Changing Job prematurely After GC?
- Thread starter Participant
- Start date
We have asked you before...no make that we have asked and asked and asked and asked and asked and asked and asked and asked.... you not to repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat your same misinformation 5 million times in a thread....follow your own advice...post once, then get lost!
TheRealCanadian
Volunteer Moderator
JoeF said:
That's not what I was asking. I'm just curious if you support the notion behind Seihoon v. Levy, that an individual's actions a short period of time after a "significant event" (my quote, not theirs) like obtaining permanent residency or a change of status can be used to infer his or her intent at the time of that event?
I understand that there is a different kind of intent, but do you believe that USCIS can make inferences about an immigrant's intent at the time of GC approval based on his or her actions a short period of time after that approval?
CIS does not consider the non-immigrant case Seihoon v. Levy as a precedence for immigrants. CIS' release of a memo codifying Seihoon v. Levy for non-immigrants only also shows that.
CIS cannot , for that matter, consider ANY precedence. Only the courts can consider precedence. CIS can only act on the Court's order or a particular law which has been enacted. Even in the 8 months case, i didnt hear about any prosecution - just CIS asking for clarification ( and that too , on w case which for all purposes, could have been dated ) Is CIS had gone to Court & the Court had declared that Seihoon v/s Levy DOES NOT establish precedence , then I could have accepted your argument. But as it stands now, we dont have any case before us that CIS prosecuted successfully - with or without the backdrop of Seihoon v/s Levy. I think our ( mine and RealCanadian's) contention is that in the possibility of such a case , Seihoon v/s Levy provides the necessary protection.
Whether lawyers have considered this possibility i dont know. Maybe it is not applicable as you say, but so far logic says that it is. If any lawyer says otherwise i would be interested to know about it. I have already quoted a lawyer who supports applying it to "other immigrations contexts with certain intent"
The case was about a change of non-immigrant status, not about any intent after obtaining permanent residency.
From where did you get that? From what i have read about this case it clearly deals with the non-immigrant "intent" - in this particular case " a change of intent"
All we have anyways are from lawyer's webpages , whether it is 3 months or 6 months or 1 year after GC.
CIS cannot , for that matter, consider ANY precedence. Only the courts can consider precedence. CIS can only act on the Court's order or a particular law which has been enacted. Even in the 8 months case, i didnt hear about any prosecution - just CIS asking for clarification ( and that too , on w case which for all purposes, could have been dated ) Is CIS had gone to Court & the Court had declared that Seihoon v/s Levy DOES NOT establish precedence , then I could have accepted your argument. But as it stands now, we dont have any case before us that CIS prosecuted successfully - with or without the backdrop of Seihoon v/s Levy. I think our ( mine and RealCanadian's) contention is that in the possibility of such a case , Seihoon v/s Levy provides the necessary protection.
Whether lawyers have considered this possibility i dont know. Maybe it is not applicable as you say, but so far logic says that it is. If any lawyer says otherwise i would be interested to know about it. I have already quoted a lawyer who supports applying it to "other immigrations contexts with certain intent"
The case was about a change of non-immigrant status, not about any intent after obtaining permanent residency.
From where did you get that? From what i have read about this case it clearly deals with the non-immigrant "intent" - in this particular case " a change of intent"
All we have anyways are from lawyer's webpages , whether it is 3 months or 6 months or 1 year after GC.
Last edited by a moderator:
gctechie said:And here's from Attorney Murthy
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.
Good. Now we know that Murthy does not have any clear views on this topic and she is not giving any legal interpretation on this issue.Now the 6 month thumb rule argument stands crumbled. It's time for people to move on with their own decisions and not lose opportunities due to unsupported fears.
I agree dsatish, it has crumbled once and for all, in spite of 40, yes as unbelievalbe as it sounds, count them 40 posts in this thread alone by JoeF!!!
One or two posts would have sufficed.
I just noticed that in total there are 104 replies, that means JoeF's posts make up 40% of this thread!!! And Rahul the moderator can't see he hijacks the board...simply amazing.
One or two posts would have sufficed.
I just noticed that in total there are 104 replies, that means JoeF's posts make up 40% of this thread!!! And Rahul the moderator can't see he hijacks the board...simply amazing.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, without an actual case, that's idle speculation. Everybody can do idle speculation. But that doesn't help people.
Isnt the "6 month thumb rule" also "idle speculation" which does not have a basis in an actual case?
In that case arent you also giving potentially dangerous information? Infact arent all the attorneys who advocate 6 month thumb rule providing dangerous advice? Is there any advice "not dangerous" other than staying forever with the sponsoring employer?
Ofcourse you can always say that "you advise to consult attorneys because individual circumstance varies" - Iam also giving the same advice.
But my proposition of using Seihoon v/s Levy as support for quitting after 3 months has the same "legal weight" as your advocating "6 months thumb rule".
Iam atleast basing mine on a case which the Court has ruled on about "intent conveyed to INS".
Isnt the "6 month thumb rule" also "idle speculation" which does not have a basis in an actual case?
In that case arent you also giving potentially dangerous information? Infact arent all the attorneys who advocate 6 month thumb rule providing dangerous advice? Is there any advice "not dangerous" other than staying forever with the sponsoring employer?
Ofcourse you can always say that "you advise to consult attorneys because individual circumstance varies" - Iam also giving the same advice.
But my proposition of using Seihoon v/s Levy as support for quitting after 3 months has the same "legal weight" as your advocating "6 months thumb rule".
Iam atleast basing mine on a case which the Court has ruled on about "intent conveyed to INS".
qwertyisback
Registered Users (C)
MD_Rockville said:i guess some people will die when this ends..get out to the air and enjoy life
Then what!!!! Do you think that people around in this forum are alive??, absolutely NOT. Their are all zombies walking and posting here and few of them threatening around everybody on this forum.
As you are new to this forum, allow me to enlighten you brief lifecycle of such threads
By this forum's standard, this thread is just a baby, started walking, you will see real fights when it comes to its age , thats around 200 posts , (at this point many new zombies will also join fights vigirously), then moderator will join, but can't stop it anymore , he will give up. And thread will continue to grow and grow and will probably die by natural cause around 500 postsings.
And after some time, again somebody posts same q/s and all zombies gets new life again to relive its past again and again and.... again.
Nobody knows where is end.....
Till the keep reading.....and have fun
AllIAskedWas1GC
Registered Users (C)
What the!!
I have freaked myself out reading all this!! Have to now re-collect how the hell I freakin' reached here!! And what made me...?? Life after getting GC is like this???!!!! Damn!!!
Are we in a competetion or somethin' as to who is right OR who ends the thread...? If that is the case, then please let me take this opportunity and do the needful. I hope I am the one!!
Crazy...! Forget about answers, why don't people start posting their SAT scores in their signatures now?
I have freaked myself out reading all this!! Have to now re-collect how the hell I freakin' reached here!! And what made me...?? Life after getting GC is like this???!!!! Damn!!!
Are we in a competetion or somethin' as to who is right OR who ends the thread...? If that is the case, then please let me take this opportunity and do the needful. I hope I am the one!!
Crazy...! Forget about answers, why don't people start posting their SAT scores in their signatures now?
JoeF,
Basically it boils down to this.
When the Courts took up the matter of determining the "intent that was conveyed to INS" in Seihoon v/s Levy, why did they go with 30-60-90 day rule instead of say, 120-150-180 day rule? Surely there was some rationale?
And if there was some rationale, why should it NOT apply for the immigrant case?
Why should we believe that the Court will rule 120-150-180 in a future immigrant case?
The support that you give for 6 month thumb rule is because it is "recommended by lawyers" and becasue it is "more conservative".
I agree it is more conservative. But i still dont understand why quitting after 3 months should be "dangerous advice" while quitting after 6 months is "not dangerous"?
We have absolutely nothing to prove that quitting after 3 months is dangerous.
Infact Murthy did say that quitting after 3 months shouldnt cause any problems, and its ok to quit after 6 months, and more ok to quit after 1 year and even more ok after 2 years.
So please do not mislead people by saying that quitting after 3 months is "dangerous" or that it is dangeorus advice. It is as mucha thumbrule as the 6 months that you prescribe and no less "dangerous".
I still dont understand why it should deduce that staying an extra 3 months could signify an "intent to stay permanently". If the intent was not there, it was not there as much after 6 months as it was not there after 3 months, specially in the absence of any way to measure the intent.
And specially when the ONLY MEASURE of any kind for "intent" of any kind, is as mentioned in SEIHOON v/s LEVY.
Is this difficult to understand!
Basically it boils down to this.
When the Courts took up the matter of determining the "intent that was conveyed to INS" in Seihoon v/s Levy, why did they go with 30-60-90 day rule instead of say, 120-150-180 day rule? Surely there was some rationale?
And if there was some rationale, why should it NOT apply for the immigrant case?
Why should we believe that the Court will rule 120-150-180 in a future immigrant case?
The support that you give for 6 month thumb rule is because it is "recommended by lawyers" and becasue it is "more conservative".
I agree it is more conservative. But i still dont understand why quitting after 3 months should be "dangerous advice" while quitting after 6 months is "not dangerous"?
We have absolutely nothing to prove that quitting after 3 months is dangerous.
Infact Murthy did say that quitting after 3 months shouldnt cause any problems, and its ok to quit after 6 months, and more ok to quit after 1 year and even more ok after 2 years.
So please do not mislead people by saying that quitting after 3 months is "dangerous" or that it is dangeorus advice. It is as mucha thumbrule as the 6 months that you prescribe and no less "dangerous".
I still dont understand why it should deduce that staying an extra 3 months could signify an "intent to stay permanently". If the intent was not there, it was not there as much after 6 months as it was not there after 3 months, specially in the absence of any way to measure the intent.
And specially when the ONLY MEASURE of any kind for "intent" of any kind, is as mentioned in SEIHOON v/s LEVY.
Is this difficult to understand!
The thing is my "intent" can change at any time. I might have an "intent to work for a sponsoring employer" at a particular time and that intent might change. The USCIS is not interested in whether my intent changed or not. That is why the USCIS accepts a clarification when somebody's intent to work for sponsoring employer changed after 8 months.
What the USCIS is interested in knowing is whether the "intent to work for the sponsoring employer as conveyed to the INS" had changed or not. Whether i indicated to the INS that i intended to work for an employer all the while intending to work for somebody else.
The question is whether a fraud has been committed with the USCIS, because i never intended to work for the sponsoring employer in the first place. The intent is what was conveyed to the USCIS, but what I didnt have an intention of following up.
USCIS is interested in knowing only whether the "intent", whatever it be, immigrant or non-immigrant , whether to work for sponsoring employer or something else, has CHANGED from what was conveyed to USCIS when the application was made. That is the basis for fraud.
It is this "change of intent from what was conveyed to USCIS" that Seihoon v/s Levy addresses.
It is a fine point, but i hope you are getting it.
Let me admit that it definitely is my interpretation - iam just throwing it up in the air for discussion. I dont intend to fight with anyone, nor am i giving them misleading information when I say that it is OK to quit after 3 months as a Rule of Thumb, for we have no DEFINITE indication otherwise.
Why 3 months? Just because Courts have used a minimum of 3 months in previous rulings ( Seihoon v/s Levy, and the rationale i have written in my posts above )
Even if you quit before 3 months it is likely that you wont face any problems at all. it is entirely upto your individual circumstance, and go by the advice of your lawyer.
What the USCIS is interested in knowing is whether the "intent to work for the sponsoring employer as conveyed to the INS" had changed or not. Whether i indicated to the INS that i intended to work for an employer all the while intending to work for somebody else.
The question is whether a fraud has been committed with the USCIS, because i never intended to work for the sponsoring employer in the first place. The intent is what was conveyed to the USCIS, but what I didnt have an intention of following up.
USCIS is interested in knowing only whether the "intent", whatever it be, immigrant or non-immigrant , whether to work for sponsoring employer or something else, has CHANGED from what was conveyed to USCIS when the application was made. That is the basis for fraud.
It is this "change of intent from what was conveyed to USCIS" that Seihoon v/s Levy addresses.
It is a fine point, but i hope you are getting it.
Let me admit that it definitely is my interpretation - iam just throwing it up in the air for discussion. I dont intend to fight with anyone, nor am i giving them misleading information when I say that it is OK to quit after 3 months as a Rule of Thumb, for we have no DEFINITE indication otherwise.
Why 3 months? Just because Courts have used a minimum of 3 months in previous rulings ( Seihoon v/s Levy, and the rationale i have written in my posts above )
Even if you quit before 3 months it is likely that you wont face any problems at all. it is entirely upto your individual circumstance, and go by the advice of your lawyer.
Ok here is the opinion of the Law Offices of Suskind & Susser , one of the most respected immigration lawyers in the country, about the matter -
They basically support my contention about the minimum 3 months thumb-rule.
http://www.visalaw.com/02jun1/3jun102.html
Q - If a green card application is an employment based petition, are you obligated to remain with the petitioning employer after the I-485 is approved? If you leave employment with the petitioning employer, will the INS care? (I am familiar with the AC21 106(c) provision for changing employers, but the direction I would like to go in would not be considered a similar occupational classification, in fact I'd like to go back to school instead of work.)
A -If you are going into a different field, then the traditional rules would apply. There is no official amount of time you must stay with an employer, but you will want to stay long enough so that you will not be considered to have had fraudulent intentions regarding your intentions to stay permanently with an employer. Lawyers will tell you different amounts of time that are considered safe. The minimum usually heard is three months, though some are more conservative and will say six months or even a year. Of course, the point of the new law passed in AC21 is to make it clear that in cases where the government takes its time in adjudicating a case, the immigrant should not be punished by being forced to remain an excessivel long period of time with an employer. So it should make the INS ease up on targeting people who leave employers too quickly after an adjustment application is finished. But this is just my best guess.
They basically support my contention about the minimum 3 months thumb-rule.
http://www.visalaw.com/02jun1/3jun102.html
Q - If a green card application is an employment based petition, are you obligated to remain with the petitioning employer after the I-485 is approved? If you leave employment with the petitioning employer, will the INS care? (I am familiar with the AC21 106(c) provision for changing employers, but the direction I would like to go in would not be considered a similar occupational classification, in fact I'd like to go back to school instead of work.)
A -If you are going into a different field, then the traditional rules would apply. There is no official amount of time you must stay with an employer, but you will want to stay long enough so that you will not be considered to have had fraudulent intentions regarding your intentions to stay permanently with an employer. Lawyers will tell you different amounts of time that are considered safe. The minimum usually heard is three months, though some are more conservative and will say six months or even a year. Of course, the point of the new law passed in AC21 is to make it clear that in cases where the government takes its time in adjudicating a case, the immigrant should not be punished by being forced to remain an excessivel long period of time with an employer. So it should make the INS ease up on targeting people who leave employers too quickly after an adjustment application is finished. But this is just my best guess.
JoeF,
Just wanted to clarify as I got got lost reading this long thread.
3 months/6 months/ 1 year are all educated guesses. Does it mean there is no rule of thumb on how long to stay or even if there is one it can be 3/6/12 months after getting GC. No clear cut rule on how long to stay.
Even one user had problems changing after 8 months. So does it mean 6 months is not sufficient?
As Mr. Khanna said, since it depends on individual case merits, is it better not to go with a rule of thumb and better check with his/her lawyer and decide what suits best based on his/her case?
<IMO> I agree its better to be conservative than to act at haste. But just going by a handful of user experiences ( with hundred's of people taking citizenships in the past decade) would not be called acting conservative. Its better left to one's judgement and merits of his/her case as checked with their lawyers.. just my $.01
Just wanted to clarify as I got got lost reading this long thread.
Does it mean, all the timeframes we are discussing is speculative. There is no official verdict on how long to stay.JoeF said:
JoeF said:
3 months/6 months/ 1 year are all educated guesses. Does it mean there is no rule of thumb on how long to stay or even if there is one it can be 3/6/12 months after getting GC. No clear cut rule on how long to stay.
JoeF said:
Even one user had problems changing after 8 months. So does it mean 6 months is not sufficient?
JoeF said:
As Mr. Khanna said, since it depends on individual case merits, is it better not to go with a rule of thumb and better check with his/her lawyer and decide what suits best based on his/her case?
<IMO> I agree its better to be conservative than to act at haste. But just going by a handful of user experiences ( with hundred's of people taking citizenships in the past decade) would not be called acting conservative. Its better left to one's judgement and merits of his/her case as checked with their lawyers.. just my $.01
JoeF said:
My conclusion is based on the number of people who know and are registered in this GC/Citizenship forums ( which are in hundreds ) and number of people who posted that they have problems. This is just a small sample and might be wrong to base our opinions "either way".
JoeF said:
If I understand you correctly, there is no general "rule of thumb" as it can be 3/6/9/12 months. If people are looking to change their jobs after GC, if it is 3/6/9 months, it is better to consult with your lawyer and take decision accordingly. Dont base your opinons on what we read from this forums as each people case is different.
What about problems with GC itself
I am sorry if this has been asked before.. But most of the discussion in this thread was regarding problems at the time of citizenship..What about problems with GC itself like USCIS revoking the GC if you change job in say like a month after getting GC. Also Will it create a problem at the time of Renewing the GC? Any Ideas Experiances any one?
I am sorry if this has been asked before.. But most of the discussion in this thread was regarding problems at the time of citizenship..What about problems with GC itself like USCIS revoking the GC if you change job in say like a month after getting GC. Also Will it create a problem at the time of Renewing the GC? Any Ideas Experiances any one?
qwertyisback
Registered Users (C)
HydGuy29, my friend, everybody is tired and exausted with that discussion. If you browse around this forum , you will find many threads with many many posts, so enjoy yourself and if you got answer in those threads, please share with us also
As myself, I don't consider any problems at all in situation you described.
As myself, I don't consider any problems at all in situation you described.
joef.
I agree and understand that you r one of the most knowlegeble members here.& u help a lot of us . but......
bUT as fat as this 6 month rule is concerned ,,,,,,,,,It is time for you.to stop giving potentially dangerous advice.............
it's you against 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000 ..
can you please reply to my post that i posted a week vbax about multiple job chagges after approval.
STOP IT... NOW with murthy link..........
I agree and understand that you r one of the most knowlegeble members here.& u help a lot of us . but......
bUT as fat as this 6 month rule is concerned ,,,,,,,,,It is time for you.to stop giving potentially dangerous advice.............
it's you against 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000 ..
can you please reply to my post that i posted a week vbax about multiple job chagges after approval.
STOP IT... NOW with murthy link..........