Changing employer just after I485 approval
- Thread starter xyz_999
- Start date
You may change your job, but it would probably pose problem at the stage of US citizenship process. Most lawyers recommended that green card holder should wait for 6 months or 1 years (best option) after obtaining US permanent resident before s/he changes her/his job. Some people said to go ahead and Some people said not to change job if you want to become a US citizen.
srinireddydgl
Registered Users (C)
Dont Be Scared
LIKE AC-21 , CHANGE OF JOBS IN PERMISSIBLE
CITIZENSHIP COMES AFTER 5 YEARS, YOU CAN EXPLAIN IF THERE IS A PROBLEM
IF YOU ARE PAYING TAXES DULY, GOVERNMENT IS NOT GOING TO TELL YOU TO STAY ON GC FOR REST OF YOUR LIFE
LIKE AC-21 , CHANGE OF JOBS IN PERMISSIBLE
CITIZENSHIP COMES AFTER 5 YEARS, YOU CAN EXPLAIN IF THERE IS A PROBLEM
IF YOU ARE PAYING TAXES DULY, GOVERNMENT IS NOT GOING TO TELL YOU TO STAY ON GC FOR REST OF YOUR LIFE
USGC485 said:
srinireddydgl said:
I very much agree.
There is a lot of unnecessary fear about changing the job.
If you changed job because there was a valid reason to change (employee situation changes, company environment is stressful, you want to move to a new location for whatever reasons (e.g., health reasons - suffering mold, mildew, alergy etc.)), it is fine to change job any time. Cititizenship guys aren't dumb to see the difference between genuine reasons to change the job in the dynamic US economy, and somebody being fradulenetly on the payroll of a sponsoring company just to get the green card.
I think the more worthy criteria is that you should work in the same general field for next 6-12 months. So, if you get your green card in software engineering, you should not run a grocery store immediately after your green card. Think of it as a job change under AC21 rules, but without need to notify any one but yourself. If you think logically, if you can change to a similar job before 485 approval under AC21, you should have more freedom to change to similar jobs not less after being a PR.
It is only people who have taken some sort of dubious route to get green card that are scared of all these issues. It is for these paranoid people those rules apply for sticking with the employer for six months to a year since it automatically establishes continuation of the profession for which labor was approved. So, lawyers, being practical people who have seen it all, aren't wrong either because they assume that their client is the worst kind of person with a lot of hidden items. How many times they see that a driver, caught for not stopping on a stop sign, does not tell them any thing about his past DUI records, or the record for being jailed for driving without a license or his being charged for shop lifting three years ago?
The key issue to remember is if there was any "intention" to work for the sponsor when they filed your 140/ (and you filed your 485)? And, proving or disapparoving such an intention in legal terms is like proving or diappproving your intention to marry a beautiful film star "xyz", five years after being married to an ordinary "jane". Me too had the same intentions.
In short, if you are very paranoid - and you have got 485 approved either change job within a few weeks of approval (means you had planned to exercise AC21, and send your AC21 papers any way just for filing to be on safe side, and keep a copy of registry receipt), and if that is not possible then stay for a few months (the lawyers want about 6 months or so).
I am not a lawyer - so check with a good lawyer that you trust.
Last edited by a moderator:
dr_gc said:The key issue to remember is if there was any "intension" to work for the sponsor when they filed your 140/485? And, proving or disapparoving such an intension in legal terms is like proving or diappproving your intension to marry a beautiful film star "xyz", five years after being married to an ordinary "jane". Me too had the same intensions.
Not so. "Intention" is not a vague term in legal world which is easy/difficult to prove or disprove. It's quintessential thing in legal world, especially in immigration policies and laws. And USCIS does have guideline to determine that. I hope you are commenting after knowing the word "rapid course of action" and the famous case Seihoon v. Levy (and probably some more). Just read this article from immigration attorney's James Eiss's website, and tell me if you still think it's like "intention to marry a beautiful film star".
Issues of Intent: How Does USCIS Determine What’s In Your Head?
BTW, employer does not file I-485. It's employee's petition and FYI, having intention just and only at the time of filing petiition never been enough to prove intent.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thank you very much for all your answer. Let’s think about these two scenarios:
1. I quit the job and went to a new employer. My sponsoring employer got agree and applied to CIS by saying “the employee did not stay with me and out me in difficult position”. Is this possible?, If yes, how will CIS act?
2. My employer laid me off by saying “the project is not necessary any more”. If that is the case, can CIS consider my GC fraud?
Thanks,
1. I quit the job and went to a new employer. My sponsoring employer got agree and applied to CIS by saying “the employee did not stay with me and out me in difficult position”. Is this possible?, If yes, how will CIS act?
2. My employer laid me off by saying “the project is not necessary any more”. If that is the case, can CIS consider my GC fraud?
Thanks,
xyz_999 said:
I hate to bring this topic again. It has been discussed very intensely in past, especially in Life After GC forum. In one word, there is no silver bullet. You have to make your own judgement based on your confort level. You will never get simple YES/NO answer in this issue (even if someone does, blame it to his/her ignorance). Just go thru older threads (also various immigration websites), make yourself aware all the possibiliies and potential consequences. Then make your own decision based on your own situation.
Pralay provided a good link.
I would strongly recommend people to read that.
Even though James D. Eiss Esq. makes a good recommendation, and perhaps a safe guideline to follow, I still find it very troubling that the case of Seihoon v. Levy can be applied to change of employment to the "same occupation" which is permitted by law even before GC approval. The original case has different underlying assumptions since status is being changed from a "visitor" to a "student" soon after entry. There the intention is very easily demonstratable that the person entered the US by making a false statement (of being a visitor) while maintaining a very different intent (joining a school as a student).
Someone can argue that I-140 intent when combined with AC21 provisions mutates to being in "the same occupation class" rather than with the same employer after I 485 has been pending for more than 180 days. After all, being in the same occupation is being allowed by the law at much earlier stage. Therefore, as long as one maintains the same occupation class for about 6 months to 1 year, one should be logically fine and on a strong legal ground. I don't see how any one can prove any intent to mis-guide except when person moves to an un-related job soon after GC.
Having said this, I agree with Pralay that we will NOT know the definite answer to this puzzle unless we see a new court ruling clarifying the matter of intent once for all, or the definitive guideline from the CIS on this. Till then every one takes risk on its own given that rules are sometimes applied in a very illogical way, and people have no option but to follow whether they agree with the logic or interpretation, or not.
I am not a lawyer, so please consult your own lawyer before acting on it.
I would strongly recommend people to read that.
Even though James D. Eiss Esq. makes a good recommendation, and perhaps a safe guideline to follow, I still find it very troubling that the case of Seihoon v. Levy can be applied to change of employment to the "same occupation" which is permitted by law even before GC approval. The original case has different underlying assumptions since status is being changed from a "visitor" to a "student" soon after entry. There the intention is very easily demonstratable that the person entered the US by making a false statement (of being a visitor) while maintaining a very different intent (joining a school as a student).
Someone can argue that I-140 intent when combined with AC21 provisions mutates to being in "the same occupation class" rather than with the same employer after I 485 has been pending for more than 180 days. After all, being in the same occupation is being allowed by the law at much earlier stage. Therefore, as long as one maintains the same occupation class for about 6 months to 1 year, one should be logically fine and on a strong legal ground. I don't see how any one can prove any intent to mis-guide except when person moves to an un-related job soon after GC.
Having said this, I agree with Pralay that we will NOT know the definite answer to this puzzle unless we see a new court ruling clarifying the matter of intent once for all, or the definitive guideline from the CIS on this. Till then every one takes risk on its own given that rules are sometimes applied in a very illogical way, and people have no option but to follow whether they agree with the logic or interpretation, or not.
I am not a lawyer, so please consult your own lawyer before acting on it.
Last edited by a moderator: