(Leaving the sponsor early) Why not visas ?

[arizonian]

I for one am in the favor of taking a conservative approach as far as the problem at hand goes. In other words, stick with the sponsor for a "reasonable" time.

That said, if the USCIS wanted us to stick to one employer, they would hand out employer specific cards, something like visas, only they would not expire.

That the USCIS is giving out GCs which are not employer specific should itself tell us something. It is not illogical to conclude that one gets an employment based GC because there is "a" position available with "an" employer in your line of work, and that lateral mobility is acceptable and allowed as this fosters growth and competition.

Almost all other work visas are employer specific for a reason. The USCIS does not want the work visa holder to leave the employer. And so, the GC is given for a reason. The USCIS does not care if we leave.

In the bigger picture, the labor force in the country has an individual with skills not locally available.

In other words, if the USCIS wanted, they could easily have come up with another immigration category for "permanent" positions with the sponsor. But that has not been done for a reason.

Discouraging "servitude"/"slavery" and not putting undue pressure on the employer could be some of the many reasons for that.

Arizonian. (soon to be Texan)

[vitalsigns]

The western society and its mindset, as a whole, are opposed to bondage or slavery of any sort (at least on paper) - that's not a huge revelation.

Most organizations establish an employment contract with an employee where it also outlines in what fashion he/she may terminate the current employment. It can be a two week notice, one month notice - it all depends on a particular organization. As a PR I am bound to the contract. I do not recall signing a contract with the USCIS where it would state that "my PR is given to me for my future employment with the sponsoring organization" as I see it being said on this forum. It's incorrect. But I am obliged to the contract of my organization and so if the contract said a two week notice will suffice - it will suffice at the end to prove the so passionately discussed intent.

[pralay]

Originally Posted by vitalsigns

TI do not recall signing a contract with the USCIS where it would state that "my PR is given to me for my future employment with the sponsoring organization" as I see it being said on this forum. It's incorrect. But I am obliged to the contract of my organization and so if the contract said a two week notice will suffice - it will suffice at the end to prove the so passionately discussed intent.

You did not sign contract, but you certainly got your GC "presumably" in good faith. Again, GC is about intent. It's not about timeframe. USCIS did not ask you stick with your employer for certain timeframe. But however, if required, USCIS can ask you prove your "intent" (not timeframe). Now, it's upto you to show how you want to show it. You can be creative many ways to show that - without working for GC sponsor. Many lawyers think working for certain timeframe is the easiest way. Secondly, you are citing James Eiss's article in your signature. If you understood the article, I think you know that there are more chances of coming into USCIS radar if you don't work for GC sponsor or leave job immediately after getting GC (how USCIS figures out what is in your head?).

Lastly, GC is always for future employment. If you think otherwise, that would be incorrect. GC is always given for future or prospective employment. Let us know if you find any interpretation or article that says otherwise.

[pralay]

Originally Posted by vitalsigns

The western society and its mindset, as a whole, are opposed to bondage or slavery of any sort (at least on paper) - that's not a huge revelation.

BTW, your above comment is interesting (and I am wondering how it is related to employment GC). If my knowledge of history is not incorrect, many western societies and civilizations practiced slavery "on paper" for a lonnnnnnnnnng time - when slavery was rare "on paper" in many non-western societies and civilizations.

[TheRealCanadian]

Originally Posted by vitalsigns

I do not recall signing a contract with the USCIS where it would state that "my PR is given to me for my future employment with the sponsoring organization" as I see it being said on this forum. It's incorrect.

Oh please, not this again. Tell you what, when you go for an I-485 interview, tell the examiner that you have no intention of working for the sponsoring employer, and see how well the interview goes.

Look, it is legal for you to leave your sponsored employer the day after you get your GC. But USCIS will turn around and ask you, "what changed?" And if you have a good reason (like they laid you off or told you the job wasn't there anymore) you'll be just fine. But if you tell them that you didn't feel like working for the client anymore or the job sucked, they'll ask "what changed from the day before, when you didn't have the GC?" And if the only thing that changed was the GC, and you were merely waiting until you had the GC, you will have issues.

I recognize that nebulous and flexible concepts such as intent are very difficult for certain minds to understand. You are not tied to your employer as an indentured servant, but you are also not free to ignore the sponsoring employer the day you get the GC. The truth is in the middle, but some people cannot comprehend this.

[arizonian]

Originally Posted by TheRealCanadian

Oh please, not this again. Tell you what, when you go for an I-485 interview, tell the examiner that you have no intention of working for the sponsoring employer, and see how well the interview goes.

Look, it is legal for you to leave your sponsored employer the day after you get your GC. But USCIS will turn around and ask you, "what changed?" And if you have a good reason (like they laid you off or told you the job wasn't there anymore) you'll be just fine. But if you tell them that you didn't feel like working for the client anymore or the job sucked, they'll ask "what changed from the day before, when you didn't have the GC?" And if the only thing that changed was the GC, and you were merely waiting until you had the GC, you will have issues.

I recognize that nebulous and flexible concepts such as intent are very difficult for certain minds to understand. You are not tied to your employer as an indentured servant, but you are also not free to ignore the sponsoring employer the day you get the GC. The truth is in the middle, but some people cannot comprehend this.

I see what you are saying TRC, but what do you think about the arguments that I make in the beginning of the post?

****?

[pralay]

Originally Posted by TheRealCanadian

Look, it is legal for you to leave your sponsored employer the day after you get your GC. But USCIS will turn around and ask you, "what changed?" And if you have a good reason (like they laid you off or told you the job wasn't there anymore) you'll be just fine. But if you tell them that you didn't feel like working for the client anymore or the job sucked, they'll ask "what changed from the day before, when you didn't have the GC?" And if the only thing that changed was the GC, and you were merely waiting until you had the GC, you will have issues.

Reading vitalsigns (above post) and 'me_srilakshmi''s comments (see third section of his post) what I understood that they do not see the line between working on H1/L1 as temp worker and working after getting GC on a perm position. But rather they see GC as a reward for working as an employee of GC sponsor. Basically "I waited for my reward and got it. Therefore, goodbye". Probably it's OK from employer or employee's point of view (treating it as a "reward"), but it's not OK in the eyes of immigration law. In the eyes of immigration law, GC is not a reward, but an immigraion benefit to fulfill certain purpose.

Originally Posted by TheRealCanadian

I recognize that nebulous and flexible concepts such as intent are very difficult for certain minds to understand. You are not tied to your employer as an indentured servant, but you are also not free to ignore the sponsoring employer the day you get the GC. The truth is in the middle, but some people cannot comprehend this.

Well said.

[vitalsigns]

Originally Posted by pralay

Reading vitalsigns (above post) and 'me_srilakshmi''s comments (see third section of his post) what I understood that they do not see the line between working on H1/L1 as temp worker and working after getting GC on a perm position. But rather they see GC as a reward for working as an employee of GC sponsor. Basically "I waited for my reward and got it. Therefore, goodbye". Probably it's OK from employer or employee's point of view (treating it as a "reward"), but it's not OK in the eyes of immigration law. In the eyes of immigration law, GC is not a reward, but an immigraion benefit to fulfill certain purpose.

I do not see it as a reward, but I do see it as a privilege that I now have. With that privilege there came certain advatages: I am free to choose any job I like and live anywhere in the US. Everybody seems to ignore or forget that "little" point. Also, from the immigration point of view the reason you got your GC is because you met a certain criteria. You became eligable to apply for AOS because you had a job that needed your skills. It's not like the sponsoring organization helped you through the GC process because you are a nice person. They helped you because they needed you. They needed you - you got permanent residency. They needed you - the USCIS issued permanent residency to you. The instance you got the GC there came privileges/advantages.
I do not undermine intent. I believe intent is valid but it has little value once you became a PR. You are free to leave the sponsor. If the USCIS gets on your case for leaving too soon or whatever (which they won't) - chances are they will lose their case.

[vitalsigns]

Originally Posted by TheRealCanadian

Oh please, not this again. Tell you what, when you go for an I-485 interview, tell the examiner that you have no intention of working for the sponsoring employer, and see how well the interview goes.

I obtained the GC without an interview so I can't comment on this.

Look, it is legal for you to leave your sponsored employer the day after you get your GC. But USCIS will turn around and ask you, "what changed?" And if you have a good reason (like they laid you off or told you the job wasn't there anymore) you'll be just fine. But if you tell them that you didn't feel like working for the client anymore or the job sucked, they'll ask "what changed from the day before, when you didn't have the GC?" And if the only thing that changed was the GC, and you were merely waiting until you had the GC, you will have issues.

As I have mentioned to Pralay - you have privileges after you become a PR. It's given, it's in the law.

I recognize that nebulous and flexible concepts such as intent are very difficult for certain minds to understand. You are not tied to your employer as an indentured servant, but you are also not free to ignore the sponsoring employer the day you get the GC. The truth is in the middle, but some people cannot comprehend this.

Whose mind are you talking about? Yours? Where is the middle?

[luckyandcurious]

In "Life after the greencard" thread, majority of the sub-threads are on the same issue/topic (leaving employer) again and again. There are so many other issues we can talk. Everybody wants to prove himself/herself correct by opening different thread for the same purpose.

whatever we talk, personally I feel...it is better to be on the safeside by having evidences of GC intent by working for employer for few more months after you get GC. There is no definitive answer or time-period to work with employer, even USCIS or lawyers don't have answer.

So, just be cool and work for employer for few months and just leave

[pralay]

Originally Posted by vitalsigns

As I have mentioned to Pralay - you have privileges after you become a PR. It's given, it's in the law.

Again, one has privileges of LPR status, provided he/she got the GC in good faith. I think following analogy is given many times:

There are two things: A and B. A person can have privileges of enjoying B provided he already has A. Basically B is dependent on A. If A is taken away from him, he loses B too.

Now, assume A=GC and B=privilege of LPR status.

Now, as I said before, a person can be creative enough to retain A, so that he does not lose B.

But your argument is just opposite: I have B. As I have B why should I lose A?

[pralay]

Originally Posted by vitalsigns

They helped you because they needed you. They needed you - you got permanent residency. They needed you - the USCIS issued permanent residency to you.

So, I think you understood why USCIS iussed LPR status. It has a certain purpose and that is providing GC to an immigrant worker so that an American employer can be helped. If someone never intended to "help" that specific American employer, he should not be obtain that specific GC (immigration benefit for certain purpose). This is where "intent" come to picture.

Originally Posted by vitalsigns

TThe instance you got the GC there came privileges/advantages.

And that privilege is getting immigration benefit so that it fulfills the purpose of that immigration benefit. And not having "intent" just defeats the purpose of that immigration benefit.

Originally Posted by vitalsigns

I do not undermine intent. I believe intent is valid but it has little value once you became a PR.

Well, first of all, how do you measure or determine how much value it has? There is no "little value" here. Either it has to be "with value" or "no value". If has "no value", then there is no intent required in GC process. If it has a "value" (no matter how "little" it is), then "intent" is required.

Originally Posted by vitalsigns

You are free to leave the sponsor.

Again (as it said many times), you are free to leave sponsor provided you got your GC in good faith. Read RealCanadian's post again.

Originally Posted by vitalsigns

If the USCIS gets on your case for leaving too soon or whatever (which they won't) - chances are they will lose their case.

This is where you are gambling. I am not sure what is the foundation of conclusion "they will lose their case". You are making a very generic comment as if it is going to apply in every case. Each case is different. But I would give you credit that atleast you uttered the word "chances". My argument is "why taking chance when you have option".

[vitalsigns]

Originally Posted by pralay

So, I think you understood why USCIS iussed LPR status. It has a certain purpose and that is providing GC to an immigrant worker so that an American employer can be helped. If someone never intended to "help" that specific American employer, he should not be obtain that specific GC (immigration benefit for certain purpose). This is where "intent" come to picture.

You see I cannot even agree with the concept of "proving the intent" the way you understand it. I do not have to prove anything to anybody. In most immigrants' instances, they were hired by the employers because the employers needed them. The whole thing was based on a contract not on some make-believe intent. When I use the word intent on here I mean: a person had the intent to work because he was hired, because he was paied money, because he was sticking to the contract. The intent doesn't presuppose some super loyalty, that I feel most of you imply when you use the word intent. And sure, to answer the RealCanadian question what I would say during the interview with an imm. officer, I would say: "Yes, I have all the intention to work for the company." And it would be true, but not because of some loyalty but because of the CONTRACT.
But once the GC is granted you can: 1. Stick with the company because you like to work there. 2. You can leave and do whatever you want because you have different privileges now as a PR. You contract is not binding.

May I ask you a question? Why do you think it is bad/illegal to leave the employer whenever one wishes? Where did you even get this concept from at all? Just because it feels bad and unjust toward the employer?

And that privilege is getting immigration benefit so that it fulfills the purpose of that immigration benefit. And not having "intent" just defeats the purpose of that immigration benefit.

So leaving after 6 months doesn't defeat the purpose, leaving after three months does? I see how you are.

Again (as it said many times), you are free to leave sponsor provided you got your GC in good faith. Read RealCanadian's post again.

Here you say I can leave any time I want....

This is where you are gambling. I am not sure what is the foundation of conclusion "they will lose their case". You are making a very generic comment as if it is going to apply in every case. Each case is different. But I would give you credit that atleast you uttered the word "chances". My argument is "why taking chance when you have option".

And here you imply the opposte.

[pralay]

Originally Posted by vitalsigns

When I use the word intent on here I mean: a person had the intent to work because he was hired, because he was paied money, because he was sticking to the contract.

Again you are mixing GC with temp job position. Before GC approval the person is paid for temp job position. Threfore, your argument is irrelvent in this issue. Technically, person is not hired for GC job position unless USCIS granted GC. You whole arugument is like a catch-22. Are you mixing up these two totally different issues (future job position and temp job position in visa) for the sake of argument? Or you just don't see any difference at all?

Originally Posted by vitalsigns

The intent doesn't presuppose some super loyalty, that I feel most of you imply when you use the word intent.

Nobody is said it's about loyalty. It's about getting GC in good faith. If you can show that you got GC is good faith (having intent to working for GC sponsor), you are not required to show any loyalty. Why are you keep repeating the same thing again and again? It's not about timeframe, therefore it's not about loyalty (or "super loyalty").

Originally Posted by vitalsigns

And sure, to answer the RealCanadian question what I would say during the interview with an imm. officer, I would say: "Yes, I have all the intention to work for the company." And it would be true, but not because of some loyalty but because of the CONTRACT. But once the GC is granted you can: 1. Stick with the company because you like to work there.

So if you say, "I have intention to work for the company" and then don't work, how are going to prove that you had intent? Give me some example. "I had intent because I say so" - is this your logic?

Read RealCanadian's post again, especially "what changed" question. Unless you understand his post, there is no point of going forward in discussion. Again, it's not about "loyalty", but about "intent". No matter how many ways you redefine "intent" (like "slavery", "super loyalty"), it does not change basic premise of EB GC. Intent is intent. It's not slavery, it's not loyalty.

Originally Posted by vitalsigns

May I ask you a question? Why do you think it is bad/illegal to leave the employer whenever one wishes? Where did you even get this concept from at all? Just because it feels bad and unjust toward the employer?

May I ask you a question? Did you find find any post where I said so (like bad/illegal)? I said as long as you can prove your intent, you are fine. Working for GC sponsor is just one of the ways (not only one) to show that intent. There could be other ways too and it depends on each individual case.

Originally Posted by vitalsigns

So leaving after 6 months doesn't defeat the purpose, leaving after three months does? I see how you are.

Did I say that person need to stick with 6 months? Didn't I say that every case is different? Didn't I say that GC is about intent and not about timeframe? Didn't I say that that 6 month concept is nothig but a thumb rule recommanded by lawyers to pacify people leaving job immediately after getting GC (so that they don't come to USCIS radar)? Keep repeating same question again and again is neither an argument nor a discussion. I see how you are.

To be frank, I failed to understand why are you brining this argument at the very same point again and again. Is it too hard to read older posts?

Originally Posted by vitalsigns

Here you say I can leave any time I want....

I never said otherwise. If you leave your GC sponsor anytime provided you can show that you obtained GC in good faith. Again, I would suggest you to read RealCanadian's post again.

[TheRealCanadian]

One other addition I should make to my post if it wasn't already clear is that as **** and pralay have correctly mentioned intent is the key, not necessarily longevity at the sponsored job. The reason why we discuss sticking around, 30/60/90 days, six months or a year is that one of the best ways of proving intent is to actually stay at the sponsored job for a while. It's not necessarily the only way.

A similar analagy is ability to pay the proferred wage at the I-140 stage. If the employer is already paying the LC wage, it is automatically assumed to have the ability to pay - but the converse is not true; there are ways to prove ability to pay even if the LC wage is not being paid yet.

Therefore, you can leave your sponsor early, provided you have some other means of proving your good faith intent. I know an individual who did a consular interview at Chennai back in April of 2001 who got caught in the dotcom bust literally one week later. He's exceptionally lucky (not least because CP has no AC21 protections and if his interview was one month later he would have been screwed with a capital S).

From a documentary perspective, simply hanging around at an employer for a few months is the simplest and easiest, much like at the I-140 stage I suggest that one should always try to be making the LC wage. But in both situations, the simplest and easiest mechanism is not the ONLY mechanism, and it's important to remember that.

Where people run into trouble is that they assume that they can walk away the day after the GC for any reason. In such a situation, USCIS could legitimately question their intent.

[vitalsigns]

Originally Posted by pralay

If you leave your GC sponsor anytime [B]provided you can show that you obtained GC in good faith.

Every single person can. And because they can the whole discussion is an excercise in futility.

------

RealCanadian, you should participate on here more. You know more than probably most of the immigrants on here do when it comes to the legal side of imm. issues, yet you keep quiet most of the time.

[pralay]

Originally Posted by vitalsigns

Every single person can. And because they can the whole discussion is an excercise in futility.

How? Unless you can provide guideline/idea that covers "every single person", your argument is futile. If you have an idea that covers "every single person" (I doubt), that got to be extraordinary. As I said before, every case is different. Even 6 month or 3-60-90 days thumb rules may not cover "every single person".

[vitalsigns]

Originally Posted by pralay

How? Unless you can provide guideline/idea that covers "every single person", your argument is futile. If you have an idea that covers "every single person" (I doubt), that got to be extraordinary. As I said before, every case is different. Even 6 month or 3-60-90 days thumb rules may not cover "every single person".

Pralay, again I want to challenge you too. Provide me with an information that supports the ideas you are defending on this site.

What's the point of me listing what the authority on this issue says? You will say: "Bah, they are nothing, I would never listen to them if I were you!"

But here it is again, just in case. Sorry for redundancy, but I have to point this out again, because it seems like NOBODY refers to this one anymore:

http://uscis.gov/graphics/howdoi/PermRes.htm

Some of you came to the United States as immigrants through a relative or through an employer. Some of you came as refugees or were given asylum status. And some of you came through other programs, like the Diversity Visa Lottery. But now that you are Permanent Residents you all share the same status.

And

To be employed in the United States at any legal work of your qualification and choosing.

Were they all like drunk when they came up with this info for their site? Are they trying to mislead immigrants? No.

But who cares! It's just the USCIS site. It is more important what some amatuer forum participants would say.

[pralay]

Originally Posted by vitalsigns

Pralay, again I want to challenge you too. Provide me with an information that supports the ideas you are defending on this site.

Please be clear and specific. What are you disputing? In the last post I did not give any idea, but rather asked about your idea, which you have not provided anyway. Better defend your own argument like "every single person can". Keep in mind, if you think you can prove your intent, it's very likely it applies to only on your case. It may not apply to some other person's case because his/her situation could be totally different from yours.

Originally Posted by vitalsigns

But here it is again, just in case. Sorry for redundancy, but I have to point this out again, because it seems like NOBODY refers to this one anymore:

http://uscis.gov/graphics/howdoi/PermRes.htm

Some of you came to the United States as immigrants through a relative or through an employer. Some of you came as refugees or were given asylum status. And some of you came through other programs, like the Diversity Visa Lottery. But now that you are Permanent Residents you all share the same status.

And

To be employed in the United States at any legal work of your qualification and choosing.

Were they all like drunk when they came up with this info for their site? Are they trying to mislead immigrants?

Again back to basic!

I guess EVERYBODY understood the concept except YOU. And that's why NOBODY refers to this one anymore. Whatever mentioned in USCIS site is valid provided you got GC is good faith.

I am going to provide three links from this very same thread, that answer your above question very clearly. If you understood those posts I don't think you needed to cut-and-paste from USCIS site.

1. Read the analogy of two items A and B. http://boards.immigration.com/showpo...3&postcount=13

2. Read RealCanadian's last post one more time. http://boards.immigration.com/showpo...2&postcount=18 You will get your answer of your question you asked above. Of course you can opt for "legal work of your qualification and choosing", provided you can prove, if required, your intent by other means (again, read RealCanadian post).


3. Very same issue was answered by ****: http://boards.immigration.com/showpo...7&postcount=16.

All these three links I provided is available in this very same thread.

Problem is that you don't engage in any discussion. You ignore any rebuttal of your posts, then just turn around and ask very same question again and again, even though your very same questions were answered many time in many places (that includes your older posts that you deleted already). If these three posts don't answer your above question (I am sure they do), then point out why they don't (or why you disagree). In this thread, first you started comparing intent with slavery, then super loyalty and then you are saying intent has "little value". Then obviously you are not making yourself clear about the difference between GC job position and pre-GC job position (working on H1 or L1 job positions).
Now, guess who is drunk!

[vitalsigns]

Pralay why do you have to resort to this litany of words? I asked you a very concrete question and you refer me to RealCan. and ****. What authority do they represent?

You guys have invented your own world and keep living in it.

[pralay]

Originally Posted by vitalsigns

I asked you a very concrete question and you refer me to RealCan. and ****.

First of all, your question was answered many times. Neither you disagree (therefore you are unable to articulate how and where you disagree) nor can you accept those answers.

Originally Posted by vitalsigns

What authority do they represent?

They don't claim to have authority. But their points are more reasonable than yours. Again, for example, RealCanadian's post, if you don't agree with his argument, just articulate what you don't agree, without questioning his authority.

Originally Posted by vitalsigns

You guys have invented your own world and keep living in it.

No, we did not. In fact, same thing has been said many time by many good immigration lawyers and immigration experts, even before I get to know ABC of American immigration system and laws. If you are saying we are inventing, you are giving too much credit to us. If fact you are the person who is inventing new defintion of "intent" ("slavery", "super loyalty") and trying hard to redefine it.

[vitalsigns]

Originally Posted by pralay

Again you are mixing GC with temp job position. Before GC approval the person is paid for temp job position. Threfore, your argument is irrelvent in this issue. Technically, person is not hired for GC job position unless USCIS granted GC. You whole arugument is like a catch-22. Are you mixing up these two totally different issues (future job position and temp job position in visa) for the sake of argument? Or you just don't see any difference at all?

What are you talking about? Just because somebody else said this it doesn't make it true! You are hired on the basis of your skills/profession and you go through the immigration process on the basis of those skills - it's one big process. Sure you can choose not to adjust your status, but please do not feed me up with this stuff that a green card is for a future job. You can tell it to some guy who stepped in here for a minute, but not to me. I told you, you guys have invented your own world. It's mixed up and confusing.

Nobody is said it's about loyalty. It's about getting GC in good faith. If you can show that you got GC is good faith (having intent to working for GC sponsor), you are not required to show any loyalty. Why are you keep repeating the same thing again and again? It's not about timeframe, therefore it's not about loyalty (or "super loyalty").

Well, if it is just about the good faith intent then the whole thing about proving the intent by sticking to the employer does not hold any water. First off, the green card IS NOT for the future job. It is the final step in the IMMIGRATION process. You do get it through employment, but employment was only the means for obtaining it and not the end in itself. You got the card - you are free to go - the first day, the second day - whatever.

Check out more often the USCIS site and listen less to the so called experts on here. Yeah, sure they give good advice, but it doesn't take a huge brain to go and look up the answer somewhere on the internet. I am not impressed. Anyone can do this.

So if you say, "I have intention to work for the company" and then don't work, how are going to prove that you had intent? Give me some example. "I had intent because I say so" - is this your logic?

Why does that bother you if it doesn't bother anyone else including the immigration authorities? Why PRALAY, why?

Read RealCanadian's post again, especially "what changed" question. Unless you understand his post, there is no point of going forward in discussion. Again, it's not about "loyalty", but about "intent". No matter how many ways you redefine "intent" (like "slavery", "super loyalty"), it does not change basic premise of EB GC. Intent is intent. It's not slavery, it's not loyalty.

Unless you clarify it for me I can't understand anything. Only you can help me. Please, help me.

To be frank, I failed to understand why are you brining this argument at the very same point again and again. Is it too hard to read older posts?

Because I sicerely believe you do not know what you are talking about when it comes to the immigration process. You listen to the wrong people too much and are influenced by them.

I never said otherwise. If you leave your GC sponsor anytime provided you can show that you obtained GC in good faith. Again, I would suggest you to read RealCanadian's post again.

That's precisely my point: I do not have to show/prove anything to anyone. Neither do you or anyone else.

[vitalsigns]

The simple and relevant explanation to everything is here:

http://uscis.gov/graphics/howdoi/ImmStatEmp.htm

But does any of you care???

[pralay]

Originally Posted by vitalsigns

What are you talking about? Just because somebody else said this it doesn't make it true! You are hired on the basis of your skills/profession and you go through the immigration process on the basis of those skills - it's one big process. Sure you can choose not to adjust your status, but please do not feed me up with this stuff that a green card is for a future job.

You are questioning about very basics of GC process. GC is always for future employment. It's amazing that you are still arguing about EB GC process without understanding the very basics. The "immigration process" determines the eligibility of beneficiary (and employer) for future employment. If you do not understand this very simple thing of EB GC, you do not understand anything of EB GC. It's astonishing that it is taking so long for you to understand it.

Originally Posted by vitalsigns

I told you, you guys have invented your own world. It's mixed up and confusing.

You are inventing whole EB GC process. I have to admit that you went to great length to defend your argument that lacks very basic knowledge of EB GC.

Originally Posted by vitalsigns

Well, if it is just about the good faith intent then the whole thing about proving the intent by sticking to the employer does not hold any water.

Explain why it does not hold water. Read RealCanadian's post again. Sometimes (not always) "intent" is determined by "actions". Action of working for company X can be assumed that the person "intended" to work for company X. You keep referring James Eiss's article in your signature but it seems you could not understand that article (and that includes the title of the article).

Originally Posted by vitalsigns

First off, the green card IS NOT for the future job.

It is. Ask any immigration lawyers, immigration expert and USCIS. I bet you won't get any answer that support your argument. EB GC is always for future or prospective employment.

Rest of your argument is based on the premise that GC is NOT for future employment. Therefore I am not replying rest of the post. Once you understand that GC is for future employment, rest of your argument will collapse automatically.

BTW, let us know if you find any law/article that say GC is for "something else" (not for future employment). I am referring it "something else" because you did not define what is it.

As you are the first person to claim that GC is not for future employment, do yourself a favor. Support your claim with some substance.

[pralay]

Originally Posted by vitalsigns

The simple and relevant explanation to everything is here:

http://uscis.gov/graphics/howdoi/ImmStatEmp.htm

But does any of you care???

As you referring USCIS site I wish you did more mouse-clicking on all the links and try to understand and therefore satisfy your "curious mind". Here, one more page from USCIS site (has link from the very page link you posted).

http://uscis.gov/graphics/services/r...employment.htm

If you want to become an immigrant based on the fact that you have a permanent employment opportunity in the United States, or if you are an employer that wants to sponsor someone for lawful permanent residency based on permanent employment in the United States, you must go through a multi-step process.

What does it say? You CANNOT make "permanent employment opportunity in the United States" available for you unless EB GC is granted for you (after multi-step immigration process). Note the word "opportunity". It did not say "you have a/an (current) employment" or "you are (currently) employed". That's where the word "future employment" comes to picture. Keep in mind, unless you are granted GC (after multi-step process), you are not an immigrant, but non-immigrant working on temporary working visa.

Also, don't forget to read AC21 memo (I provided this link to you before):
http://uscis.gov/graphics/lawsregs/h...ntrm051205.pdf

Question 10. Should service centers or district offices deny portability cases on the sole basis that the alien has left his or her employment with the I-140 petitioner prior to the I-485 application pending for 180 days?

Answer: No. The basis for adjustment is not actual (current) employment but prospective employment. Since there is no requirement that the alien have ever been employed by the petitioner while the I-140 and/or I-485 was pending, the fact that an alien left the I-140 petitioner before the I-485 has been pending 180 days will not necessarily render the alien ineligible to port. However, in all cases an offer of employment must have been bona fide. This means that, as of the time the I-140 was filed and at the time of filing the I-485 if not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have had the intent to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to undertake the employment, upon adjustment. Adjudicators should not presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate.

These just two piece of documents that immediately came to my mind (actually one, because you yourself provided link to first one). If you spend just 15 minute to do a google search, you will find ample documents that will contradict your argument (GC is NOT for future employment).

Sometimes law are like puzzles where you need to understand the totality (or the whole concept and purpose) and piece them together in your mind. I don't think you are doing it. Instead of giving some effort to understand EB GC process, you are trying hard to defend your pre-conceived idea (conceived before proper understanding). The link you provided to defend your argument is an good example. That link does not support your argument anyway. It's irrelevent.

[pralay]

Originally Posted by vitalsigns

Check out more often the USCIS site and listen less to the so called experts on here. Yeah, sure they give good advice, but it doesn't take a huge brain to go and look up the answer somewhere on the internet. I am not impressed. Anyone can do this.

In earlier post, I provided only two links - both from USCIS site. It seems you failed to read those documents or could not grasp the meaning. You yourself are not practicing what you preach. My advise to you - "check out more often USCIS site".

Seaching in internet? I am sure anyone can do it. But I am puzzled why you are not able to do it. It does not take huge brain, right?

[vitalsigns]

Let me throw it back at you:

Question 10. Should service centers or district offices deny portability cases on the sole basis that the alien has left his or her employment with the I-140 petitioner prior to the I-485 application pending for 180 days?

Answer: No. The basis for adjustment is not actual (current) employment but prospective employment. Since there is no requirement that the alien have ever been employed by the petitioner while the I-140 and/or I-485 was pending, the fact that an alien left the I-140 petitioner before the I-485 has been pending 180 days will not necessarily render the alien ineligible to port. However, in all cases an offer of employment must have been bona fide. This means that, as of the time the I-140 was filed and at the time of filing the I-485 if not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have had the intent to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to undertake the employment, upon adjustment. Adjudicators should not presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate.

Look carefully. First the intent to work is required/expected at the time of filing of I-140 and I-485. It doesn't say that intent sould be present after I-485 is approved. This is #1
#2 Even adjudicators should not presume there was no intent in legitimate cases. They should look at the evidence and documents and not use a notion "I feel you had no intent to work". Presume means: accept without verification or proof - which I have been telling you all along.

[vitalsigns]

Originally Posted by pralay

Rest of your argument is based on the premise that GC is NOT for future employment. Therefore I am not replying rest of the post. Once you understand that GC is for future employment, rest of your argument will collapse automatically.

BTW, let us know if you find any law/article that say GC is for "something else" (not for future employment). I am referring it "something else" because you did not define what is it.

As you are the first person to claim that GC is not for future employment, do yourself a favor. Support your claim with some substance.

If referring to the USCIS is not enough proof to you - nothing else will suffice. The GC is for a future job - if it is ANY job. That's what the USCIS site says. You cannot move around and live anywhere in the US until you are free to get a job anywhere you want. You cannot have the same rights as a US citizen unless you are free. The USCIS cannot contradict itself.

Intent after I-485 approval has little/no value as I said before. Deep inside, I believe, even you Pralay, know this. And the RealCan. knows it.

[pralay]

Originally Posted by vitalsigns

Let me throw it back at you:

Question 10. Should service centers or district offices deny portability cases on the sole basis that the alien has left his or her employment with the I-140 petitioner prior to the I-485 application pending for 180 days?

Answer: No. The basis for adjustment is not actual (current) employment but prospective employment. Since there is no requirement that the alien have ever been employed by the petitioner while the I-140 and/or I-485 was pending, the fact that an alien left the I-140 petitioner before the I-485 has been pending 180 days will not necessarily render the alien ineligible to port. However, in all cases an offer of employment must have been bona fide. This means that, as of the time the I-140 was filed and at the time of filing the I-485 if not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have had the intent to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to undertake the employment, upon adjustment. Adjudicators should not presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate.

Look carefully. First the intent to work is required/expected at the time of filing of I-140 and I-485. It doesn't say that intent sould be present after I-485 is approved. This is #1

First you did not throw anything back.

1. You could not defend your argument that GC is NOT for future employment. (the very reason I quoted AC21 memo). The USCIS document clearly says "alien must have intended to undertake the employment, upon adjustment.". The keyword is "upon adjustment" (not before).

2. The document says that intent is required at the time of filing I-140/I-485. But it did not say that intent is required only at the time of filing (and not required after filing). The basic presumption is that if someone filed I-485, he had intent at the time of I-485 filing (and I-485 application is the prima facie evidence of his intent). However, it does not imply that the person does not need to have intent after I-485 filing. If I say I eat chicken that does not imply I don't eat beef. The beneficiary has to takeup the future employment "upon adjustment". In fact, if intent is required only at the time of filing I-140/I-485 and not required after that, it would defeat the very purpose of AC21 that requires atleast 180 days of waiting. People could invoke AC21 immediately after filing I-485. You forgot the fact that this memo is about AC21. AC21 does not contradict the basic premise of EB GC (that GC is for future employment), but your argument does.

Originally Posted by vitalsigns

#2 Even adjudicators should not presume there was no intent in legitimate cases. Presume means: accept without verification or proof - which I have been telling you all along.

You are so great! You are cherry-picking words and lines to make your point. Why did you ignore rest of the line that says "but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate"? "Additional evidence or investigation" - does it mean "accept without verification or proof" to you?

Secondly, do you know the meaning of "prima facie"? I-485 application is just a "prima facie evidence" (as the document says). But that does not mean it is not going to be verified.

So, "look carefully". Don't miss words and read the complete sentence.

Just let me describe you what is this Q&A all about. It says that just because the person X left his GC sponsor (or lost GC sponsor offer) before 180 days that does not automatically mean that peson did not have intent (or GC sponsor did not have intent to employ). But rather this memo advises adjucators that they should review I-485 with open-mind without prejudice (just because person X left before 180 days) by taking his I-485 application as "prima facie evidence of such intent". But this memo also says that in some cases "additional evidence or investigation" may be required. Therefore, just "prima facie" evidence is not enough.
There is a little history behind this memo. It dot com bust period, people lost their job even before 180 days. AC21 provided opportunity for them to get their I-485 adjucated.

[pralay]

Originally Posted by vitalsigns

If referring to the USCIS is not enough proof to you - nothing else will suffice.

And I quoted from USCIS site that precisely contradicts your argument. If that does not convince you, nothing will be suffice.

BTW, I am yet to get an USCIS website link from you that says GC is NOT for future employment (or any other article/guideline for that matter). Please help me with your "huge brain".

Originally Posted by vitalsigns

The GC is for a future job - if it is ANY job.

Wow! Just yesterday you said "first off, the green card IS NOT for the future job". Now, you are turning around 360 degrees and saying GC is for future job - but it's for "ANY job". What is the basis for your argument? "ANY" page/article/guideline in USCIS site?

Originally Posted by vitalsigns

That's what the USCIS site says.

USCIS does not say that. That specific link in USCIS site you provided does not address "intent". So, if you try to extract the meaning and validity of intent from that specific page, you are trying learn physics by reading peotry book. If you want to know what is physics, you have to read a book that addresses the concept of physics.

This is the main problem I see with you. You quote unrelated topic to support your argument.

Originally Posted by vitalsigns

You cannot move around and live anywhere in the US until you are free to get a job anywhere you want.

Nobody disputed that. Is it answered many time - in this very thread. A person can "move around" everyday and still can prove his intent (but that does not mean everybody can prove it).

Originally Posted by vitalsigns

Intent after I-485 approval has little/no value as I said before.

"Little value" or "no value", which one?

Secondly, your argument "intent after I-485 approval" an off-topic here. You are unable to understand a subtle difference. Intent is required at the time when GC is granted. You can leave your job very next day ("after I-485 approval") provided you can prove that you accepted GC in good faith when it was granted. Nobody said you need to have "intent after I-485 approval". But you do need to have "intent" when you obtained/accepted your GC.

But, off course, in that kind of scenario (when you left your job very next day after I-485 approval), you need to figure out how to prove your intent. But again, try to understand the difference. If you got to GC on January 1st and left your job on January 2nd. If you are asked, you have to prove that you had "intent" on January 1st (not January 2nd). That's why I said that your "intent after I-485 approval" is an off-topic.

Originally Posted by vitalsigns

Deep inside, I believe, even you Pralay, know this. And the RealCan. knows it.

The law says that intent is required (even if it has "little value" - for the sake of argument). That's what I believe - deep inside. Clear enough?

I also believe that you are not going to agree with anyone who contradicts you and shows what is wrong in your argument. You don't want to knock down your pre-conceived wrong idea about EB GC. Therefore, you will try to defend your position by any means - and that includes quoting irrelevent documents and cherry-picking words/lines. However, I also believe that believing something based on just emotion is absolutely fine (no matter how wrong it is). But trying defend it in a twisted fashion makes it objectionable (in a public forum).