Changing Job prematurely After GC?

Another question i have with regards to this concerns the case of a friend of mine. He was approved recently too, in mid December (just like mine) but in his case he was working for a client company, and his contract with the client company has been extended for 3 more months. Now can he quit after 3 months because he has "shown his intent" by sticking to his sponsoring employer by signing a contract with a client of the sponsoring employer for 3 months. Surely undertaking a contract shows "good faith intent"? The question is whether it shows "good faith intent" to work "permanently", i guess. Any opinions on this?
 
JoeF said:
And where is the "precendece" claim??? That's what I was asking for. Please show a link to a lawyer arguing that this constitutes a precedence.
Click to expand...

Joe, it's a decision of a US federal court that has not been superceded or contradicted by any other decision or statute. That, by definition, makes it a precedent.

If you get dragged into proceedings by USCIS, the Immigration Judge or district court judge (if you appeal to the US federal courts) will ask if there is any case law on the subject. The government lawyer will (if he or she didn't get a law degree from a Cracker Jack box) mention Seihoon v. Levy, at which point the judge turns to you and asks, "Why shouldn't this precedent apply in this case?"

Note that it's case law, so it's not cast in stone like an Act of Congress. That being said, the judge will apply the standard laid down in Seihoon unless you provide a compelling reason why it doesn't apply in your situation. The fact that it was in a non-immigrant matter, to me (and we know I'm not an attorney) does not seem like a compelling argument not to consider the precedent binding.
 
Hmm, no. With the law, nothing is "quite clear."

Yes, it is not clear that it establishes a "law" but it is clear what the attorney is trying to convey. No attorney for that matter is "quite clear". Even Murthy & Khanna are not "quite clear" on this, and for that matter even the USCIS.

Unless it is spelled out explicitly, there is no precendence.

If my understanding is right, "precedence" for that matter is NEVER "spelled out". It is established and invoked in a Court of law. It is only the judge that determines whether "precedence" is valid. So what we as laymen, or what attorneys could do, is examine the case whether the judgement relates to our existing condition. Which for us, is "good faith intent".

Does Seihoon v Levy talk about "good faith intent"?
Yes.

What is its ruling?
We know that in detail, the 30-60-90 rule and the "rapid course of events"

Does "good faith intent" change with the status - whether immigrant / non-immigrant?

No.

So can we consider Seihoon v Levy as a "precedent" or "guideline" for AOS cases with "good faith intent" issues?

Logic says "Yes". I have already quoted an attorney who says that "it can be applied to immigration contexts".

Can the Courts proscribe a different view?

Oh Yes.

The experience posted here shows clearly that CIS does not quite think there is precedence

Infact it shows just the opposite. If the CIS had thought that there was no precedence, they would have PROSECUTED instead of asing for clarifications. The experiance posted here is not at all conclusive and maybe dated. We dont know how old these cases were and immigration law has changed a lot. I have yet to see an AOS case being prosecuted & taken to Court by the USCIS for "lack of intent".


God, i think iam slowly becoming a lawyer :D :eek:
 
The non-immigrant case mentioned resulted in a memo from CIS, regarding the presumed non-immigrant intent of people entering in non-immigrant status. Nothing like that exists for immigrants for the intent to work for specific employer.

Even in that case, the intent was NOT for "entering in a non-immigrant" status - It was for entering as a non-immigrant and WORKING FOR A SPECIFIC EMPLOYER AS AN IMMIGRANT". Looks pretty similar to me.

Again, following what JoeF says, that is waiting for 6 months doesnt hurt anybody. What i wanted to explore through this discussion, was if push comes to shove, Seihoov v/s Levy gives a basis / rationale for shifting after 3 months.
 
JoeF,

You are right, its is not "intent to work for sponsoring employer" - Sorry, my mistake.

However

If the “rapid course of events” following a person’s statement of intent seems to indicate that the person intended something other than what he or she expressed to the INS, then the consequences can be serious.

So the intent in an AOS case is as it relates to "working for a sponsoring employer " which is what the "person intended to convey to INS".

Note that it does not specifically talk about 'non-immigrant intent'.

So then its pretty similar.


Joe, it's a decision of a US federal court that has not been superceded or contradicted by any other decision or statute. That, by definition, makes it a precedent.

Hmm, not necessarily

Can you say why "not necessarily"? I would think the Federal Court judgement holds good until a law is enacted otherwise.

If I was a lawyer, and I had a client that changed jobs after 3 months and got into trouble with CIS, I would of course try to use that decision to argue my case. That's what every good lawyer would try.

Agree about that.
 
Participant said:
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.
Click to expand...

i consulted a lawyer. she said that 6 month rule is a well recognized rule for several decades.

she also told me a little "trick" if you changed employer less than 6 months. you can apply for citizenship after 6 years of your GC approval so that the officer will not see where you are right after GC. she said charging you is not an easy task: the officer needs to (1) get your complete employment history after GC through IRS or whatever. (2) request CIS send him/her the ORIGINAL GC application package which has been lying in CIS' warehouse after approval of GC for probably a decade by that time. the officer then needs to perform a thorough
review of your GC application (3) question you about your change of job. (4) if he is not happy with your answer. see you in the removal proceeding.

since the law is getting more and more complicated, and a lot of officers are contractors who are not well trained in immigration law, practically the chance of hitting an officer who is so dedicated to do the above is pretty small. of course i am not advocating leaving less than 6 months. but now you can assess the risk and make your own decision.

when i ask her how long i should stay. her final answer is "in my opionion 6 months is ok, 1 year is more than you need. but you choose a timeframe that you feel comfortable with. it is your decision".
 
its a reality now..

Guys i cant believe this.

Is this thread jinxed or something.

Just about the time i was posting all this - the sh-i.t hit the fan for me!!

My client company has given an ultimatum to join as permanent by April - ie 3.5 months after GC approval!

I was planning to wait 6 months, and asking my client company to extend the contract by another 3 months.

dsatish,

I will be in your position now! :)

The thing is that if i say no, then i will be without a job and no chance of getting a job in my area from which iam not planning to move. So in reality i have no option other than to reject the offer and put everything in jeopardy. I also bought a house recently so that means that i have to hope for my consulting company to get me a job in the same location , after i have said NO to a perfectly fine job!!

So iam pretty much decided that iam going to take up the offer. I could delay it probably by 15 days, say April 15 ( and make that 4 months after GC ) though iam not sure whether that'll do any good.

So here's the plan - iam going to join the company in April, and try and get a letter from my employer that i have been laid off. Iam going to tell my employer that i cannot move & there is no chance of contract extending, so they might as well lay off me. Iam on good terms with them so hopefully i should be able to get it. If i dont get it i'll leave it to fate i guess.

The pay iam going to get is atleast 50% higher than my current pay.Can i quote that as a reason if there is an issue?

Is there anything else i can do? Opinions and Suggestions are very much welcome.
 
Yep that makes sense.
Iam planning to get a letter from my client company that they are not planning to extend my contract - i guess that should help. Also if i can get a letter from my employer i think that should pretty much cover it.

Hopefully should be ok.

GO Seihoon v Levy !! ;) :D :D
 
gctechie said:
Guys i cant believe this.

Is this thread jinxed or something.

Just about the time i was posting all this - the sh-i.t hit the fan for me!!

My client company has given an ultimatum to join as permanent by April - ie 3.5 months after GC approval!

I was planning to wait 6 months, and asking my client company to extend the contract by another 3 months.

dsatish,

I will be in your position now! :)

The thing is that if i say no, then i will be without a job and no chance of getting a job in my area from which iam not planning to move. So in reality i have no option other than to reject the offer and put everything in jeopardy. I also bought a house recently so that means that i have to hope for my consulting company to get me a job in the same location , after i have said NO to a perfectly fine job!!

So iam pretty much decided that iam going to take up the offer. I could delay it probably by 15 days, say April 15 ( and make that 4 months after GC ) though iam not sure whether that'll do any good.

So here's the plan - iam going to join the company in April, and try and get a letter from my employer that i have been laid off. Iam going to tell my employer that i cannot move & there is no chance of contract extending, so they might as well lay off me. Iam on good terms with them so hopefully i should be able to get it. If i dont get it i'll leave it to fate i guess.

The pay iam going to get is atleast 50% higher than my current pay.Can i quote that as a reason if there is an issue?

Is there anything else i can do? Opinions and Suggestions are very much welcome.
Click to expand...

You are unnecessarily worrying too much. Forget about the theoretical risk (at citizenship) and concentrate on the real risk (of losing an opportunity). If you can get a lay off document then it's better, other wise no problem. All they ask you at citizenship is last 5 year emoployment history. So apply for citizenship after 6 years.
 
JoeF said:
Hmm, not necessarily.
Click to expand...

You can dismiss it all you want, but again it's a judgment of a US District Court that has not been superceded by other case law or a statute. That makes it a precedent. Denial isn't a river in Egypt. ;)

That already indicates that it may not apply to the intent to work for a particular employer. In fact, the case was about nonimmigrant intent. Something quite different from the intent to work for a specific employer. You can not simply take a case about nonimmigration intent and apply it to something quite clearly different.
Click to expand...

While the particulars of the case are slightly different, the precedent deals with how USCIS can infer intent from actions within a particular amount of time. We can bounce this back and forth for a while, so let's see if we can rephrase this discussion so we can get to the meat of the matter, Joe.

1. Do you believe that Seihoon v. Levy is a valid precedent in non-immigrant matters, ie. it has not be superceded or contradicted by statute? If not, why?
2. Do you believe that USCIS can legitimately infer intent based on actions taken within a period of time (ie. the premise behind SvL) in immigrant cases?
3. If you believe that #1 and #2 are valid, is your argument with the time periods in SvL?
 
I agree with dstatish, you are worrying too much and don't be spooked by the resident fear monger.
 
JoeF,

Intent to change or not change non-immigrant status is not the same as intent to stay with a specific employer.

However Seihoon v Levy did not talk just about the "intent of a non-immigrant" it talked about "intent as conveyed to INS"

Iam pretty sure your intent to post in this forum is not "conveying something to the INS"

But, intent of changing employers after GC is "conveying something to INS" and hence under the purview of Seihoon v Levy.

Again posting for your reference -

If the “rapid course of events” following a person’s statement of intent seems to indicate that the person intended something other than what he or she expressed to the INS, then the consequences can be serious.

What do you think?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Agree about that. Couldnt find Seihoon v Levy on the Net. Does anybody know where one can find the actual judgement? Any links to court records?

Will be helpful, thanks in advance.
 
Forget about it. When CIS don't care to issue any publication on this non-issue, why r few folks, breaking their heads to find answer .

Guys ,relax, if you have to change job after GC, get lawyers advice and take appropriate action.
 
JoeF said:
The immigration law applies, and lawyers recommend to wait for some time, as I have explained over and over:
Click to expand...

How about you don't explain over and over anymore and let's wait for more info from other members
 
JoeF said:
How about you behaving yourself for a change?
There is no need for "more info." The law is as clear as it can possibly be, even if you don't want to hear about it.
Click to expand...

I heard you now!!!! Happy, Now lets wait for other members to post on this issue.
 
if we work on a diffrent stuff so HARD, we can make lot of money..
i am sad to see this thread being sooo longg..
i guess some people will die when this ends..get out to the air and enjoy life :D
 
And here's from Attorney Murthy :D

Chat User : Is it OK to change employer within 3 months after GC stamping? Will it have any effect later on? Thanks.

Attorney Murthy : No one knows the answer to this question for sure. What we do know is that pre-AC21, it would be safer to wait for about 1 year to be really safe. Post-Oct. 2000, AC21, it is legally permissible to switch employers even during the process. So one could argue that waiting 3 months after GC stamping should be fine. But without INS regulations on AC21, no one is 100% sure of the safest course in this sort of scenario.

http://www.murthy.com/chatlogs/chat0128.html

But this is from Jan 2002, probably she has changed her opinion since then.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So if I read the post correctly, Murthy, a practicing immigration attorney states, that no one knows. And her comments highlight that AC21 lets you change jobs "during" the process without consequence.

However our resident misinformer in his posts states, the law is clear as it possibly can be.....

hmmmm, I wonder why he continues to beat his chest constantly on this board with misinformation - it really does get tiring doesn't it.
 
gettingclosernow said:
So if I read the post correctly, Murthy, a practicing immigration attorney states, that no one knows. And her comments highlight that AC21 lets you change jobs "during" the process without consequence.

However our resident misinformer in his posts states, the law is clear as it possibly can be.....

hmmmm, I wonder why he continues to beat his chest constantly on this board with misinformation - it really does get tiring doesn't it.
Click to expand...
You are right. We really want to read what others are saying and what their views are. As soon as somebody posts here this one person replies with the same "blah blah blah" and changes the tone/direction of the discussion. The only way to discuss this topic is to ignore his posts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top