AC21 info while stamping

M

mango_pickle

Registered Users (C)
People who went for stamping,

My lawyer didn't tell the INS (file AC21) when I switched jobs, saying that we should reveal when asked. I got ony medical RFE and am approved now. Should I be giving AC21 info to INS at the time of stamping? Will the PP stamp or Green Card (the physical one) have the name of the company who sponsored my PR ?

ANyone who switched jobs but did not inform INS because of no rfe? What did you do at time of stamping ? Reveal or did not reveal ?
 
Stamp does not have the name of the sponsored company. This topic has been discussed but widely disputed. As of I understood no body cared to reveal at the time of stamping.
 
I dont think u should tell them anything about AC21 or job change.


I have heard that u should be with the sponsoring company for atleast 6- 12 months after getting approval. But in your case u have'nt informed the INS about ur job change which means u are working with ur old employer according to INS. Is this ok?

I am not clear on this coz I have a very good job offer but my lawyer either wants me to file for an AC21 right away and switch my job or wait for 6 months with my current employer before I switch.


wac 02 110 53xxx
2nd FP Jan 2004
RFE RD July 28, 2004
 
mango_pickle said:
People who went for stamping,

My lawyer didn't tell the INS (file AC21) when I switched jobs, saying that we should reveal when asked. I got ony medical RFE and am approved now. Should I be giving AC21 info to INS at the time of stamping? Will the PP stamp or Green Card (the physical one) have the name of the company who sponsored my PR ?

ANyone who switched jobs but did not inform INS because of no rfe? What did you do at time of stamping ? Reveal or did not reveal ?
Click to expand...
The stamp or card does not have the sponsor's name.


As it is GC is meant to make you free to work anywhere, Why would they put sponsor's name and make you a slave that you were with H1, then H1 and GC would have no difference.
 
mango_pickle said:
People who went for stamping,

My lawyer didn't tell the INS (file AC21) when I switched jobs, saying that we should reveal when asked. I got ony medical RFE and am approved now. Should I be giving AC21 info to INS at the time of stamping? Will the PP stamp or Green Card (the physical one) have the name of the company who sponsored my PR ?

ANyone who switched jobs but did not inform INS because of no rfe? What did you do at time of stamping ? Reveal or did not reveal ?
Click to expand...
you are not required to inform about job change at the time of stampping or even after that. In the future if CIS brings this up (like at the time applying for citizenship), you can alway prove that you changed the job BEFORE the 485 approval and you would be OK.
 
Do't do it now as u r already approved. If you wanted to use you should hv used while submitting the rfe. If you do it now chances are they might open your file again and reverify you job duties with LCA before they give u stamp . So go with do't ask do't tell mode now as u have done before. I did inform them about my ac21 while replyng to my medical rfe and it took them to approve me in 2 days. but during stamping now i think u should stay put and do't say anything. Rest is up to u.
 
Telling them now will not benefit you in anyway - Don't ask, don't tell.

WAC 03-052-XXXXX
2nd FP: Aug 10
Fax Inquiry: Aug 23
Approved: Aug 24


Fax Away....
 
mango_pickle said:
Curious, just like AR11 is mandatory is informing INS of job change (before GC via AC21) mandatory too ?
Click to expand...
AR11 is not for job change, its for Address Change. And I dont think AC21 letter is mandatory, but CIS expects it, though you can still manage without sending AC21 letter.

When you change job while on H1 you transfer H1 remember :) .
 
rk4gc said:
AR11 is not for job change, its for Address Change. And I dont think AC21 letter is mandatory, but CIS expects it, though you can still manage without sending AC21 letter.

When you change job while on H1 you transfer H1 remember :) .
Click to expand...

I know AR11 is for address change. My question was - Just as informing Address change is mandatory is Informing INS of job change mandatory?

And for H1 transfer we anyway inform INS, since we "TRANSFER" our H1B to the new employer.
 
AC21 is NOT like AR11 for the simple reason that the INS hasn't bothered to put forth final clarifications on the AC21. And going by their current stated position, they consider the AC21 pretty much wasted and useless. With concurrent adjudication and 6 month adjudication being the goal now AC21 is moot.

As far as your personal case is concerned, as mentioned by all the people above, Don't ask, don't tell is a good policy to follow. Once you have your GC, there is no concept of informing INS of anything. If they wanted information, they would have asked for it. If not then that is their problem. You are covered under the law.
 
Hello - I am certainly not as experienced or knowledgeable as some of the folks who have responded to this question, but here is my take anyway.

Following some of the threads of folks who have already received their GC's elsewhere on these boards, I found a raging but interesting debate on the one issue that could affect your situation:

Whether working for the sponsoring company is required, POST GC.

Apparently, the law states (and those who understand this better should correct me if you do not have this right), that one must establish the intent to work at the sponsoring company, post GC.

(This also *appears* an obvious condition to me since that was the basis for approval, and there should be some sort of checks and balances on people who abuse the system using sham fronts).

Although it does not seem that this law is really policed, since technically once you have a GC you should be free to do as you wish, it is something that could come up when applying for your citizenship, or if there is ever any investigation into your case for any reason (e.g. by the FBI if you commited a serious enough offense). Here there are those that feel that the law is ambiguous enough to be explained away should the issue ever come up.

My personal take is that one must try and stay as close to the truth as possible at all times, to prevent any problems from cropping up down the line. Therefore, it surprised me that your lawyer did not file your AC21 papers, especially since you were well within your legal bounds to do so.

Having said that, my personal feeling is that this is not an issue to be brought up at stamping. If you would like to be absolutely safe, you should speak to ANOTHER lawyer, asking him/her to specifically articulate the law that states whether or not one is required to work for the sponsoring company, post GC, and then chart your best course of action accordingly.
 
freeviews,

Just for the sake of an argument, your concept of "intent" is bang on! But where you are mistaken is on two counts:
1. AC21, which precludes "intent" and allows for change in job from sponsoring company,
2. The extra ordinary delays that 02, 03 applicants have faced in their approval process.

Coming back to AC21, as stated in one my earlier posts in this thread, INS HAS NOT yet issued firm guidelines on the interpretation of the law signed over 4 years ago. In cases such as this, when taken to court in front of a judge, the ruling has ALWAYS erred on the part of the innocent applicant who has suffered due to inefficiency and incompetence of the government body. The reasoning being thus: If the govt body had made its ruling clear from the start there would be no ambiguity, if the ruling is not clear then why hold someone responsible for its interpretation.

AC21 DOES NOT require compulsory filing like AR11, due to a lack of clear ruling, the applicant and his/her lawyer is free to interpret this in any way they desire. So I don't see any issue with 'intent' as far as not reporting AC21 is concerned.
 
140, hi,

If intent to work at the sponsoring company, post GC, is important to establish, and if one *has* indeed changed jobs prior to GC approval, having an AC21 is a convenient mechanism to establish intent - Hey, I legally changed jobs in the same profession/job description at the time of approval and continued to work for the new company for x months.

Once again there are two boistrous sides to the debate of how important establishing this intent POST GC really is - one side has even suggested that six months is a good rule of thumb, and the other has stated that it doesnt matter who you work for, the law is just not that clear. If they object in 5 years when you apply for citizenship (if that is what one plans to do), an explanation would be easy.

I would be interested to hear your opinion on this debate.
 
freeviews,

We are veering away from the discussion at hand, and I have commented extensively in the past upon the topic you posed. But once again briefly:
1. Despite my seemingly liberal attitude towards AC21, I am extremely conservative as far as INS is concerned.
2. Going by 1. above, IMHO, changing jobs pre approval and post approval are two completely different animals.
3. With change in job pre approval, you have the good old AC21 which is ambigious enough to let you get away with any interpretation, BUT post approval job changes have no such ambiguity that they can lean on. The concept here is 'intent' and a person's definition of it.

The old theory used to be that intent is proved by 6-12 months of continuation with the sponsor, the new conservative theory is 3-6 months. Personally I buy into this mainly because it fits into the argument that, if for pre GC approval you have AC21, how come similar rules don't apply to post approval cases? If you draw an analogy, with AC21 you can change jobs 6 months after staying with the sponsoring company. So for all PRACTICAL reasons 6 months is enough to prove intent. Extrapolating from that the 6 month barrier should be good enough for post GC approval as well precluding the presence of a law.

Now the liberal thought process is why wait? To which there is no firm answer as to why not! But you must remember laws are ALWAYS ALWAYS open to interpretation. AR11 being filed was compulsory 10 years ago, and it is compulsory now, but 10 years ago if you asked someone what AR11 was they would have laughed at you. If you actually happened to send one in, INS would have filed it in the dust bin, but then 9/11 happened. And things changed. Similarly, you never know what will change in the future when the time comes for your citizenship interview. So it is best to err on the side of caution, with strong arguments to back up your case to prove 'intent'! Hope I have made my thought process clear.

Appologies to Mango_pickle for destroying her thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top