All,
Thanks for United's continued advise.
I had a question about informing INS proactively about switching to a new employer using AC21 (same job cateory, I485 pending more than 180 days) and there was some concern whether this was expected or required.
Here is a reference from an old post on murthy's website that may be useful.
Quote
Question 10 : How do I exercise the portability provisions? What do I
> actually have to do? TOP
>
> AC21 does not state that notification to INS is required. The current
INS
> guidance on the issue says that it is "expected" that a letter will
be sent
> to INS. There is also no particular format for sending a letter
advising of
> the change in jobs.
>
>
>
> Lawyers may propose a variety of approaches in these circumstances.
Often
> INS sends a Request for Evidence (RFE) as a routine part of the case,
prior
> to final decision. The RFE may ask for updated employment
information,
> including an employer letter and possibly pay stubs. It would be
sufficient
> to inform the INS at that point of the new employment offer.
Submitting
> information in response to an RFE rather than sending it unsolicited
has the
> advantage that the RFE contains a tracking bar code to ensure that
the
> information is placed into the file. Information submitted without an
RFE
> often receives low priority at the Service Center and may languish in
a pile
> of unsorted correspondence for several months or longer.
>
> Still, it may make sense to send in the information after the 180-day
point
> even if INS has not issued an RFE. That way, in the event INS does
not send
> an RFE, the applicant can be sure that the information was provided
prior to
> the approval of the case. This method may avoid confusion as to
exactly
> which employment offer formed the basis of the approval. Of course,
delays
> in matching up routine mail with a particular file may lead to the
issuance
> of an RFE, regardless. In this case the information must be provided
again.
>
> Disclaimer : It is important to reiterate that there is a caveat to
the
> responses to these FAQs: none of the present INS interpretations is
binding
> on the agency when they finally issue regulations, although one may
be
> protected for a reasonable and good-faith interpretation of the law.
> However, what is reasonable and in good faith is a matter of
interpretation.
> Additionally, there is always the risk with portability that if INS
approves
> or adjudicates the case within 180 days or less, the person would be
> required to work for the GC sponsor and could not benefit from the
liberal
> language of AC21.
>
> We will continue to follow developments in the interpretation and
> implementation of AC21, as we realize that it affects many of our
clients
> and readers who are directly impacted by this important law, which
has
> changed the face of U.S. employment-based immigration law.
>
UNQUOTE...
> "
Thanks for United's continued advise.
I had a question about informing INS proactively about switching to a new employer using AC21 (same job cateory, I485 pending more than 180 days) and there was some concern whether this was expected or required.
Here is a reference from an old post on murthy's website that may be useful.
Quote
Question 10 : How do I exercise the portability provisions? What do I
> actually have to do? TOP
>
> AC21 does not state that notification to INS is required. The current
INS
> guidance on the issue says that it is "expected" that a letter will
be sent
> to INS. There is also no particular format for sending a letter
advising of
> the change in jobs.
>
>
>
> Lawyers may propose a variety of approaches in these circumstances.
Often
> INS sends a Request for Evidence (RFE) as a routine part of the case,
prior
> to final decision. The RFE may ask for updated employment
information,
> including an employer letter and possibly pay stubs. It would be
sufficient
> to inform the INS at that point of the new employment offer.
Submitting
> information in response to an RFE rather than sending it unsolicited
has the
> advantage that the RFE contains a tracking bar code to ensure that
the
> information is placed into the file. Information submitted without an
RFE
> often receives low priority at the Service Center and may languish in
a pile
> of unsorted correspondence for several months or longer.
>
> Still, it may make sense to send in the information after the 180-day
point
> even if INS has not issued an RFE. That way, in the event INS does
not send
> an RFE, the applicant can be sure that the information was provided
prior to
> the approval of the case. This method may avoid confusion as to
exactly
> which employment offer formed the basis of the approval. Of course,
delays
> in matching up routine mail with a particular file may lead to the
issuance
> of an RFE, regardless. In this case the information must be provided
again.
>
> Disclaimer : It is important to reiterate that there is a caveat to
the
> responses to these FAQs: none of the present INS interpretations is
binding
> on the agency when they finally issue regulations, although one may
be
> protected for a reasonable and good-faith interpretation of the law.
> However, what is reasonable and in good faith is a matter of
interpretation.
> Additionally, there is always the risk with portability that if INS
approves
> or adjudicates the case within 180 days or less, the person would be
> required to work for the GC sponsor and could not benefit from the
liberal
> language of AC21.
>
> We will continue to follow developments in the interpretation and
> implementation of AC21, as we realize that it affects many of our
clients
> and readers who are directly impacted by this important law, which
has
> changed the face of U.S. employment-based immigration law.
>
UNQUOTE...
> "