Changing Employer before 6 Months (After GC Stamping)

[pralay]

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.

That's probably a good argument in side of GC beneficiary and probably will work well too. If a person is working 10 years before GC approval and then 2 months after GC approval - that overall long duration of employment could be a good point to support his/her intent. But unfortunately there is no single blanket theory to cover all the cases - because each case is different. If someone working with GC sponsorer 1 years before GC approval and leave GC employer immediately after approval, I don't think same argument applies here.

 

[pralay]

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 is NOT an expert advise board, but a discussion forum. Everybody has his/her own viewpoint here - including you. So, next time don't force your own "convenient views".

 

[qwerty987666]

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.

You just don't get it. Don't you?? Its applicant who files GC(read 485) application with supporting documents from employer which includes letter from employer to continue to employ applicant with LC salary.( for RFE ,response for employment letter which includes salary, which is provided by applicant to CIS, not by employer) And applicant submits all this documents as part of his GC(read again 485) application. And if employer has no intent to pay him salary as agreed, its fradulent/misrepreseted document and GC can be in trouble.
So its you and few other needs to clean up their stuck up mind and come up with some argument.

Read following quotes from your aka, who just jumps around on issues like monkey and misleads/screws members immigration process.

The simple fact is that the law that requires the employee to have the good faith intent to work for the sponsoring employer and that requires the employer to have the good faith intent to hire the employee did not change.

If employer don't pays agreed salary, what does it tell you, its fradulent intent of employer and GC can be revoked.

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.

So its your turn for jumping around the issues now. So you are saying that applicant has to go back to employer(who supported 485 application with LC and 140) after getting approval??

The problem is you just don't have any argument and just want preach people with some cooked up advice which might screw up members immigration.

Read my comments again 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

 

[qwerty987666]

This is NOT an expert advise board, but a discussion forum. Everybody has his/her own viewpoint here - including you. So, next time don't force your own "convenient views".

OK, now you don't have any argument left.

Why didn't you give this advice to your aka JoeF, who is bambarded same stuff for so many times and misleaded/screwed members and nobody knows how many of them have suffered.

 

[pralay]

So you are saying that applicant has to go back to employer(who supported 485 application with LC and 140) after getting approval??

As I mentioned before GC is for future employment. Before approval I can be unemployed or I can be working for company A, where my GC sponsorer can be another company - company B. And I don't need to join company B before GC approval. In I485/CP, all I need to show the officer letter with LC job description and LC salary. Is that hard to understand?

 

[pralay]

OK, now you don't have any argument left.

Why didn't you give this advice to your aka JoeF, who is bambarded same stuff for so many times and misleaded/screwed members and nobody knows how many of them have suffered.

I don't have to prove/answer my action in this discussion - what I did and what I didn't. But atleast I don't blame/accuse other to "force convenient view" - because I do know everybody has one and it's quite natural everybody will post his view in this forum - whether it's right or wrong.

 

[qwerty987666]

Only if the employee knows that the employer does not have that intent. Geez, what part about the "willful misrepresentation" in the law don't you get???

Geez, who am I arguing with, idiots or what?? JoeF is so idiot that he proved himself WRONG and again argue about his idiotness. See your own comment on this thread

The simple fact is that the law that requires the employee to have the good faith intent to work for the sponsoring employer and that requires the employer to have the good faith intent to hire the employee did not change.

When employer gave employment document to support applicants's 485, which he willfully don't comply with, by not paying LC salary, employer don't shows good intent and also thats becomes fradulent/misreprested document for supporting GC(485) application. So it becomes fradulently obtained GC.Period. case close.

Get over with , you have no argument left, you just keep contradicting yourself again and again, Nobody wants to know how BIG fool you are... anymore

Read my comments again 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

 

[pralay]

If employer don't pays agreed salary, what does it tell you, its fradulent intent of employer and GC can be revoked

It's quite possible, if USCIS realizes that employer-employee both did that knowlingly for mutual benefits. I personally know couple of cases where the employer (a consulting company) never intented to employ the employee for "permanetly" and employee was also just waiting for GC approval then quit. It's mutual benefit - knowingly for both parties. Unless both parties get caught for fraud, it's unlikely GC will be revoked. I don't know any case for GC, but there are ample number of "fraud" in H1 case. I think you will remember couple of case 3-4 years back (especially one Bay area case and one Michigan case) where INS raided office/guest house. The employer got H1 holders from India with fradulent LCA (the job that does not exist) and kept them in "bench". In that case, employer had to pay hefty penalty, but nothing happened to H1 holders - no deportation, no penalty - they were asked to find another H1 job. So, unless the fraud from both sides, it's unlikely both side will be penalized.

 

[qwerty987666]

I don't have to prove/answer my action in this discussion - what I did and what I didn't. But atleast I don't blame/accuse other to "force convenient view" - because I do know everybody has one and it's quite natural everybody will post his view in this forum - whether it's right or wrong.

Everybody appreciate your view on this issue, But apparently your view is flawed, but thats OK.

 

[FunnyWait]

Guys,

I have a very simple and basic question. You may remember that there was a rule earlier that all employment-based GC holders were expected to work for the sponsering company for a period of minimum 2 years. It was the law then and it was stated clearly. When they removed this law it clearly means now there is no such law existing and people can change the job earlier than 2 years. If INS wanted employment based GCs to continue working for the sponsering employer for a period of 6 months to 12 months they would have stated this law. In the absence of this law which law are you going to follow ? Those who suggest 6 to 12 months - it's based on which law ?

As far as intent goes, a statement from an employee is sufficient that says "I have (or had) an intent to work for the sponsering employer". This is in cases where employee is already working for a sponsering employer at the time of 485 approval. In the cases where employee is not working for the sponsering employer at the time of 485 approval, it's a different game.

 

[pralay]

Everybody appreciate your view on this issue, But apparently your view is flawed, but thats OK.

It atleast you are not accusing for "forcing convenient view". That's a good improvement.

 

[Participant]

Sure. No doubt about that.
Although I think that the company would have more to fear then, unless the employee knew all this, the employee can claim to be honest, it was the company that was dishonest...
That's the main reason why I always suggest to have everything in writing. For example, if you go to the boss and ask to be paid according to the LC, always follow up with an email or a letter, something like "As discussed in our meeting from so-and-so, ..."
It is an easy safety net...

Yes,it sure helps that employee has the good intent but employer has not.
But in this case how CIS actually reacts towards the continuance of beneficialry to hold(/eligible to hold the GC given on certain premises) unless we know or some body posts the occurence in this forum or some other forums.
(if Any body has any link ,will clarify the issue).
Why this question reg. reaction:
Just consider in the parlance of H1 and violation of status and denial of future benefits.
The H1 beneficiary intends to work at palce 'A' with salary 'X' (as applied by employer in LCA and approved).
Now the epmloyer posts him at location 'B' on salary 'Y'.(Here the employer is at fault but not employee as he is forced to do that though his
intention was as per original LCA/H1).
But CIS considers the H1 terms were violated and hence the beneficiary
is not eligible for any future/applied immigration benefits.
(Pl.see the gist of the so called 'Baltimore case ' posted somewhere in the forums,why a case has been raised ).
Inessence,there is risk to some extent,(indirectlyaffecting) for employee also,in the whole affair . Hence,basing on the documentation and making
it open to CIS may not be much desired unless forced to.it may help to continue for a 'considerable' time with the employer before quitting to make the case strong(proof of circumastantial and the tenacity limits) if the issue arises at any time and if 'consdierable period' clause in the law is the gist to be followed?
Just my opinion.Not an advice.

 

[dsatish]

Besides, it is moot to speculate about "what Congress intended" or not.
Congress' intent is spelled out in the law. What some members of Congress may have thought when they approved the law is irrelevant, and nobody except the particular members of Congress know what they thought at the time of approval of the law, anyway.
Congress is the law-creating body of the US. If Congress wants to change things in the law, they can just go ahead and change it. If Congress doesn't want to change things, like the requirement to have the good faith intent to work for the sponsoring employer, then they don't change that.

Well congress infact, has changed the law regarding job after GC. They made this change at almost the same time that AC21 was enacted. They have removed the "2 year theory" frm the law (if the empoyee leaves the sponsorer within 2 years, then the burden of proof is on the employee to show that he has got GC in good faith).
The focus of my argument was not on analyzing the minds of congress men, but on the fact that job change is allowed after GC and that could be one reason the law makers addressed only I485 applicants for relief. Even if the law makers have some other motives, then let it be. All that we know of the law is that we should have an intent to work for the sponsoring employer after the GC. One can meet the requirement by reporting to the sponsoring employer after getting the GC. That's it. After that, the employment is like any other employment which is "at will employment" in this country. You may not like your job after 1 month and your intention changed and you move to another job and that's perfectly fine.
There are no laws and regulations (and instances) covering a post GC employment scenario. So why should any one fear to change jobs? To me it is unnecessary paranoid. Ofcourse i agree that it is all subjective. Each person has different perspectives of risks. What is risk for JoeF may not be a risk for dsatish . There is not much point in talking and talking about the same points again and again. We all had a thorough discusson and it is upto people to make their choices by reading the pros and cons.

 

[qwerty987666]

If the employee does not know that the employer does not intend to pay the salary, the employee, who files the I-485, did not willfully misrepresent things. Period. End of story.

Oh oh, so one more misleadings and "GET URSELF SCREW UP" advice from JoeF "pretend to be innocent" and CIS will forgive you. So JoeF's one more SCREWUP/misleading misadvice is " First submit documents to CIS that proves that your GC sponsering employer is not paying you salary (as per LC) and when CIS raise doubts on intention of employer and consider to revoke applicants GC based on fradulent documents, Then what do just pretend to be innocent and CIS will forgive applicant".

JoeF has not shown fallacy but BIG fallacy in his intention thru his misleadings. Beaware members.

JoeF aka idiot or whatever, You have no argument left, Get LOST bang


Read my comments again 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

 

[qwerty987666]

The employer is also required to show his good faith intent, and if he doesn't, he can be fined and in severe cases prohibited from filing more immigrant petitions.

Does it based on some laws or some mind reading of CIS/congressman/homeland office/senate etc.??? Idiot , don't guess and preach on this forum, members will be/are getting SCREWED UP because of your guess work.

You have no argument left now. Get Lost bang

Read my comments again 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

 

[qwerty987666]

It atleast you are not accusing for "forcing convenient view". That's a good improvement.

Doesn't hurt to be NICE GUY sometimes... Isn't it??

But make no mistake, I will use hammer whenever misleaders/propoganda guys try to SCREW UP members on this forum.

 

[qwerty987666]

Hence the rule of thumb to work for the employer for some time as a way to show your intent.

Geez, this idiot is again back with "RULE of DUMB" theory but without mention of 6 months( previously,JoeF has bambarded with 6 months theory on 1000's of posts), But after Rajiv's response which contradicts it, JoeF made one more monkey jump. Rajiv has made it very clear, nobody needs preaching from you , fool.

Get LOST bang

 

[qwerty987666]

But make no mistake, I will continue to correct your misleading, false "advise", fool!

Good for you. atleast many members will be be saved from potential SCREW UP from your misleadings.. idiot.

 

[pralay]

But make no mistake, I will use hammer whenever misleaders/propoganda guys try to SCREW UP members on this forum.

That's funny. I am wondering whether you are an immigration law expert or a comedian who likes to make fun of himself. Till now, more you post it becomes more clear that your "hammer" is feather-weight.

 

[qwerty987666]

Till now, more you post it becomes more clear that your "hammer" is feather-weight.

And with your posts, and defending flawed logic, its more clear that you are JoeF's one more donkey . Thats it.