree with ****... Please post your thoughts.

You should leave this board, not because you don't agree with him, but because you are proving yourself to be almost as big a loser as he is.

And I prefer he keep his title, so that is why you should leave. If you take over the title, it'll take away a source of my online entertainment.

Ok, now i better vamoose back into the void before he gets me banned or notify my employer or go cry to his mommy ....

I just love the fact that the guy hasn't still gotten a life in the 3 or so months that i have stayed away from this board. See ya in a couple of months, and keep up the nonsense.

[qwertyisback]

You should leave this board, not because you don't agree with him, but because you are proving yourself to be almost as big a loser as he is.

I don't understands your frustation. !!! How you constitute me as loser?? just because I am not as frustated as you or what?? As a matter of fact, Your residance in "Void" proves you as loser.

BTW , I am not inclined to take any title whatsoever. So don't worry about your online entertainment, it will be there as long as you wish

[qwertyisback]

You are giving false and dangerous advice. That's the problem.
Stop giving false advice.
Once more: When you use AC21, the new employer becomes the sponsoring employer. This is specified in the immigration law, INA 204.

Posting same things again don't prove anything. Fact remains fact.

Once more for you
Unless CIS comes with some memo/publication, facts doesn't change i.e
sponserer is the one who files/approves LC/I140 and apply for 485 application. AC-21 don't change sponserer but allows to change employers.

[qwertyisback]

And we again have qwerty posting falsehoods and not stopping despite repeatedly being asked to.
Qwerty is again making a mockery of this board.

Don't make me to break my peace!!!, I am just disagreeing with you, and you are making BS allegation on me. If you don't agree with me, thats fine, but stop posting rubbish here... OK , be Good.

moderators, **** is making BS allegation on me and trying to wage silly fight with me and others again.Don't jump in the end like HERO and ban somebody, if you want to act, act now or stay quite forever. (This is for all moderators, not just for this forums moderator)

[dsatish]

The arguments are going no where. Just repetetive.
I think that we have to conduct a public poll to know where most of the members stand on this interpretation of INA.

[dsatish]

And we again have qwerty posting falsehoods and not stopping despite repeatedly being asked to.
Qwerty is again making a mockery of this board. He obviously didn't learn anything from the last time he disrupted this board.

****,
Don't bully others too hard (seems like you are back to old habit after some gap). Why should qwerty stop posting just because you ask him repeatedly? He is sticking to the argument where as you are the one who is going more personal on him in this thread.
It is not just qwerty who is disrupting this board, but both of you.

[tominavhech]

The arguments are going no where. Just repetetive.
I think that we have to conduct a public poll to know where most of the members stand on this interpretation of INA.

My 2 cents...If Querty and **** can create a separate thread exclusively to fight and see the responses (and views) something constructive could come up.
OR
If these two people are of opposite sex the just like movies they would first fight, then fall in love, then they would stay happily there after
--Tominavhech, PMP

[dsatish]

moderators, Don't jump in the end like HERO and ban somebody, if you want to act, act now or stay quite forever. (This is for all moderators, not just for this forums moderator)

qwerty,
I appreciate your civic reincarnation. I suggest that don't give up this civicness just because of provocation from ****. You need to learn from **** how not to use bad language and still kill other guy with bullying arguments . Also never attack moderators.

[ar888]

Both of you,

Stop this nonsense. If you guys don't agree with each other, just ignore the other person's post. Why are you keep on posting the same thing again and again?

[MD_Rockville]

AC-21 don't change sponserer but allows to change employers.

what you are saying is wrong..

1. if i never work for sponsor ( as gc is for future job ) than AC21 does not make any sense ( i.e. i can do whatever i want and change jobs )

2. if i am working for employer who ALSO sponsored by gc then AC21 comes in play..( as i promise to work for same employer when i get gc )..

Conclusively filing AC21 tells INS that i have changed my intent and my new employer is "the employer" i am going to work with once gc is approved.. ( sponser is someone who is going to give you job as well once you are approved..isn't it ? )

**** is right here my friend.. IMHO..

[dsatish]

dsatish, why are you now joining the ranks of the people who do personal attacks?
I am disappointed. I had thought better of you, in particular here, where qwerty is without a doubt wrong.
Welcome to my killfile.

****,
I never wanted to enter these fights (infact i will quit any thread if some one makes personal comments on me) . I just noticed that , to my surprise, qwerty was posting and arguing pretty decently, where as you are trying to hit him hard on the personal front by labelling him as misinformer, giving dangerous advice, asking him to quit the board, asking him why he is not listening to you etc. This is what i call bullying. It reminded me of the days when you tried to come down heavily on every one (including me) who does not agree with you.
May be i should have remembered that you won't go so hard on every one else and this harshness is reserved for qwerty, who i agree , has unnecessarily picked up personal fights with you in the past. Well, most likely this is my last post in this thread. I just request you to give up the tendency to have the last word on any issue. That way you don't find yourself in ugly fights / arguments. You are a veteran member here with a lot of knowledge on some issues. So maintain your status. Every one will support you if some one pickes up fights with you without provocation.
Sorry for disappointing you, but i felt that we have to give qwerty a chance to post without personal attacks.

[dsatish]

Conclusively filing AC21 tells INS that i have changed my intent and my new employer is "the employer" i am going to work with once gc is approved..

Wrong , my friend. First of all, nobody is filing AC21. The law does not require one to file or inform INS. You are just utilising the opportunity provided by the law.
Secondly, by using AC21, you are not telling INS that you are going to work with the new company after the GC is approved. You are just changing the employer . Nothing more, nothing less. In a nut shell, the law allows you to change the employer after 6 months, and you are availing it. No where in the law, it is said that the new employer will become the sponsoring employer. That interpretatiop is just a personal interpretation of some one or some people.

[gctechie]

I agree with dsatish here.

****,

You said in the other threrad that since the Seihoon v levy ruling did not EXPLICITLY say that it is applicable to immigrants , we cant accept it and its not precedence. Why are you going against the letter of the Law when the law DOES NOT say that the new employer becomes the "sponsoring employer".

After you change employers using AC21, the new employer DOES NOT become the sponsoring employer - no where in the AC 21 law does it say so. If people want to read "extra meanings" into the law, then go on.

This is my opinion.

[rk4gc]

Wrong , my friend. First of all, nobody is filing AC21. The law does not require one to file or inform INS. You are just utilising the opportunity provided by the law.
Secondly, by using AC21, you are not telling INS that you are going to work with the new company after the GC is approved. You are just changing the employer . Nothing more, nothing less. In a nut shell, the law allows you to change the employer after 6 months, and you are availing it. No where in the law, it is said that the new employer will become the sponsoring employer. That interpretatiop is just a personal interpretation of some one or some people.

dsatish,
I disagree with you here. FYI, BCIS expects you to inform if you use AC21, even if BCIS does not expect its better you inform. Take this case.

1. "A" works for company "X" which is "sponsoring" GC for "A".
2. The GC is filed concurrently.
3. I-140 is approved after 180 days and I-485 is still pending.
4. "A" used AC21 and moved to company "Y", didn't care to inform BCIS.
5. Company "X" didn't like it and pulled the "I-140".
6. At this point as BCIS does not have any info about "A"'s AC21 usage, thinking there is no "sponsor" for "A" BCIS issues an "Intent Of Deny" on I-485.

Well now who is the sponsor for "A" and how does "A" support his case ?

[NJacob]

My 2 cents...If Querty and **** can create a separate thread exclusively to fight and see the responses (and views) something constructive could come up.
OR
If these two people are of opposite sex the just like movies they would first fight, then fall in love, then they would stay happily there after
--Tominavhech, PMP

No doubt, for months now, these two have been providing free entertainment for all. No reason for the others to intervene(including the moderators) because they just do not seem to understand simple reasoning.

I agree, a separate thread for these two clowns would be like having everyone tuning in to one TV channel, instead of having to channel surf and wonder where they could be. Sometimes it is the "Life after the Green card forum" and sometimes it is the "US Citizenship forum".

Anyway, let the fun continue, and everyone just sit back, relax and enjoy the show, or shall I say, "Troll", "Plonk", "...killfile...", "Bang", "...aka...", etc

[dsatish]

dsatish,
I disagree with you here. FYI, BCIS expects you to inform if you use AC21, even if BCIS does not expect its better you inform. Take this case.

1. "A" works for company "X" which is "sponsoring" GC for "A".
2. The GC is filed concurrently.
3. I-140 is approved after 180 days and I-485 is still pending.
4. "A" used AC21 and moved to company "Y", didn't care to inform BCIS.
5. Company "X" didn't like it and pulled the "I-140".
6. At this point as BCIS does not have any info about "A"'s AC21 usage, thinking there is no "sponsor" for "A" BCIS issues an "Intent Of Deny" on I-485.

Well now who is the sponsor for "A" and how does "A" support his case ?

Very simple. "A" replies that he has joined company "Y" using AC21 and provides the supporting documents.

[rk4gc]

Very simple. "A" replies that he has joined company "Y" using AC21 and provides the supporting documents.

Thats true. But what do those supporting documents say ? That "A" has a similer job with "Y" and company "Y" is willing to provide the job after the GC is approved. That makes company "Y" the current sponsor isn't it?

[TheRealCanadian]

The law says that an immigrant petition remains valid with respect to the new job or employer.

That merely says that the petition remains valid. It does not impose any burdens of sponsorship or other issues on the new employer.

My own personal take on AC21 is that for all intents and purposes, an individual invoking AC21 essentially becomes self-petitioned; so long as the job meets the "same or similar" requirements of AC21 then we're fine. The new employer needs to take no affirmative steps regarding immigration in an AC21 situation - from its standpoint it is no different then hiring a permanent resident or US citizen.

As I explained before, that is legal language (legalese) for replacing the old job/employer with the new job/employer in the immigrant petition.

Assuming that was true, then the new employer would become a party to the LC or I-140 petition, and could withdraw it. That is clearly not the case. The I-140 stands on its own, so long as the beneficiary meets the requirements of AC21.

So, the law says that the new employer becomes the sponsoring one.

Then it would stand to reason that the new employer becomes the new owner of the I-140. That is clearly not the case.

I am sorry, but I am now getting really pissed off! Nothing personal, but anybody with even a little brain should be able to see that I am right.

This statement allows anyone with a brain to suspect that you are something else.

What you guys say is that if the law doesn't explicitly state something, it isn't part of the law??? So, I can drive you over with my car because the law does not explicitly say that that is prohibited??? Give me a break!!!

Joe, you have gone blue in the face swearing that since Seihoon v. Levy didn't explicitly discuss immigration matters it didn't apply. Now you wish to turn around and apply the exact opposite logic when it suits you.

The only consistency in what you argue seems to be that you are correct.

[dsatish]

Thats true. But what do those supporting documents say ? That "A" has a similer job with "Y" and company "Y" is willing to provide the job after the GC is approved. That makes company "Y" the current sponsor isn't it?

I think that we see AC21 from different angles. You think that the new employer is a new sponsorer of your GC where as i think that the new employer is just an employer who is offering you a full time job in the similar skill set. AC21 has tied the employee (us) to the skill set and not to the employer. That was the spirit and let's accept it rather than thinking that , even with AC21 enactment, we are tied to the employer (new).