Participant
Registered Users (C)
The issue of changing jobs and effect on GC is raging like a wild fire.
Let us see three things.
A)GC-AOS route.Here it is mentioned so called 'Rule of Thumb'(?) for 6 months for change.
B)GC-CP route.Here it is mentioned 30-60-90 day rule for change.
C)During AOS--AC21.180 days for change.
All the three above is only 'regarding change of job' and effect on GC but of three, diferent underlying streams exist,with out any commanalility.
If the spirit behind, after obtaining GC is to be 'to serve the employer'and the intent, is it not surprising that there is no commanalility for the same issue of GC intent?
or real thinking and spirit behind and the real treatment of the isuue is not known to us?
I presume only clarification that proves,will come only from the real experiences by affected persons,narrated by,if any or by CIS memos or any earlier cases or thro' an apex body of law/executors,lawyers who know the case.Just my mumbling:
Employment GCs are being approved(more than a decade for ex.) and by this time there would have been at least hundreds of thousands GC holders.In that many many would have changed jobs in A) and B) category(Forget C,as this is of recent origin).
Out of these,few thousands(assuming) might have changed jobs well before or just before they met the stipulations of A) and B).
If this really a very very serious concern for CIS(remind you-- from decades)and thinks it is so rampant of deviations/important(changing jobs prematurely.less pay than LC etc), don't you think CIS would have come out some kinda of 'Conditional Green Card' theory akin to 'Marriage based green card by now?
As some thing like this is not in slightest trace in any doc.or move,changing jobs might have not been taken that seriously,as presented elsewhere?
Any realexperiences,info' on this,Pl.
Let us see three things.
A)GC-AOS route.Here it is mentioned so called 'Rule of Thumb'(?) for 6 months for change.
B)GC-CP route.Here it is mentioned 30-60-90 day rule for change.
C)During AOS--AC21.180 days for change.
All the three above is only 'regarding change of job' and effect on GC but of three, diferent underlying streams exist,with out any commanalility.
If the spirit behind, after obtaining GC is to be 'to serve the employer'and the intent, is it not surprising that there is no commanalility for the same issue of GC intent?
or real thinking and spirit behind and the real treatment of the isuue is not known to us?
I presume only clarification that proves,will come only from the real experiences by affected persons,narrated by,if any or by CIS memos or any earlier cases or thro' an apex body of law/executors,lawyers who know the case.Just my mumbling:
Employment GCs are being approved(more than a decade for ex.) and by this time there would have been at least hundreds of thousands GC holders.In that many many would have changed jobs in A) and B) category(Forget C,as this is of recent origin).
Out of these,few thousands(assuming) might have changed jobs well before or just before they met the stipulations of A) and B).
If this really a very very serious concern for CIS(remind you-- from decades)and thinks it is so rampant of deviations/important(changing jobs prematurely.less pay than LC etc), don't you think CIS would have come out some kinda of 'Conditional Green Card' theory akin to 'Marriage based green card by now?
As some thing like this is not in slightest trace in any doc.or move,changing jobs might have not been taken that seriously,as presented elsewhere?
Any realexperiences,info' on this,Pl.