I don't understand the argument of 'leaving the company after GC'

[chinabee]

At which step, will we be examed whether or not we leave the current company in 2 days or 2 years?

[AmericanWannabe]

Originally Posted by chinabee

At which step, will we be examed whether or not we leave the current company in 2 days or 2 years?

It can be examed any time as long as some disgruntled co-workers,
jealous neighbor, ex-spouse send a tip to USCIS

[chinabee]

If nobody tips?

[AmericanWannabe]

Originally Posted by chinabee

If nobody tips?

Then it is up to USCIS official who just see you records,
say, at the time of natualization.

[qwertyisback]

Originally Posted by AmericanWannabe

Then it is up to USCIS official who just see you records,
say, at the time of natualization.

But USCIS asks for only last 5yr of history of employment. It won't asks emp history since GC. Do they??
I see counter argument coming from wise members, CIS officer can ask this information at interview. But its just hypothesis , don't hold much water.

[chinabee]

I see there's an employment history, but is that really taken into consideration? I would like to hear a case.

[chinabee]

Good point!

Originally Posted by qwertyisback

But USCIS asks for only last 5yr of history of employment. It won't asks emp history since GC. Do they??
I see counter argument coming from wise members, CIS officer can ask this information at interview. But its just hypothesis , don't hold much water.

[AmericanWannabe]

Originally Posted by qwertyisback

But USCIS asks for only last 5yr of history of employment. It won't asks emp history since GC. Do they??
I see counter argument coming from wise members, CIS officer can ask this information at interview. But its just hypothesis , don't hold much water.

The risk is that one day you do something bad or suspicious,
if there is no other legal grounds to get you, then they
can use this to get you.

Of course, we don't have to worry about
it practically because life can always be
miserable anyway and losing GC due to this
is not on the list of bad possibilities.
But thereotical risk is there

[chinabee]

Your theory is based on what? There's no law saying that you cannot leave your company 1 sec. after you get your card. So that is perfectly legal to do so.

[AmericanWannabe]

Originally Posted by chinabee

Your theory is based on what? There's no law saying that you cannot leave your company 1 sec. after you get your card. So that is perfectly legal to do so.

Theory is that you must have the good faith intent to work for
your sponsor permanently. USCIS depends upon circimstantial
evidence to make judgement. If you leave right after getting the GC,
then circumstances tend to indicate you did not have such
intent

[chinabee]

Hmm, i don't quite buy your arguement. I think the intent is the company wants to retain my service permanently, not i want to work for them permanently. I have never signed anything that indicates my permanent intent, have I?

[TheRealCanadian]

Originally Posted by chinabee

I have never signed anything that indicates my permanent intent, have I?

By filing the I-485 or the DS-156 you have. Intent (or lack thereof) is a lot like pornography, "they know it when they see it".

[qwertyisback]

Folks,
Somebody has created thread on citizenship forum.
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/...d.php?t=161922.

I am not going to post on that thread unless required. . Otherwise you know what happens, I have to come back with "qwertyisbackagain" handle.
Anyway, How about if we just follow that thread and hear real experiences.

[AmericanWannabe]

Originally Posted by qwertyisback

Anyway, How about if we just follow that thread and hear real experiences.

If you want to hear real experiences, then you will unlikely get them.
We are talking about minimize the risk that is indeed small.

[qwertyisback]

Originally Posted by AmericanWannabe

If you want to hear real experiences, then you will unlikely get them.
We are talking about minimize the risk that is indeed small.

Why we don't hear real experiences, because there are none to support that theory??

And talking about "risk", I think everybody takes more risk by "driving car" . So why don't you preach about "not driving" rather.

[AmericanWannabe]

Originally Posted by qwertyisback

Why we don't hear real experiences, because there are none to support that theory??

And talking about "risk", I think everybody takes more risk by "driving car" . So why don't you preach about "not driving" rather.

I do advocate cut of unnecessary car trips, air travel, etc
to minimize the danger

[hipka]

Originally Posted by qwertyisback

Why we don't hear real experiences, because there are none to support that theory??

And talking about "risk", I think everybody takes more risk by "driving car" . So why don't you preach about "not driving" rather.

The reason we don't hear many real life experiences is because its only recently that AC21 cases have begun to apply for citizenship. The lawyer I talked to in att. murthy's office has not handled a single citizenship case where the client even changed jobs( even before 180 days after 485 leave alone after GC approval )!!! Its only in after 2001 that people became really brave/economy forced them to change jobs. So I suggest you wait till at least 2006 to hear about these cases. Till then use the 6 month rule of thumb!

[AmericanWannabe]

Originally Posted by hipka

The reason we don't hear many real life experiences is because its only recently that AC21 cases have begun to apply for citizenship. The lawyer I talked to in att. murthy's office has not handled a single citizenship case where the client even changed jobs( even before 180 days after 485 leave alone after GC approval )!!! Its only in after 2001 that people became really brave/economy forced them to change jobs. So I suggest you wait till at least 2006 to hear about these cases. Till then use the 6 month rule of thumb!

I don't know why it has to have anything to do with AC21.
Even ten years ago, people faced the job change issue after getting
the GC.

[qwertyisback]

Originally Posted by hipka

Till then use the 6 month rule of thumb!

Don't start again on the same issue. This rule of thumb has absolutely no basis.
Can you say with 100% certainity that if at all INS asks, this so called rule will prove "intent". ?? NO. Then there is no point in suggesting that.

[hipka]

Originally Posted by AmericanWannabe

I don't know why it has to have anything to do with AC21.
Even ten years ago, people faced the job change issue after getting
the GC.

Prior to AC21 the law was clear that you could not leave the employer rapidly without reason.There are some cases where the person got into trouble on changing jobs before AC21. After AC21 this issue is not clear as some arguments can be made to suggest that the 'intent of'( tricky argument! ) AC21 removes this requirement.
The rule of the thumb has no BASIS, thats why its called a rule of thumb, not rule of LAW!

[qwertyisback]

Originally Posted by hipka

The rule of the thumb has no BASIS, thats why its called a rule of thumb, not rule of LAW!

The rule which has no basis, don't hold any value either.

[hipka]

Originally Posted by qwertyisback

The rule which has no basis, don't hold any value either.

The rule is suggested by several attorneys.Guess they are using their experience on how USCIS works. You are right the rule has no legal basis, its only a suggestion.Whether it has any value or not is upto to you.

[qwertyisback]

Originally Posted by hipka

The rule is suggested by several attorneys.Guess they are using their experience on how USCIS works. You are right the rule has no legal basis, its only a suggestion.Whether it has any value or not is upto to you.

Not many attorneys... Its only one(everyone knows that link for sure) and with lot of factual errors on analysis presented on that link.

[hipka]

Besides att murthy, I know att. mike khosla (usimmigration.net) and my company attorney told me the same thing

[qwertyisback]

Murthy's link is based on some wrong assumption. So Not good
Post mike khosla (usimmigration.net)'s link.
Also regarding personal conversation with attorney, there are many on this forum who has been told otherwise. In such situation(gray area), Attorney's plays safe, they guess what client like to hear and say accordingly.

[sankar_ra]

AC21 supports changing job even b4 getting GC. So I don't understand what is the big deal in changing the job after getting the GC within similar job requirements.

Sankar.

[lkjhgf]

My attorney told me and send me an e-mail that I could change job(s) after getting GC. There is no time limit. Of course my it's my own attorney and not company's. Company's attorneys will safeguard company's interest and tell accordingly.

[cho]

and such that you are practically forced to resign. It is very unhealthy for me to continue like this.
And it has been just 2 months since my I485 got approved.
How can I show intent that I did not want to leave - but was coerced into it?

any guidance appreciated

[hipka]

Originally Posted by cho

and such that you are practically forced to resign. It is very unhealthy for me to continue like this.
And it has been just 2 months since my I485 got approved.
How can I show intent that I did not want to leave - but was coerced into it?

any guidance appreciated

Remember the govt. gave you the GC to work for the sponsoring employer, not as a recognition of your skills, welcoming nature of US etc.. If you are not interested in working for your emp. why did you ask him to sponsor your GC?
That being said if you really feel the employer is treating you badly feel free to leave but collect documents, like E-mails, reviews etc. to prove that you were not treated properly.

[hakoonamataata]

Originally Posted by hipka

Remember the govt. gave you the GC to work for the sponsoring employer, not as a recognition of your skills, welcoming nature of US etc.. If you are not interested in working for your emp. why did you ask him to sponsor your GC?
That being said if you really feel the employer is treating you badly feel free to leave but collect documents, like E-mails, reviews etc. to prove that you were not treated properly.

I ve always had this "point of view" bother me. Why do we always think that it is only that we (as an employee of the GC sponsoring firm) want the GC. As far as employer-sponsored GC is concerned, isn't it that both the parties (both the employer and employee) are equally interested in it.
Consider that you are working for company A and company B sponsors your GC. In that case, it is very much in the interest of company B that they "want" you to work for them. And, that is why they are sponsoring GC for you.

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.