Changing Employer before 6 Months (After GC Stamping)

[boggavarapu]

I would like to hear from anyone who changed their employer before 6 months (after GC Stamping) - any repercussions either from the sponsoring employer (or any complications at the stage of citizenship application for naturalisation)

I would appreciate any views or comments.

Thanks.

 

[qwerty987666]

I would like to hear from anyone who changed their employer before 6 months (after GC Stamping) - any repercussions either from the sponsoring employer (or any complications at the stage of citizenship application for naturalisation)

I would appreciate any views or comments.

Thanks.

Very good q/s. Everybody share your thoughts and experiences.
My view is, "its gray area, should be OK, but consult lawyer/s before making decesion". See expert comments from Rajiv at http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=154533 who echos same opinion.

Everybody (especially seniors) come and voice your opinions ( only once please).

 

[dsatish]

There is no requirement in the law that you have to work for a certain period for your sponsoring company (previously there used to be a 2 year requirement but it was removed later). Also the law says that Green Card holder has freedom to choose his job. So you can change job when ever you want. I changed my job 3.5 months after getting my GC.
Don't care about any cautious advise you see from any one. I have personally spoken to Rajiv Khanna on this issue (before changing my job) and i didn't hear any scary thing from him.

 

[jk_r]

changing jobs

Worked with same employer for 5 years and got GC. After GC employer did not pay the LC stated salary. Deciding to quit and take a new job 2 months after GC. Will it be a problem?

 

[pralay]

Worked with same employer for 5 years and got GC.

Working with the GC sponsorer before GC approval does not count on your GC job position (future employment). Because you worked on temporary visa/work permit (H1/L1/EAD) and they have nothing to with your GC. It's possible that if a person, who is working with GC sponsorer last 25 years in various non-immigrant visas, leaves his GC sponsorer on the very day of his GC approval, can land in trouble.

After GC employer did not pay the LC stated salary. Deciding to quit and take a new job 2 months after GC. Will it be a problem?

If not getting LC salary is the reason for quitting (and it's a valid reason), then request your LC salary to your employer in writing. Keep a copy of it with you. If they don't agree, don't hesitate to quit.

 

[qwerty987666]

Working with the GC sponsorer before GC approval does not count on your GC job position (future employment). Because you worked on temporary visa/work permit (H1/L1/EAD) and they have nothing to with your GC. It's possible that if a person, who is working with GC sponsorer last 25 years in various non-immigrant visas, leaves his GC sponsorer on the very day of his GC approval, can land in trouble..

You TOOO. You use to have moderate view before , now seems to be extremist. I don't blame you, its classic example of how hammering same stuff again and again affects mind.

If you are right, then CIS(or whoever makes those laws) must be stupid to allow job change after 6 months of 485 process with AC-21 rule. CIS has made AC-21 rule, because there is long delay for 485 process and CIS wants to fair with applicant who stuck up with same JOB because of 485 processing delays.

With Strict interpretance, permanent means life long. Is there any CIS regulation to think otherwise?? NO, but still Rajiv thinks thats unreasonable... RIGHT. So though there is no formal regulation, after AC-21, changing Job could be OK, regulation could be on the way. Does it mean that "change job on the same day you got GC, NO", its just means you could change job after some time after getting GC... How much is that time?? everybody has to decide on their own until CIS issues some regulation.

If not getting LC salary is the reason for quitting (and it's a valid reason), then request your LC salary to your employer in writing. Keep a copy of it with you. If they don't agree, don't hesitate to quit.

How you are so much sure about it? Is there any CIS regulation or guidance on it? If YES , please post it. My argument is, for GC application, applicant and employer are both "parties" from CIS point of view. If one them, don't have good intent( in above case "Employer"), whole GC process should be fradulent?? Then it could either from applicant or employer?? Doesn't it?? Unless you have some CIS regulation to prove otherwise....

Do you know what, all this bambarded postings are postings of Convenience...
e.g.

1) Employer don't have intent to employ you after GC, thats OK but applicant should have intent?? Why?? just convenient to think
2) with AC-21, applicant change sponserer? Why?? just convenient to think.
3) You have to stay for 6 months with employer after GC..Why?? just convenient to think.

If somebody thinks like that, good for him, but don't force on others by posting same message 1000 times.

pralay and others(No JoeF, we know enough from you, unless you have NEW to contribute), post your arguments

 

[qwerty987666]

attempt to hijack thread

You have nothing to contribute, SHUT UP.

Moderator stop being DUMB and ACT now.

Pralay and other seniors( No JoeF) , post your response.

 

[qwerty987666]

Never ever document that after GC, your employer is not paying you as promised on GC or whatever such that. And if at all you document it, keep those docs for youself, don't show it to CIS. If you show it to CIS, you simply asking for trouble yourself, it means that you are proving that your GC has been approved based on fradulent intent of your employer.

From CIS point of view, intent has to be from both side , applicant and employer and you show on urself that employer is not willing to pay you as promised in GC application, it means employers has fradulent intent in your GC application. period. You just dig the pit for yourself

Some members on this forum just jump on everything and gives misadvice again and again on this issue. Take advice of your lawyer

 

[qwerty987666]

A person can only lose the GC if the person committed fraud... INA 212...
"(i) In general.-Any alien who, by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact, seeks to procure (or has sought to procure or has procured) a visa, other documentation, or admission into the United States or other benefit provided under this Act is inadmissible."

Again shows incapability to understand LAWS. You just don't stop to screw others?? don't you??

Read highlighted words from your quote, whats it say, it says that if documents provided for GC application are fradulent (misrepreseted), GC can be revoked. And when applicant shows that his employer don't pays his labor salary (which employer agreed on his LC/GC application), that document becomes misrepreseted.. And it means 485 application is based on fradulent information. And his GC can be revoked regardless when and why applicant has left job.

Does this stuff hard to understand , I bet not, Get your schooling done dude.

Members , don't fall this misadvices/misleading. JoeF has nothing to loose(he might earn some commision from other Law firms for promotion), its all YOU who will get SCREWED UP

 

[qwerty987666]

Lossers grumblin, No argument left

Oh oh, no argument left , pathetic looser..... Stop screwing members on this forum . Members,Beaware, JoeF has some personal agend to screw up member's immigration process and promote other law firms.

Read my comments for documenting evidence while leaving employer

Never ever document that after GC, your employer is not paying you as promised on GC or whatever such that. And if at all you document it, keep those docs for youself, don't show it to CIS. If you show it to CIS, you simply asking for trouble yourself, it means that you are proving that your GC has been approved based on fradulent intent of your employer.

From CIS point of view, intent has to be from both side , applicant and employer and you show on urself that employer is not willing to pay you as promised in GC application, it means employers has fradulent intent in your GC application. period. You just dig the pit for yourself

Some members on this forum just jump on everything and gives misadvice again and again on this issue. Take advice of your lawyer

 

[qwerty987666]

More attempt to mislead members

You quote law but don't understand it or just want to misrepresent for screwing up members. But you forgot,when God makes idiots like you, he also make wise guy like me. Your time is UP, no more SCREWING UP members anymore. Come straight and accept your wrongdoing.

Read it again

Never ever document that after GC, your employer is not paying you as promised on GC or whatever such that. And if at all you document it, keep those docs for youself, don't show it to CIS. If you show it to CIS, you simply asking for trouble yourself, it means that you are proving that your GC has been approved based on fradulent intent of your employer.

From CIS point of view, intent has to be from both side , applicant and employer and you show on urself that employer is not willing to pay you as promised in GC application, it means employers has fradulent intent in your GC application. period. You just dig the pit for yourself

 

[qwerty987666]

Same grumblings from pathetic looser
..

Oh oh, JoeF is scared because he has been proven wrong so many times. And his misleadings are no more working. JoeF is not just wrong but has fallacy in his intension.,and that is to SCREW UP members. Thats it. But you forgot, every wrongdoing gets its END.


What part of that law tells you that if applicant has provided false document while applying 485, his GC will not be revoked???. Its you putting members in dangers by advicing to show such documents to CIS that CIS will raise doubt on employers intention to really offer employment to applicant and might revoke their GC.

Read my advice

Never ever document that after GC, your employer is not paying you as promised on GC or whatever such that. And if at all you document it, keep those docs for youself, don't show it to CIS. If you show it to CIS, you simply asking for trouble yourself, it means that you are proving that your GC has been approved based on fradulent intent of your employer.

From CIS point of view, intent has to be from both side , applicant and employer and you show on urself that employer is not willing to pay you as promised in GC application, it means employers has fradulent intent in your GC application. period. You just dig the pit for yourself

 

[qwerty987666]

Geez, what part of "by fraud or willfully misrepresenting" don't you understand???
Let me repeat the law again for you:
"(i) In general.-Any alien who, by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact, seeks to procure (or has sought to procure or has procured) a visa, other documentation, or admission into the United States or other benefit provided under this Act is inadmissible."

You just proved yourself WRONG. See hightlighted text from your quotes, when employer don't pays you salary as specified in labor, it means "fraud and willfully misrepresting" documents of supporting GC application. Its you putting members in dangers by advicing to show such documents to CIS that CIS will raise doubt on employers intention to really offer employment to applicant and might revoke their GC.

But JoeF, no more misleadings, time to Give UP misadvice.Everybody knows fallacy in your false posting of propoganda misleadings.And don't get scared, accepting LIES/Wrongdoings might clean some of your sin.

Read my advice

Never ever document that after GC, your employer is not paying you as promised on GC or whatever such that. And if at all you document it, keep those docs for youself, don't show it to CIS. If you show it to CIS, you simply asking for trouble yourself, it means that you are proving that your GC has been approved based on fradulent intent of your employer.

From CIS point of view, intent has to be from both side , applicant and employer and you show on urself that employer is not willing to pay you as promised in GC application, it means employers has fradulent intent in your GC application. period. You just dig the pit for yourself

 

[pralay]

With Strict interpretance, permanent means life long. Is there any CIS regulation to think otherwise?? NO, but still Rajiv thinks thats unreasonable... RIGHT. So though there is no formal regulation, after AC-21, changing Job could be OK, regulation could be on the way. Does it mean that "change job on the same day you got GC, NO", its just means you could change job after some time after getting GC... How much is that time?? everybody has to decide on their own until CIS issues some regulation.

Nope, "permanent" does not mean "life long". It means that there is no specific time limit. For example, H1 has specific timelimit - 2 year for each I-129 approval and upto max 6 years. Whereas GC does not have that kind of specific time limit. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you are right, then CIS(or whoever makes those laws) must be stupid to allow job change after 6 months of 485 process with AC-21 rule. CIS has made AC-21 rule, because there is long delay for 485 process and CIS wants to fair with applicant who stuck up with same JOB because of 485 processing delays.

AC-21 applies only before GC approval when GC sponsorer changes (technically "future job" haven't started yet at that points). That's why AC-21 has provision "similar job". Yes, some people wait too long in AOS statge - as someone was saying that he worked 20 years with the same company and asking why he can't change his job after getting GC. That could be good argument in his side. But I don't think same agrument applies to each individual on each case in a very broad general way.

How you are so much sure about it? Is there any CIS regulation or guidance on it? If YES , please post it. My argument is, for GC application, applicant and employer are both "parties" from CIS point of view. If one them, don't have good intent( in above case "Employer"), whole GC process should be fradulent?? Then it could either from applicant or employer?? Doesn't it?? Unless you have some CIS regulation to prove otherwise....

"Employer" and "employee" are two different parties in immigration law - where USCIS enforces the existing law to facilitate both parties. Take a much simpler example, you go to shop and buy your grocery. It's situation where rules of business is enforced by local/city/state authority. "You" and "grocery shop owner" are not same party here. The "grocery store" doing something wrong does not automatically implies that "you" are also doing something wrong.

Now, it's possible that both parties are involved in fraud for mutual benefit. It happens always - not only GC but H1 visa too.

 

[qwerty987666]

"Employer" and "employee" are two different parties in immigration law - where USCIS enforces the existing law to facilitate both parties. Take a much simpler example, you go to shop and buy your grocery. It's situation where rules of business is enforced by local/city/state authority. "You" and "grocery shop owner" are not same party here. The "grocery store" doing something wrong does not automatically implies that "you" are also doing something wrong.

Now, it's possible that both parties are involved in fraud for mutual benefit. It happens always - not only GC but H1 visa too.

Nope, I disagree, your example not like GC process. When applicant applies for GC, employer supports his GC application by providing appropriate documents including promised salary statement (LC)for applicant. And that whole package is GC application for CIS. So if any part of it is fradulent, whole GC process is fradulent. From CIS point of view, they got GC application from XYZ with all required documents, thats it. CIS don't seperate documents by employer or applicant as such. And if employer has fradulent intent, its fradulent GC . Period.

"permanent" does not mean "life long". It means that there is no specific time limit..

But permanent means "for ever", and thats what Rajiv is interpreting. But he thinks thats unreasonable. Thats fair enough. But does it mean 1/2/3 yrs or few months, nobody knows, everybody has to make their own call.

And with AC-21, remember its change for employment not sponserer. When there is no clear LAW/regulation from CIS, that doesn't mean that anybody can make some convinient conclusions. Not at all.

 

[pralay]

Nope, I disagree, your example not like GC process. When applicant applies for GC, employer supports his GC application by providing appropriate documents including promised salary statement (LC)for applicant. And that whole package is GC application for CIS. So if any part of it is fradulent, whole GC process is fradulent. From CIS point of view, they got GC application from XYZ with all required documents, thats it.

FYI:
LC is filed by employer (employee's name is not even mentioned in LC). If anything is wrong/fraud in LC, employee is not responsible. So when the issue comes to "promised salary", the employee is nowehere in the picture. The "promised salary" is determined by employer even before determining who is going to be the beneficiary of that LC.

I-140 is filed by employer. If any any document provided by employee is fraud (for example, resume, degree transcripts/certificates), yes employee can be held responsible. If any document provided by employer is fraud, employer can be held responsible (for example availability of job position, job requirement etc).
I-485: filed by employee. The only thing employer provides here is EVL/job offer. rest of the documents are all employee's.

Employee (or future employee) applies only I-485. Before that, all employer's.
There is nothing in GC process like "whole package".

CIS don't seperate documents by employer or applicant as such.

As it mentioned above, each petition is from specific party - either employer or employee. It's never both.

And with AC-21, remember its change for employment not sponserer. When there is no clear LAW/regulation from CIS, that doesn't mean that anybody can make some convinient conclusions. Not at all.

Where did you get that law? AC-21 is not for current employment (pre approval employment), but for changing GC sponsorer. Don't confuse between these two. It's a common misconception.

 

[dsatish]

Why job change issue was addressed in AC21 ?

I think that while discussing the job change (after GC) issue, many people do not see an important point. The law makers allowed a person to change sponsoring employer 6 months after the I485 is filed and I485 is pending. Why did they do that ? Why didn't they give the same freedom for I485 approved people ? If you try to look for a logical answer to this question, then you will get the answer to the main subject of our discussion.
It is because they felt that it is unfair to force an employee to work for the same employer for a long time. The law makers realized (or it was brought to their notice) that the whole GC process was taking a long time and they sought to give some relief to the employees and they passed a law to that effect (job change after 6 months). The only reason why job change was adressed for pending I485 applicants, is that there is no law that asks a GC holder to work for certain period of time or work indefinitely for the sponsoring employer. Clearly the wording "the person should have an intent to work for the sponsoring employer" is different from "the person should work for sponsoring employer". If the law makers strictly wanted that a Employment based GC holder to work for the sponsoring employer after getting the GC, they would have used the language "the person should work" instead of "the person should have an intent to work". The law makers seemed to have tried to maintain some balance beween the need to catch the fraud with the need to give freedom to the employees to change the jobs. Fraud comes into picture if you got a Greencard through a company for which you never worked, before and after I485 approval.
You can't measure "intent at one particular time" with actions at some other particular time (which might have been a result of "intent at the other particualr time ) . That is the bottom line for my arguments and i am sure that INS will not fool itself by taking action against any one for not proving his intentions on so and so date. Intention at a particular time can only be measured by actions at that particular time, not later actions.

 

[qwerty987666]

I-485: filed by employee.[/B] The only thing employer provides here is EVL/job offer. rest of the documents are all employee's.

As it mentioned above, each petition is from specific party - either employer or employee. It's never both.

WRONG ANSWER. You are too much cluttered with all nonsense bambarded by JoeF for so many years.

485 application documents includes everything including supporting document by employer. (Even for employment RFE, CIS send RFE to applicant not to employer and it is applicant reposibilty to provide that document not employers. )And if employer provides falsified documents, whole GC application becomes fradulent. Thats it. No less or no more, whatever.

Its the applicant who files his GC application with all required documents(including employers document). If applicant shows that employer don't have intent to pay salary as per LC, his employer's supporting document immediately becomes fradulent and misrepreseted. So remember any document provided as part of GC application either by applicant or employer is fradulent, GC is fradulent. Thats it.

Where did you get that law? AC-21 is not for current employment (pre approval employment), but for changing GC sponsorer. Don't confuse between these two. It's a common misconception.

Ya, there u are, there is no such Law that "AC-21 is for changing sponserer"? So why you think like that?? just because its convinient to think and preach others... Isn't it?? But just because you are not in that position(stakeholer) doesn't mean that you just force your convinient views on others (who might suffer because of it). No way.

This applies to your other misadvice also

Read my comments for documenting evidence while leaving employer

Never ever document that after GC, your employer is not paying you as promised on GC or whatever such that. And if at all you document it, keep those docs for youself, don't show it to CIS. If you show it to CIS, you simply asking for trouble yourself, it means that you are proving that your GC has been approved based on fradulent intent of your employer.

From CIS point of view, intent has to be from both side , applicant and employer and you show on urself that employer is not willing to pay you as promised in GC application, it means employers has fradulent intent in your GC application. period. You just dig the pit for yourself

Some members on this forum just jump on everything and gives misadvice again and again on this issue.

 

[qwerty987666]

I think that while discussing the job change (after GC) issue, many people do not see an important point. The law makers allowed a person to change sponsoring employer 6 months after the I485 is filed and I485 is pending. Why did they do that ? Why didn't they give the same freedom for I485 approved people ? If you try to look for a logical answer to this question, then you will get the answer to the main subject of our discussion.
It is because they felt that it is unfair to force an employee to work for the same employer for a long time. The law makers realized (or it was brought to their notice) that the whole GC process was taking a long time and they sought to give some relief to the employees and they passed a law to that effect (job change after 6 months). The only reason why job change was adressed for pending I485 applicants, is that there is no law that asks a GC holder to work for certain period of time or work indefinitely for the sponsoring employer. Clearly the wording "the person should have an intent to work for the sponsoring employer" is different from "the person should work for sponsoring employer". If the law makers strictly wanted that a Employment based GC holder to work for the sponsoring employer after getting the GC, they would have used the language "the person should work" instead of "the person should have an intent to work". The law makers seemed to have tried to maintain some balance beween the need to catch the fraud with the need to give freedom to the employees to change the jobs. Fraud comes into picture if you got a Greencard through a company for which you never worked, before and after I485 approval.
You can't measure "intent at one particular time" with actions at some other particular time (which might have been a result of "intent at the other particualr time ) . That is the bottom line for my arguments and i am sure that INS will not fool itself by taking action against any one for not proving his intentions on so and so date. Intention at a particular time can only be measured by actions at that particular time, not later actions.

Well thought out argument. Agreed

 

[pralay]

485 application documents includes everything including supporting document by employer. (Even for employment RFE, CIS send RFE to applicant not to employer and it is applicant reposibilty to provide that document not employers. )And if employer provides falsified documents, whole GC application becomes fradulent. Thats it. No less or no more, whatever.

As you are arguing I hope you understand the logic why GC process is 3 step process - not a single step "whole package". It's meaningless to explain you, as you are throwing arguments for the sake for arguing. There are several immigration sites and you will get enough information for the whole GC process. Read them and come back if you find something that supports your points.

If applicant shows that employer don't have intent to pay salary as per LC, his employer's supporting document immediately becomes fradulent and misrepreseted.

Back up your points with some kind of example, dude. If not example, some kind of sensible logic will work too.

Ya, there u are, there is no such Law that "AC-21 is for changing sponserer"? So why you think like that??

Because, GC is always for "future employment". So AC-21 always applies for "future employer" (GC sponsorer). GC has nothing to do with current employment (pre-approval employment). You can be un-employed before GC aproval, still you can get GC if you have job offer from GC sponsorer in hand.