Can sponsoring company withdraw approved GC

qwerty987666 said:
Spouse don't need to know any dirt at all. S/he can simply say(or inform CIS) that her/his (ex)husband/wife didn't have intent to work with GC sponsering employer and thats why he left sponsering employer. Thats it. GC revoked. RIGHT?? Thats what is your argument in case of employer informing CIS, then why it doesn't apply for spouse???

If one was an ex-con in his home country and he never told that
to USCIS in applying for visa/GC/citizenship but his wife know it,
the wife can tip USCIS off. USCIS can investigate and contact
with the police of that country, etc.

You can think up many of such scenarios.
 
qwerty987666 said:
Spouse don't need to know any dirt at all. S/he can simply say(or inform CIS) that her/his (ex)husband/wife didn't have intent to work with GC sponsering employer and thats why he left sponsering employer. Thats it. GC revoked. RIGHT?? Thats what is your argument in case of employer informing CIS, then why it doesn't apply for spouse???

Here is a classic case of disgruntled ex-spouse

Iowa State professor's record is subject of probe
Li Cao's academic credentials may be fake, authorities say.

By STACI HUPP
Register Staff Writer
09/30/2002
Ames, Ia. - An Iowa State University professor is under investigation after a complaint that she used fake academic records to study and work in the United States, federal officials said last week.

ISU and other colleges inside and outside Iowa typically scrutinize the transcripts of foreign students who want to enroll, but the schools have no uniform process for checks on faculty. The University of Iowa is weighing stricter faculty background checks for next fall, officials said.

The investigation at ISU involves Li Cao, an assistant mechanical engineering professor. Officials at the Immigration and Naturalization Service want to know whether Cao submitted phony academic transcripts in her application for a visa - essentially a permit to remain in the United States.

No charges have been filed, agents said. Visa fraud carries a penalty of up to five years in prison.

Cao's academic record also has been questioned by the National Science Foundation, a group that awards federal money to universities for fellowships and research in science and engineering. The foundation awarded Cao a $375,000 grant this year for a seven-year research project involving engineering and biotechnology, according to a letter obtained by The Des Moines Register.

The science foundation requested that Cao supply copies of her transcripts, diplomas and other materials from the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, the University of Cincinnati in Ohio and the Beijing Institute of Clothing Technology. Foundation officials also asked for copies of documents she submitted to ISU, the letter shows.

"Certain questions have arisen in regard to your educational background," the letter says.

University of Minnesota officials said Cao received a doctorate in 2000. University of Cincinnati officials would not say whether Cao had received master's and bachelor's degrees there.

Cao referred questions last week to Paul Tanaka, ISU's director of university legal services. Tanaka declined to comment.

Immigration officials said complaints from Cao's husband, a former ISU graduate student, stirred their interest. The science foundation also requested records about Cao from the immigration service, said Estelle Biesemeyer, an immigration agent.

Ziyi Dai, Cao's husband at the time, was arrested last December for attacking his wife with a knife, cutting her fingers, hands and arm. In February, he was accused of planning to kill her. Charges of attempted murder and solicitation to commit murder were dropped when Dai, 29, pleaded guilty to reduced charges. He was sentenced two weeks ago to 15 years in prison.

Dai accuses Cao of setting him up so he wouldn't tell police she faked her way into the United States.

Cao has taught mechanical engineering classes at ISU. Her research has been published in national and international journals, the ISU Web site shows.

Admissions offices at U.S. schools require applications and a stack of academic records from international students.

Universities spend time and money to pinpoint bogus grades, test scores and transcripts from foreign students. Questionable schools and advising agencies have multiplied around the world.

Detectives in Kenya this year arrested 21 people at the Ministry of Education headquarters for their alleged involvement in a scam to sell fake diplomas, the Chronicle of Higher Education reported.

ISU and other schools nab up to 15 phony transcripts from foreign students each year, said Patricia Parker, ISU's assistant director of admissions.

Parker said some agencies overseas are charging universities up to $5 for each background check.

"So far we've gotten away without paying it, but I think it's going to be a bigger problem" in the future, Parker said.

Credentials have been a problem in other recent cases, too.

University of Iowa officials started talking about a procedure for credentials after the University of Notre Dame's football coach quit last winter amid the discovery of false information on his resume, said Lee Anna Clark, the U of I's associate provost for faculty.

ISU, the U of I and other schools have no formal credential review for faculty members. Some schools pay the Educational Credential Evaluators, a nonprofit group in Milwaukee, Wis., to check the credentials of students and faculty. Most requests cost $85.

In February, an ISU assistant football coach acknowledged that he misrepresented in the team's media guide how many academic degrees he had. The coach, Charlie Partridge, indicated in the publication that he had master's degrees from Drake University and ISU. Partridge later acknowledged he was still working toward a master's degree. An ISU journalism class found the inaccuracy as students examined the backgrounds of coaches and university administrators.

A former Cyclone volleyball coach pleaded guilty in August 1999 of lying on her job application. Kerry Miller quit her job the previous spring after it was revealed that parts of her resume, including a claim that she was a University of Arizona graduate, were false.
 
AmericanWannabe said:
If one was an ex-con in his home country and he never told that
to USCIS in applying for visa/GC/citizenship but his wife know it,
the wife can tip USCIS off. USCIS can investigate and contact
with the police of that country, etc.

You can think up many of such scenarios.

Not at all, I am thinking about only one scenerio that is topic of this thread.
If GC holder left sponsering employer soon ,employer can revoke GC informing CIS that GC holder didn't have intent to work with him. In the same way spouse can inform that his/her husband/wife didn't had intent to work with sponsering employer and CIS will REVOKE GC. Do you agree??
 
qwerty987666 said:
Not at all, I am thinking about only one scenerio that is topic of this thread.
If GC holder left sponsering employer soon ,employer can revoke GC informing CIS that GC holder didn't have intent to work with him. In the same way spouse can inform that his/her husband/wife didn't had intent to work with sponsering employer and CIS will REVOKE GC. Do you agree??

The spouse certain does not carry the same weight as the ex-employer
so it is up to USCIS to judge such tipoff. But the sposue can testify
for sure if the investigation starts.
 
I'm sure a lot of fraud reports (both the legitimate and the false ones) to USCIS come from people's disgrunteled ex-spouses, ex-b/fs or g/fs, neighbors, rivals, etc.. in general, people pissed off at someone enough to try to make their life miserable. It's USCIS's job to figure out which of these reports merit an investigation and which are a just an easy means of personal vendetta.
 
AmericanWannabe said:
The spouse certain does not carry the same weight as the ex-employer
so it is up to USCIS to judge such tipoff. But the sposue can testify
for sure if the investigation starts.

Once applicant got GC, its his property, even sponsering employer don't own any piece of that GC. Spouse has more access to know intent of GC holder than anybody else in the world. But you claim employer has more weight than spouse??? Why?? I think spouse carries more weight than anybody else.And if spouse claims that GC holder didn't had intent, thats it, there should not be any argument to it. Unless GC holder can prove that spouse is lying etc as burdon of proof is on GC holder ...RIGHT?
 
AmericanWannabe,

Based on all this discussion, I conclude that as per your logic,if sponserer employer can revoke GC based on GC holders intent (not to work with sponserer after GC), then spouse can also revoke GC as S/he can easily prove that his/her/ wife/husband didn't had intent to work with employer and s/he stayed with employer just for sake of getting GC. And CIS should give equal/or more weight to spouse as spouse can have more indepth knowledge about GC holder's intent than anybody else. Do you agree??
 
Neither the spouse nor the sponsor can revoke PR. They can at worst file a complaint. If decides it’s credible they can choose to initiate an investigation at their discretion. Even then, procedures need to be followed in order for a PR to be revoked. It’s not like getting a visa refusal at an American embassy the consular official can reject it without assigning a cause (or a lame one).

Now in reality, some people have gotten screwed due to say vindictive spouses. An Arab-American was detained as a terror suspect for years. Later it was discovered that an ex-wife filed a complaint to settle an old score. This was interestingly a topic George Bush picked up during the 2000 presidential election. The 9/11 events jolted him back to his right wing stance.

For most of us the question is leaving ones employer. Document, document particularly if you are leaving shortly after getting your PR. After one year for example, the odds of CIS following up a complaint would seem slim (then again I’m not a lawyer).

sadiq
 
sadiq said:
Neither the spouse nor the sponsor can revoke PR. They can at worst file a complaint. If decides it’s credible they can choose to initiate an investigation at their discretion. Even then, procedures need to be followed in order for a PR to be revoked. It’s not like getting a visa refusal at an American embassy the consular official can reject it without assigning a cause (or a lame one).

Now in reality, some people have gotten screwed due to say vindictive spouses. An Arab-American was detained as a terror suspect for years. Later it was discovered that an ex-wife filed a complaint to settle an old score. This was interestingly a topic George Bush picked up during the 2000 presidential election. The 9/11 events jolted him back to his right wing stance.

For most of us the question is leaving ones employer. Document, document particularly if you are leaving shortly after getting your PR. After one year for example, the odds of CIS following up a complaint would seem slim (then again I’m not a lawyer).

sadiq


The q/s is Can employer revoke GC based on intent??

Don't go in any complicated/fraud case, GC holder is doing everything right, with clean background,got GC with TRUE documents which can be proven etc. Only thing that GC holders (ex)spouse wants to put him/her in trouble. Now all he/she needs to do is, go to CIS and tell them that GC holder never had intent to work with sponserer and he worked for them to just get GC and as spouse s/he knows this facts very well with some supporting incidents.

So if you consider employer can revoke(or try to) GC for lack of intent reason then why can't spouse cannot revoke GC based on intent.??
 
qwerty987666 said:
The q/s is Can employer revoke GC based on intent??

Don't go in any complicated/fraud case, GC holder is doing everything right, with clean background,got GC with TRUE documents which can be proven etc. Only thing that GC holders (ex)spouse wants to put him/her in trouble. Now all he/she needs to do is, go to CIS and tell them that GC holder never had intent to work with sponserer and he worked for them to just get GC and as spouse s/he knows this facts very well with some supporting incidents.

So if you consider employer can revoke(or try to) GC for lack of intent reason then why can't spouse cannot revoke GC based on intent.??

I'm not sure if this is true or if there is any official ruling to support this theory, but it's possible that for employment-based GC, only complaints (about intent) from the sponsor/employer will be given weight by USCIS to merit an investigation. For family-based GC, complaints from spouse will be entertained. Something like a process of elimination - to filter out complaints from other parties. Again, this is just a theory.
 
rgeneblazo said:
I'm not sure if this is true or if there is any official ruling to support this theory.

Is there any official ruling that "employer can revoke GC(employment based)"??

rgeneblazo said:
but it's possible that for employment-based GC, only complaints (about intent) from the sponsor/employer will be given weight by USCIS to merit an investigation.

Why? spouse can comment on GC holders intent better than anybody else. Spouse can subtantiate GC holder non-intent with lot of incidents and claim that GC holder never had any intent with evidence which should hold more weight than employer. So why CIS discriminates spouses (if at all they do)? OR "employer can revoke GC is just one more hoax" spread by some extra wise folks around here. :D :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
JoeF said:
Some unrelated jargon.

As usual, misleader is jumping around q/s. Nobody wants to know what CIS does when they revoke GC(Keep that info handy, u might need it with ur attitude :D :D ). Stay away from this thread and let others discuss, alright friend :D :D

Members, read my comments below

rgeneblazo said:
]I'm not sure if this is true or if there is any official ruling to support this theory.

Is there any official ruling that "employer can(try to) revoke GC(employment based)"??

rgeneblazo said:
but it's possible that for employment-based GC, only complaints (about intent) from the sponsor/employer will be given weight by USCIS to merit an investigation.


Why? spouse can comment on GC holders intent better than anybody else. Spouse can subtantiate GC holder non-intent with lot of incidents and claim that GC holder never had any intent with evidence which should hold more weight than employer. So why CIS discriminates spouses (if at all they do)? OR "employer can revoke GC is just one more hoax" spread by some extra wise folks around here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top