my question for you guys

[dimag_mari]

Hi Guys,

I just now got my GC,
can I open IT consultancy ?
if yes, can I sponsor H1B.

--------------------------------------------------------
it's headache everywhere, why not everything is easy ?

[dsatish]

Yes, you can open a company. Legally you can sponsore H1 visas but most likely INS is not going to approve the petition because your company does not have any history. So try to develop some history first (at leat for 6 months to 1 yr) doing 3rd party placements and yourself working as consultant of your company.

[pv1976]

I know people who've started consultancy companies while they are on H1s. So, definitely u can start companies after becoming PR.

[dimag_mari]

Thanks Guys

[dimag_mari]

why I need to work for my employer for a while ?,

I want to be employee as long as they keep me.

my company opening is nothing to do with my emplyement.

I was with them for 6 years and I want to be with them for a long time.

[dimag_mari]

Originally Posted by ****

Because It's the law... You got the GC by promising to work for the employer. If you break that promise, you may be in trouble.
Ok, that wasn't clear from your original post. You want to run your company on the side, in addition to your fulltime employment for your employer? That's fine. But, you need to check your employment contract. It may be that the contract doesn't allow you to moonlight somewhere else. A lot of companies have such a clause, to prevent people from working for competitors on the side. They also want your full mental attention to their job, and not see your performance diminish because you have your own side business on your mind. I had such a contract at one point.

why law is like that, I want to be there fulltime permanent employee for a long time. why can't be I long time employee after GC.

why should I work for a while ? I want to work for a long time.

I am confused here. because my company applied for my GC so that I can be there fulltime emplyee. then why this law is not allowing me to be fulltime permanent employee. I don't want to work for a while. I want to be fulltime permanent employee.

I am really confused.

guys help me, show me path. I don't want to loose my JOB due to this GC

[new2gc]

Originally Posted by ****

Well, you can open a company, but you have to have the intent to work for your employer for a while, otherwise, you could get into trouble. See http://www.immigrationportal.com/sho...d.php?t=154533

I think **** misinterpreted law, you should not have intent to work for your employer for a while.

[dimag_mari]

Thanks Guys

[chinabee]

**** made up a law.

There is no such law or regulation saying that you have to work for your employer after GC. The so called 'intent' is just some of american wannabes' wild imagination which is not supported either by law or by any live case.

[TheRealCanadian]

Originally Posted by chinabee

The so called 'intent' is just some of american wannabes' wild imagination which is not supported either by law or by any live case.

No such thing as intent? That's news to me.

[chinabee]

Either show us the law/case or forever stop BSing!!!!

A proper way to say is: well, there's no law or case that says you cannot leave your employer right after GC; however, our guess/suggestion is that it is better to stay with the same employer for about 6 months.

[TheRealCanadian]

Originally Posted by chinabee

A proper way to say is: well, there's no law or case that says you cannot leave your employer right after GC; however, our guess/suggestion is that it is better to stay with the same employer for a reasonable period of time.

There, fixed that for you.

Despite people's claims that it doesn't apply in immigrant vs. non-immigrant cases, Seihoon v. Levy clearly establishes that "intent" is a valid concept in immigration. How long one stays at an employer is up in the air until USCIS decides to make an example of someone, and they choose to fight it.

Who wants to be the test case?

[pralay]

Originally Posted by chinabee

Either show us the law/case or forever stop BSing!!!!

It's difficult to show someone law/case whose eyes and ears are definitely closed (probably brain too).

"Intent" is quintessential concept not only for immigration but for any other kind laws. USCIS gives you GC because you intend to live in USA. USCIS gives your EB GC because you intend to work with GC sponsorer.

[chinabee]

I am not aruging against the concept of 'intent'. I am aruging against applying such intent AFTER GC.

Please do not mix up these 2 things.

In fact, you can just apply for citizenship 6 years later instead of 5, then you don't even have to mention your sponsoring employer.

[pralay]

Originally Posted by chinabee

I am not aruging against the concept of 'intent'. I am aruging against applying such intent AFTER GC.

GC is for future employment (after getting GC). If "intent" does not apply after getting GC, then when should it apply?

[qwertyisback]

Originally Posted by chinabee

I am not aruging against the concept of 'intent'. I am aruging against applying such intent AFTER GC.

Interesting point, "intent" should exist be at the time of filing GC application not nessasarily after GC. Thats why cases like TRC and one more(which I know personally) got cleared without working with sponsor anytime at interview stage. Just snippets of thoughts.

[pralay]

Originally Posted by qwertyisback

IThats why cases like TRC and one more(which I know personally) got cleared without working with sponsor anytime at interview stage.

Person does not need to work for sponsoring company before USCIS granting GC (i.e. interview stage).

[qwertyisback]

Originally Posted by pralay

Person does not need to work for sponsoring company before USCIS granting GC (i.e. interview stage).

Do you have part of law, where it mentions about intent and GC?? Can you post it here. The case I know, where person never worked for sponser, they applied GC for him and company got closed long before his GC interview and still he managed to get approval(interview) without any issues. Interestingly, INS officer asked him q/s regarding his GC sponsor and still raised no flags on anything. Also TRC can shade more light(if he choose) bout how he convince his "intent" to INS officer.

So we have atleast 2 known cases where apparently intent could be BIG issue, but still INS offcer ignored it or doesn't count it as issue though they were very much aware of case details (because its interview approval). It supports chinabee's argument .

[pralay]

Originally Posted by qwertyisback

Do you have part of law, where it mentions about intent and GC?? Can you post it here. The case I know, where person never worked for sponser, they applied GC for him and company got closed long before his GC interview and still he managed to get approval(interview) without any issues. Interestingly, INS officer asked him q/s regarding his GC sponsor and still raised no flags on anything. Also TRC can shade more light(if he choose) bout how he convince his "intent" to INS officer.

So we have atleast 2 known cases where apparently intent could be BIG issue, but still INS offcer ignored it or doesn't count it as issue though they were very much aware of case details (because its interview approval). It supports chinabee's argument.

In fact one of my friends had similar situation - his company went out of business before his RFE (no interview). In all the cases AC-21 applies. I don't see why adjucator would put red flag if I-485 is pending for more than 180 days and the beneficiary has an "alternate sponsorer". AC-21 allows to change intent for working with company X to company Y. But that does not mean "intent" does not apply after GC. Intent still applies and it applies after GC. Only difference is that the originial sponsorer is replaced by another company.
Secondly, AC-21 is introduced bacause in past I-485 used to take more than 2 years due to backlog. It's unfair to think that a person has to keep his intent for that long duration. That's why USCIS put some specific timelimit - in this case 180 days. However, this relief does not nullify the rule of intent.

So if I apply for I-485 today with company X, and then very next day I assume that I don't need to have my intent anymore (with chinabee's argument) - that's wrong.

[chinabee]

Please don't put words in my mouth.

I do agree that during the I485 process, you need to have your intent to work for the sponsoring employer; however, once GC is granted, no such intent is necessary.

Is there a law or case stating this is incorrect? Nada.

[pralay]

Originally Posted by chinabee

Please don't put words in my mouth.

I do agree that during the I485 process, you need to have your intent to work for the sponsoring employer; however, once GC is granted, no such intent is necessary.

Is there a law or case stating this is incorrect? Nada.

What is this "during I485 process"? It's like saying a person has to follow all the driving rules "during the process of obtaining driver license", and then after getting license the person does not need to follow any driving rule.
A person applies for I485 for the goal of obtaining GC to work with GC sponsorer. Think about a hypothetical situation when USCIS is so fast and efficient that it can approve I485 in a minute (within a minute after person applies for I-485). That makes "during I485 process" stage to almost zero. Logically that means the person does not need "intent" at all, right (according to your argument)?

[LaborApproved]

Guys as per USCIS and my lawyer once you get your GC you are free to live and work anywhere in US. You have the same rights as a US citizen but you can't vote.

[TheRealCanadian]

Originally Posted by qwertyisback

Also TRC can shade more light(if he choose) bout how he convince his "intent" to INS officer.

The latest Yates memorandum explictly states that for AC21, there needs to be intent to hire (by the I-140 sponsor) and work (by the alien beneficiary) at the time of the I-140 approval. That's explicit. What's implicit is that the alien needs the intent to work for an employer - either the sponsor, or another employer if AC21 is invoked.

Now, for my situation. The officer did not explicitly ask. However, my I-140 was approved in July 2001. With my I-485 in August 2001, I submitted an employment offer letter dated June 30th, 2001 which clearly established the employer's intent to hire me once the I-485 was approved. My request for adjustment of status based on that letter was indication of my intent, and that is what I would have told the officer.

At the interview, I invoked AC21 by providing a new EVL from my current employer. This was accepted.

[chinabee]

I am not saying you are 100% wrong. All I am saying is give us the law or case to support your opinion or stop making up the law yourself.

[pralay]

Originally Posted by chinabee

I am not saying you are 100% wrong. All I am saying is give us the law or case to support your opinion or stop making up the law yourself.

This is not the first time you are whinning "show me the law". It's like traffic cop is stopping me and asking "do you know vehicle code for driving right hand side of the road? If you don't know the vehicle code, why are you driving in right hand side of the road?"

I am not making any law and I don't think you are "making up" any law too. It's about interpretation of laws/rules which is already there. To your utmost disappointment, there is no "100% right" or "100% wrong" in this issue. Yes, many thing are vague, and that why tons of threads and posting regarding this issue. There are ample of laws, memos in internet. Find it yourself and read. Then you can explain your stand in this forum.
You didn't even explain your "during I485 process" concept.

[maple_cartier]

So..here is a related question and one where I definitely need your input...

What if after the GC, I desire to seek another position in the same company with a job profile that is not 100% match (perhaps 80% match) to the employment-based labor petition for which the LPR was approved?

What are the implications and possible consequences if any?

[pralay]

Originally Posted by maple_cartier

What are the implications and possible consequences if any?

Probably none. I never heard USCIS had problem with natural career growth (that is also in same company).

[maple_cartier]

I agree..but in my case, the only difference being, I got my GC almost a month back..I am looking at a potential career growth opportunity (within the same company). I want to apply and I know I will get the position.

When is it too soon (after GC approval) to switch jobs or get a postion within the same company when the employment-based I-485 approvals was for a position I held at the time of the approval?

[pralay]

Originally Posted by maple_cartier

When is it too soon (after GC approval) to switch jobs or get a postion within the same company when the employment-based I-485 approvals was for a position I held at the time of the approval?

If I was you I would take this opportunity immediately. Getting GC just one months back - that's a non-issue.

[qwertyisback]

First, don't just write off chinabee's opinion just because it don't follows your interpretation of the law. As far as Rajiv's posting goes, I respect his opinion. But that doesn't mean that nobody should contradict it. If I am lawyer, I will also suggest same way to be safer side, most lawyers will try to be on safer side and there is nothing wrong in it. And few lawyer will give different opinion , individuals has to decide on their own what to beleive or not. Its discussion forum, Let just have discussion. Moderator, correct me if I am wrong... Can't members have discussion on this issue though Rajiv's has posted his views?? I beleive we should and Rajiv won't mind having this debate.

Originally Posted by pralay

I don't see why adjucator would put red flag if I-485 is pending for more than 180 days and the beneficiary has an "alternate sponsorer".

This is incorrect statement, it has been discussed at long and everybody concluded that with AC-21, new employer does not become sponsor or even alternate sponsor. Its change of change of job in similar field and salary.
Read this thread http://boards.immigrationportal.com/...d.php?t=159623.

Originally Posted by pralay

It's like saying a person has to follow all the driving rules "during the process of obtaining driver license", and then after getting license the person does not need to follow any driving rule.
A person applies for I485 for the goal of obtaining GC to work with GC sponsorer. Think about a hypothetical situation when USCIS is so fast and efficient that it can approve I485 in a minute (within a minute after person applies for I-485). That makes "during I485 process" stage to almost zero. Logically that means the person does not need "intent" at all, right (according to your argument)?

AC-21 is introduced bacause in past I-485 used to take more than 2 years due to backlog. It's unfair to think that a person has to keep his intent for that long duration.

Now if you are trying to read sprit of law above here, Then tell me, how AC-21 applies to candidate who never worked for sponsor??? AC-21 is meant to be releif for pending 485 (or 485 taking 2+yrs), so that applicant don't have to stick/suffer with his sponsor for so long. Then with spirit of law, applicant who never worked with sponsor should not able to use AC-21 at all. They never worked for sponsor so no excuse (with AC-21)for them . Period.

The point is, INS is expecting intent while filing GC and throught process to hire applicant but they don't mean to carry over that intent after GC.(implicit meaning.. TRC ) Thats it.
And considerinng there is no known case about intent issue, it supports this theory.There is no point in hitting in dark assuming its thief, it might be yourself and you end up hurting yourself.

Many years back, I beleive there was some law that GC holders has to work for 2yrs after GC . And few yrs back above clause has been removed completely without putting any new timeframe. What does that tell everybody?? It means INS don't care about how long GC holder work with sponser after GC... Thats it.