problems with Mr.Khanna's opinion on "changing job after GC"

[wurzbach]

Disclaimer:

1) Mr. Khanna is a good lawyer and everyone who received legal service from him should appreciate his diligent work.

2) welcome Mr. Khanna himself and any other person who bears no faith for personal attack to comment on my post.

3) I would not response to any comments from **** and Pralay who cannot live without posting the last comment for each topic. And this could be my last post for the next two months because I have more important things to do.

"The basic premise (or theory) behind permanent residence through offer of employment is that an employee is accepting a job on a "permanent" bases. What does "permanent" mean? Does it mean for ever. Obviously not. That would be unreasonable. But "permanent" also does not mean that you pack your bags the moment you receive your green card. So what is the answer? No one really knows. Each case has to be determined upon its own merits. Normally, I would say working for one year or more with the same employer after getting your GC is PROBABLY enough indication of permanency. Less than 4-5 months is perhaps evidence to the contrary"

------These sentences have become bible of some people here who hold the different opinion with me. but unfortunately, after careful reading of this opinion, you can find this opinion is based on speculation other than the law. Especially, this opinion mistakenly puts the burden to prove the "permanent basis" for LPR on employee. Let's see waht are the problems.

"The basic premise (or theory) behind permanent residence through offer of employment is that an employee is accepting a job on a "permanent" bases."

-----this statment is basiclly correct. To get LPR, you need to prove to INS that there is a permanent employment (classifications other than EA and NIW) for you or you have the opportunity to find a permanent employment (EA and NIW). But "accepting a job on a permanent basis" does not require the employee to prove that the job is permanent (North American Industries, Inc. v. Feldman, 722 F.2d 893). To prove the permanent basis of the employment is up to the employer in light of the employer's needs. The nature of the duty or the employee's intent to work for the employer permanently shares no burden to prove the permanency of employment.

"What does "permanent" mean? Does it mean for ever. Obviously not. That would be unreasonable. But "permanent" also does not mean that you pack your bags the moment you receive your green card. "

----if these words were to spoken to employers who want to bring some aliens to woth for them, they are correct. But if these words were to answer employee's confusion, they are not correct. Employee bears no burden to prove that his employment would be permanent (North American Industries, Inc. v. Feldman, 722 F.2d 893). So his vonluntary behavior of changing job after he receives the green card does nothing to do with the "permanency" of the employment.

"So what is the answer? No one really knows. Each case has to be determined upon its own merits."

----this answer is too sloppy for a lawyer who has built up a good reputation. if "no one really knows", how can "each case has to be determined upon its own merits"? for each case to be determined on its own merits, there must be some definite answers, right?

Normally, I would say working for one year or more with the same employer after getting your GC is PROBABLY enough indication of permanency. Less than 4-5 months is perhaps evidence to the contrary"

----clearly, by this answer, Mr. Khanna puts the burden to prove "permaneny" on the employee. Beyond this problem, there is another one with this statement. According to Mr. Khanna, the burden to prove "permanency" extends to the time after you receives your green card. This clearly contradicts with the code and intention of Congress. Normally, the timeframe to prove "permanency" is at the stage of labor certificate. Approval of LC indicates that the employer has a permanent position that no citizens (and LPRs) can fit. But in practice, INS requires the employer to keep the position permanent untill the approval of the employee's application of I-485. due to the long time waiting of the processing of I-485, the burden on the employer to keep the job permanent for several years is too heavy. So, by AC21, congress allowed different employers to share the burden. Asking the employer (or employee ) to prove the permanency of the position for an indefinite time after the approval of LPR is a very heavy burden that Congress does not want to see.

[pralay]

Originally Posted by wurzbach

3) I would not response to any comments from **** and Pralay who cannot live without posting the last comment for each topic.

It seems you cannot live without interpretating laws in twisted fashion, twisting other people's words (including Rajiv Khanna's post), misleading others with unrelated cases (Ghaly's deportation case, Singh's asylum case, Kalejs nazi deportation case and now the latest Choe's case).

When you are exhausted with arguments and cannot defend your opinion anymore, you open another thread and mislead as usual. The latest Choe's case is a perfect example of it. You are pasting some case without understanding what it is about.

Originally Posted by wurzbach

----clearly, by this answer, Mr. Khanna puts the burden to prove "permaneny" on the employee. Beyond this problem, there is another one with this statement. According to Mr. Khanna, the burden to prove "permanency" extends to the time after you receives your green card.

No, Mr. Khanna did not say that. You are twisting his words. Employee never need to prove "permanency" of position. That's solely empoyer's responsibility.
Employee just need to comply with the condition of EB GC based on that "parmanent" position.

Either you have a language defficiency or you are twisting his words intentionally to prove your point.

Originally Posted by wurzbach

This clearly contradicts with the code and intention of Congress.

Wow! what kind of "intention" you are talking about? Be specific.

Originally Posted by wurzbach

So, by AC21, congress allowed different employers to share the burden. Asking the employer (or employee ) to prove the permanency of the position for an indefinite time after the approval of LPR is a very heavy burden that Congress does not want to see.

As usual you are interpreting AC21 law in a twisted way. In AC21 law employee does not need to prove alternate permanent position. Again, it's new employer's responsibility and they can show my new EVL, offer letter, job description etc.

You are an absolute nutcase. As I mentioned before, either you have language deficiency or you are twisting eveything intentionally to prove your point. The most amazing things is that you assume other forum member are stupid and will agree with whatever way you present your opinion. Everybdy can read Rajiv's comment. And, your interpretation is different - like days and nights. This kind of tactics works sometimes - especially in politics. But those politicians are skilled and audience is also different. And it's apparent that you don't have that kind of skill.

[pralay]

Originally Posted by vitalsigns

Actually I have been a proponent of the same idea as Wurzbach. The first time I read Mr. Khanna's post on changing jobs after the GC I was puzzled. I thought "How in the world should I understand this?" I even posted one time "Who is playing who?" post on here. If the lawyers advice you to stick with the employer for at least 6 months and then bail out basically they are teaching you how to beat the system. It should not be permitted.

And you compared lawyers with cops. But unlike cops, lawyers are not enforcers of laws.

[pralay]

Originally Posted by vitalsigns

They are upholders of the law at any rate.

And upholders of law need to follow legal ethics and keep relationship/communication within legal boundary. There is no prohibition to advise client "what is safe" - provided the advise falls within legal boundary and ethics.

[wurzbach]

Originally Posted by vitalsigns

Actually I have been a proponent of the same idea as Wurzbach. The first time I read Mr. Khanna's post on changing jobs after the GC I was puzzled.

A lot of people got confusion with the "intention to live and work in the United States permanently" and the "intention to work for the sponsor permanently". It is not a surprising result when some respectful lawyers themselves do not understand this problem correctly or made some sloppy answers to those lay persons.

The whole documents of I-485 application is to tell that you intend to live and work in the United States permanently (this intention needs to be with you as long as you holds GC, if INS finds out that you lost this intention, they will take your GC back) with the proves that you have accepted a permanent job (and the permanency has been proved by the employer, not employee). It does nothing to tell INS that you intend to and would work for the "specific" sponsor permanently. If INS does make employee's intent to work for the specific employer permanently an essential element for the approval of green card, then INS does have the right and power to take your green card back once they find out you actually did not intend to work for the sponsor permanently. So far no one got trouble with changing job after GC lends the strongest evidence that INS cannot make a case out of this situation.

[hipka]

Originally Posted by wurzbach

A lot of people got confusion with the "intention to live and work in the United States permanently" and the "intention to work for the sponsor permanently". It is not a surprising result when some respectful lawyers themselves do not understand this problem correctly or made some sloppy answers to those lay persons.

The whole documents of I-485 application is to tell that you intend to live and work in the United States permanently (this intention needs to be with you as long as you holds GC, if INS finds out that you lost this intention, they will take your GC back) with the proves that you have accepted a permanent job (and the permanency has been proved by the employer, not employee). It does nothing to tell INS that you intend to and would work for the "specific" sponsor permanently. If INS does make employee's intent to work for the specific employer permanently an essential element for the approval of green card, then INS does have the right and power to take your green card back once they find out you actually did not intend to work for the sponsor permanently. So far no one got trouble with changing job after GC lends the strongest evidence that INS cannot make a case out of this situation.

Your first statement is right. The burden to prove that the employment offer is permanent is with the employer. That is why your employer files Labor certification and not you.
During I-140 stage you are basically telling USCIS that you intend to fill this 'permanent employment' offer once you get your GC. Clearly your job before GC and your job after GC are different. That is how it has always been.
There was never any condition that you need to work for the sponsor before the GC.
Once you get the GC you need to be employed for sometime with your sponsor, this is to prove that you are sticking to your word.
-- I still don't understand how this contradicts Mr.Khanna's opinion.


--Just because USCIS has not taken action so far does not mean they will behave that way in future. For ex. nobody used to file AR-11 before 2001 although the law clearly stated so and USCIS never took any action. Now they are doing it seriously. You never know when they begin to interpret things differently.

[pralay]

Originally Posted by wurzbach

The whole documents of I-485 application is to tell that you intend to live and work in the United States permanently (this intention needs to be with you as long as you holds GC, if INS finds out that you lost this intention, they will take your GC back) with the proves that you have accepted a permanent job (and the permanency has been proved by the employer, not employee).

Have you heard of self-petititioned I-140 in EB1? That one does not need any specific employer. Otherwise, other employer sponsored I-140 are always for specific employer - because it is sponsored by specific employer.

Originally Posted by wurzbach

It does nothing to tell INS that you intend to and would work for the "specific" sponsor permanently.

If your I-140 is from a specific employer, that mean only one thing - you intend to obtain your I-485 approval based on that specific offer.

[wurzbach]

Originally Posted by hipka

During I-140 stage you are basically telling USCIS that you intend to fill this 'permanent employment' offer once you get your GC..

No,no,no, You are wrong. Employer sponsored I-140 petition is not the employee's business. Filing I-140 is to tell INS that the employer intends to sponsor the employee for LPR, not for employee to tell INS to work for the employer permanently. There is no condition (of binding the employee to work for the employer permanently) for granting the GC. If it is a condition, even if you work for the employer for ten years, you stll cannot escape if INS can figure out later that you did not intend to work for the employer permanently when applying the green card.

[pralay]

Originally Posted by wurzbach

There is no condition (of binding the employee to work for the employer permanently) for granting the GC.

There is a condition in I-485. When you attach I-140 (from specific employer) as underlying visa petition for your I-485, that indicates that you intend to get LPR status based on that specific job offer.

[pralay]

Originally Posted by vitalsigns

Then Pralay I am totally missing the line of thinking some have assumed on here. If the immigration lawyers are crooked and have no moral credibility, why is it that everybody is following their assumption on the safe 6 month rule period?

At this moment I am really don't know what to say to you.

Did I say lawyers don't have credibility?
Did I say that they are crooked?

Read my post again.
http://boards.immigration.com/showpo...37&postcount=7

Does it say anything about "moral credibility" or "crookedness"?

[pralay]

Originally Posted by vitalsigns

I think it is more probable than not that it is the b). I will only believe if there's any kind of safe time frame out there when I see the USCIS website publish it.

Over and over it is said repeatatively, that GC is not about "time-frame". Still you are looking for "a golden number". After all these discussion what could be more pathetic!

Originally Posted by vitalsigns

Other than that it's crooked lawyers' assumptions. I ain't listening to them.

They are not asking you to listen them or obey them. They advise people who wish to get advise. If you don't want, that's your choice. Ignore those lawyers at your convenience. What's so big fuss about it!

[me_srilakshmi]

**** and Pralay are hell bent to scare people here.
GC is not a synonym for Slavery.

They themselves are confused...

I spoke to somebody who worked for INS. She just said you are a permanent resident. If you dont like the employer you are working for you can quit now. BUT the reason your I-485 is approved is you showed intent to work for this employer when you applied for 140 and 485. PERIOD.

I dont have a record of what the immigration office told me. Its as good as not told. I cant sue her if USCIS contradicts her. she may be wrong. But thats an opinion from somebody who worked for INS.

[pralay]

Originally Posted by me_srilakshmi

GC is not a synonym for Slavery.

I think you are only person in this forum who is equating employment with slavery. Thanks to your GC sponsor who treated you like that.

Originally Posted by me_srilakshmi

BUT the reason your I-485 is approved is you showed intent to work for this employer when you applied for 140 and 485. PERIOD.

And, how do you "prove" that you had intent?

Originally Posted by me_srilakshmi

I dont have a record of what the immigration office told me. Its as good as not told. I cant sue her if USCIS contradicts her. she may be wrong. But thats an opinion from somebody who worked for INS.

Actually she is right. She assumed that you filed your I-485 and got GC in good faith (with intent to work for GC sponsor). If so, there is no problem to change employment after getting GC.

Still did not understand? Let me give you an analogy. You went to DMV and asked "Can I drive my car with my drivers license?". She assumed that you have valid drivers license and replied "yes". That "yes" does not cover you for driving with forged DL, fraud DL. Do you think you still have ground for suing her?

[dimag_mari]

Happy thanksgiving

[me_srilakshmi]

Originally Posted by pralay

I think you are only person in this forum who is equating employment with slavery. Thanks to your GC sponsor who treated you like that.

Pralay.. you are only person in this forum who is assuming slavery (bondage) as an employment.

Originally Posted by pralay

And, how do you "prove" that you had intent?

Its already proved as far as CIS goes when they approved 485. Anyway intent cannot be proved by working for specified time however long or short it is....

Originally Posted by pralay

Actually she is right. She assumed that you filed your I-485 and got GC in good faith (with intent to work for GC sponsor). If so, there is no problem to change employment after getting GC.

If she is right why are arguing again???

Originally Posted by pralay

Still did not understand? Let me give you an analogy. You went to DMV and asked "Can I drive my car with my drivers license?". She assumed that you have valid drivers license and replied "yes". That "yes" does not cover you for driving with forged DL, fraud DL. Do you think you still have ground for suing her?

You have gone crazy... Atleast give some good analogy... Let me correct your analogy..

You went to DMV and asked "Can I drive my car with my valid drivers license?". She assumed that you have valid drivers license and replied "yes". That "yes" does not cover you for driving with forged DL, fraud DL. Do you think you still have ground for suing her?


...growup kids....

[me_srilakshmi]

Originally Posted by ****

It is a contract. )

There cannot be contract between an Employer and an employee on the time for which an employee should work...If there is its called bondage.. slavery...

Originally Posted by ****

You promise to work for the employer, and for that promise, the government gives you a GC. If you gave that promise in bad faith, the government can of course take away the GC.

Thats the reason you need a break. You used to say .."intent" until recently. Now suddenly you say "'promise"... Tomorrow you may say... You have taken "oath"

Originally Posted by ****

You have to have the intent throughout the process and until you get the GC. And you may have to show that you had that intent.

I had the intent.. thats the reason I joined the company... (I didnt join after they applied for GC. I joined and then they applied for GC).. Now as soon as I got my GC I quit... Any problems???

Originally Posted by ****

It doesn't matter what somebody tells you. Not everybody working at CIS or who worked at legacy INS knows the law. What matters is what the law says.
I suggest you ask somebody like Mr. Shusterman, for example. After all, he worked for then INS as well, as lawyer, and is most likely better qualified than somebody who worked there in some unspecified occupation (the person you talked to could have been a janitor there, after all...)

I told ya .. u need a break... I guess if that somebody is Shusterman then you believe it and if its somebody else you dont want to believe... I guess you believe that somebody who says what you think... otherwise "It doesn't matter [COLOR=DarkRed]what somebody tells you"...

Great...

Out of imagination you guys are trying make a law.

[pralay]

Originally Posted by me_srilakshmi

Pralay.. you are only person in this forum who is assuming slavery (bondage) as an employment.

I did not. Your lack of understanding is making you feel so. Your lack of understading is making you feel that employment is slavery. Again, thanks to your employer and your relationship with them.

Originally Posted by me_srilakshmi

Its already proved as far as CIS goes when they approved 485. Anyway intent cannot be proved by working for specified time however long or short it is....

What proof? Do you know that GC is for future employment? You are arguing on a topic in which you have no idea. GC is for future employment. Got the idea?

Over and over it is said that GC is about "intent". It's not about "timeframe". If you think it's about timeframe, your whole thought is misdirected.

Originally Posted by me_srilakshmi

If she is right why are arguing again???

I don't think you got it what I said.

Originally Posted by me_srilakshmi

You went to DMV and asked "Can I drive my car with my valid drivers license?". She assumed that you have valid drivers license and replied "yes". That "yes" does not cover you for driving with forged DL, fraud DL. Do you think you still have ground for suing her?

Well, when ask a DMV pesonnel about DL it automatically implies that valid. You can claim it is valid but it reality it may not be valid. Even teen who buys alchohol with forged DL and then gets caught in check-in counter, claims that his DL is indeed valid.

And USCIS may construct that your GC is not valid because you did not get it in good faith. Got it?

[pralay]

Originally Posted by me_srilakshmi

I had the intent.. thats the reason I joined the company...

You even don't know what is employment GC. When you joined the company probably you joined in H1 or L1 visa. H1/L1 job are for temporary job position. Have you heard about the word "temporary worker"? So whatever "intent" you are talking about is nothing but your "intent" to work for temporary job position (H1/L1). It has nothing to do with GC job position (future employment).

Originally Posted by me_srilakshmi

(I didnt join after they applied for GC. joined and then they applied for GC)..

You joined for temporary position. They applied GC for permanent position. Until you get your I-485 approved, USCIS did not authorized to work for that parmanent position. So working as H1 worker or L1 worker may not cover you for the "intent" issue of GC job position.

Originally Posted by me_srilakshmi

INow as soon as I got my GC I quit... Any problems???

Problem? Probably. Because it may indicate that you stayed with the company (on a temporary job position on H1 status) for the purpose of getting immigration benefit (i.e. LPR status). In fact, when you refer your employment as slavery, it indicates that you have embraced an unplesant things (i.e. slavery) temporarily (working on H1) for the purpose of getting GC. Did you mention it (especially the word "slavery") to the person who worked for USCIS?

As far I understand you got your GC in August 2005 and is desperately trying to find a definitive answer on this issue. My suggestion is to you - "take a break". Probably you asked a wrong person (someone who worked in USCIS and not sure what kind of position she had in USCIS). Unless she was an USCIS lawyer or USCIS adjucator, it's unlikely she interpreted laws.
Giving DMV analogy again, all DMV employees in all the front counters of DMV office may not be aware of all the details of state vehicle codes. Probably an auto accident lawyer knows more details about all the codes.
So, if you really want a good answer, talk to a good immigration lawyer and describe your situation. They can give better advise based on your personal situation (keep in mind each case is different and there is no generic answer for it).

[pralay]

Originally Posted by ****

It is a contract between you and the government. THe government gives you a GC for your promise to work for the employer. If you gave that promise in bad faith, the government can take away the GC.
That has nothing at all to do with bondage. You are free to leave the employer any time you want. You are just not entitled to a GC then.
Again: you are free to leave any time you want. If, however, you want a GC, you have to have the good faith intent to work for the employer.
Geez, hor hard can it be to understand that it is your own decision, made on your own free will.

It's amazing to see this person (me_srilakshmi), who simply does not understand the very basics of employment GC, is arguing about it. He is not able to understand the difference between job position in H1 status and GC job position.

[wurzbach]

Originally Posted by pralay

.......As far I understand you got your GC in August 2005 and is desperately trying to find a definitive answer on this issue. ........

You just belittle yourself by your own words! what a dark mind do you have??

[arizonian]

Let me give you an analogy.

High cholesterol is associated with higher risk of heart attacks. Lower the cholesterol, lower the risk. There is no absolute cutoff limit. However, greater doses of medicines are needed to lower the cholesterol lower. And so we make a compromise between the two. And there are rough guidelines for the "acceptable" cholesterol levels. These guidelines are derived from data from hundreds of thousands of patients. And in this group of patients, there are some patients with very high cholesterol who do not have any heart attacks at all. However since the general trend supports treating high cholesterol levels, one cannot rely on anecdotal reports of patients with high cholesterol but no problems, to treat a given individual.

Similarly, you may know someone who did not even work for the sponsor and who got away with it. But this does not represent the general trend, and based on some anecdotal reports, wrong and risky advise cannot be given by reasonable individuals.

[pralay]

Originally Posted by wurzbach

You just belittle yourself by your own words! what a dark mind do you have??

Tell me if I am right or wrong...instead of "bilittle", "dark mind" bla bla bla.
I am just trying figure out why a person talks USCIS person and posts a "gotcha" kind of message.

BTW, are you still too busy (as you claimed in past) to post outrageous arguments?

[a_vind]

[QUOTE=pralay]You even don't know what is employment GC. When you joined the company probably you joined in H1 or L1 visa. H1/L1 job are for temporary job position. Have you heard about the word "temporary worker"? So whatever "intent" you are talking about is nothing but your "intent" to work for temporary job position (H1/L1). It has nothing to do with GC job position (future employment).

Is the only difference between H1 and GC is temporary and permanent? I see employer name in my passport on H1. Please let me know if I also see employer name in my GC?
If I cant change employer with GC, then H1 is lot better..I can do that by getting H1 transfer atleast....I think everyone except pralay and **** are in a big misunderstanding abt the whole purpose of GC.

But as I know dogens of ppl who changed their employer soon after they got GC are so happy living here without any problems.....I have read the cholestrol analogy but still, want to talk something real that I know.

Okay, did anyone of you know anyone got GC cancelled jsut because of changing the employer?

[pralay]

Originally Posted by a_vind

If I cant change employer with GC, then H1 is lot better..I can do that by getting H1 transfer atleast....I think everyone except pralay and **** are in a big misunderstanding abt the whole purpose of GC.

Who said you cannot change employment after GC? Did you find any post that says so? If you did not find it and still claiming we are saying so, that's a "big misunderstanding" from your side. You can change your employment anytime, provided you can prove (if required) that you got your GC in good faith. In fact, in certain scenario one can prove that he/she got his/her GC in good faith without working single day for GC sponsor. Now, you have to decide if that applies to you. If you think so, go ahead!


[QUOTE=a_vind]

Originally Posted by pralay

I have read the cholestrol analogy but still, want to talk something real that I know.

Talk to a good immigration lawyer. It is that simple.

[Vik Pal]

Has anyone been denied Citizenship becuse they changed jobs after getting GC from the sposoring employer?

[Vik Pal]

I'm sure Mr Khanna must have seen a lot of clients with diverse scenarios. Has he ever come across a case where an applicant was denied citizenship just because he/she changed job in 3-6 months or more/less duration? Maybe Mr Khanna should quote a few examples here and enlighten us all rather than quoting a vague law which may lead to vague interpretations. Even he has acknwlegded in his post that there are certain provisions of the law which may be open to debate and certainly lead to vaired interpretations but he should quote actual examples of denials based on this specific job chnage ground.

[a_vind]

Thanks for all your posts.

It is clear now that it is safe to stick with the GC sponsered employer atleast for 6 months to 1 year from the day 485 approved.

But I have a question abt the spouse employment after 485 aproval.
If spouse wants to work, can she/he start doing a job anywhere or has to work with the same GC sponsered employer of the primary applicant.
What is safe in this regard? Does her/his decision affect on citizenship of any one of the family.

Thanks
a_vind

[pralay]

Originally Posted by a_vind

But I have a question abt the spouse employment after 485 aproval.
If spouse wants to work, can she/he start doing a job anywhere or has to work with the same GC sponsered employer of the primary applicant.
What is safe in this regard? Does her/his decision affect on citizenship of any one of the family.

If spouse got his/her GC as dependent, his/her employment change/status is irrelevent in this topic.

[a_vind]

Originally Posted by pralay

If spouse got his/her GC as dependent, his/her employment change/status is irrelevent in this topic.

Thats what I thought so. It leads me to another question. As per the posts so far I have read what I understood is if I change the employers so frequently, lets say changed the GC sponsered employer in 7th month, and then after employer for each 6 months during the 5 year GC period, I may possibly get problems (am I correct?) at the of citizenship filing.

Can it be that of my citizenship falls into problmes having my family(wife and kids) without any problems in getting the citizenship?

Regards
A_vind

[TheRealCanadian]

Originally Posted by a_vind

if I change the employers so frequently, lets say changed the GC sponsered employer in 7th month, and then after employer for each 6 months during the 5 year GC period, I may possibly get problems (am I correct?) at the of citizenship filing.

I don't see any issues with this at all. If you had the good faith intent to work for your sponsoring employer at the time of GC approval, the fact that you were on short-term jobs after you left that job is irrelevant.

Can it be that of my citizenship falls into problmes having my family(wife and kids) without any problems in getting the citizenship?

Your family's naturalization is not linked to your own.