Changing Job prematurely After GC?

P

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.
 
participant, very good analysis . Just a suggestion, why don't you submit this thread on "citizenship" forum as well, so that everybody can hear "real" experiences.
 
This is good analysis and I am glad you brought this up. Please post this link in other threads, so that we can invite others to participate in this.

Very important to lots of us. I was also asking similar from experience people. there must be some one who has done this...........
 
Participant said:
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.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

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).
Click to expand...

An assumption (emphasis mine). Until we have a hard number, I would be hesitant say anything especially not a few thousands.

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?
Click to expand...

Another assumption. Of course, it could be that CIS hasn't done anything because your first assumption was not correct. ;)

It'll be interesting to see some official statements from CIS, too.
 
TheRealCanadian said:
Exactly.



An assumption (emphasis mine). Until we have a hard number, I would be hesitant say anything especially not a few thousands.
---Yes,it is hard to prove exact figures(Unfortunately,as we are not on --the job of survyes.statistics,govt. agenciesor have an public doc.) but seeing the probability from the contemparary threads(see how many changed),it is assumed that the figure will be considerable.Furthermore,if I have the exact figures, I woluld have given conclusions once for all and not the questions to others.Even I need help in figuring out.


Another assumption. Of course, it could be that CIS hasn't done anything because your first assumption was not correct.
---Yes.basing on the above .

It'll be interesting to see some official statements from CIS, too.
---I totally agree.But If CIS might have not considered this as an issue is also
equally probable.?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ask JoeF

well, i couldn't read the full posting. But i do know this is the favorite question of JoeF, so please let him answer this ... i know fun ensues afterwards.
 
JoeF said:
There is no 30-60-90 rule for CP. Where did you get that from?
Click to expand...

My God, this resident bulley don't know about this rule!!! What a shame :D :D :D

Ok, have you heard about GOOGLE/CIS website??? serach on it, Ok freind.
but don't ask such stupid q/s on this forum, its only for mature members.
 
Here is it - the 30-60-90 day rule for CP.

http://www.usvisahelp.com/art_intent.html

In order to determine whether the alien truthfully represented his or her intent to remain with his or her petitioning U.S. employer after receiving the green card, the USCIS uses the standard created by Seihoon v. Levy. That is, USCIS examines the “rapid course of events” following the alien’s receipt of his or her green card. The Department of State has reduced this rule to a 30-60-90 day formula which USCIS generally follows. If an alien ends employment with the petitioning employer within 30 days of receiving his/her green card, then it is highly likely that USCIS will decide that the alien’s intent at the Consulate interview was not, as he/she stated, to remain with the petitioning employer indefinitely. After 60 days have passed, it is less likely (but still risky) that USCIS will determine that the alien lied about his/her intent at the Consulate interview. And after 90 days, it is highly unlikely that USCIS will have a problem with the alien’s change of employment.

My take is that even in the event of a future court case involving an employment based I-485 non-consular processing case, the above reasoning is still valid. Thats why i would think 90 days is more than enough.No way to say for definite though. I just wish this issue was taken to court for a non-consular case and a judgement pronounced so that this forum users as well as attorneys could rest easy! Dont want that case to be mine, though! ;) :D :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually from the citizenship forum there was an unsubstatiated idea someone "thought" this "may" have caused them a problem but what you always do in your one-sided view is forget to tell people here that other peoples experience posted there said that they had no problems at all with that.

Report the complete picture of what was said not something to back up your bad advice you give people
 
I dont think its fair to bash JoeF because he says 6 months is a safe enough period to leave the sponsoring employer. Almost every attorney says the same, to be on the safe side , especially since there has been no judgement/memo /law passed to the contrary.

Even iam in a situation where i would like to jump ship at the earliest opportunity. But that doesnt mean that what JoeF says is not right because i dont like it. I'll probably wait till 3 months anyways and then consult my attorney at that time. Maybe its being paranoid, but its better to be safe than be sorry with the USCIS.

My gut feeling tells me its allright to shift jobs after 3 months! :)
 
Ok, this is one lawyer's opinion. And furthermore, this is a DoS rule, not a CIS rule

I dont think so. It specifically mentions that USCIS uses the rule.

The District Court decided that the INS had acted correctly when it denied the alien’s application for change of status to Student status. The Court’s reasoning was that the “rapid course of events” following the alien’s entry to the U.S. on Visitor status was evidence of his intent upon entry. While the Court recognized that it is impossible for the INS to read people’s minds in order to determine their intentions, it is certainly possible for the INS to observe the behavior that people exhibit after they express an intention. They can then compare people’s behavior to their expressed intentions, to see if it corresponds. 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.

The concept of “intent” is borrowed from Seihoon v. Levy and applied to many other immigration contexts in which the alien is required to have a certain intent.


Also from the Seihoon v/s Levy case, the Court indicated checking the "rapid course of events" after obtaining GC as a pointer for detrmining intent. I doubt whether a "rapid course of events " can stretch over 90 days!

Also the interpretation of the Courts is an interpretation of the law. It carries even more weight that a USCIS memo. A lawyer could possibly argue more successfully using precedence, citing this ruling than say, a memo or even an adhoc "USCIS rule"
 
In non-immigrant cases, yes. But not for immigrants

The concept of “intent” is borrowed from Seihoon v. Levy and applied to many other immigration contexts in which the alien is required to have a certain intent

I dont think the case "happened" to be a non-immigrant one makes any difference to the "intent". The concept of "intent" remains the same whether immigrant or non-immigrant.
 
JoeF said:
Court rulings are not necessarily binding for other cases. .
Click to expand...

Just read above comment, JoeF aka idiot don't agree with court of LAW!!!! and try to preach others abouth law!!!! WHAT a hypoctrat!!!!!!! :D :D
 
JoeF said:
Court rulings are not necessarily binding for other cases.
Click to expand...

OK, this guy is not just out of mind but way off mind. So this idiot aka joeF wants to say that his opinion is better than "court ruling"?????.


:D :D

No problem... Whats your contact detail Mr. Illeigal immigrant aka JoeF????
Everybody, in any trouble, remember above statements.OK!!!!!!!!!


JoeF's opinion is excuse for all problems with CIS for anybody ,there is no LAW for CIS, whatever JoeF said is LAW!!!!!!!. Such a LOOOOOSER

Members , My PM is clutterered but that doesn't mean that yours TOO., don't just PM me but check yours PM as well
 
Last edited by a moderator:
gctechie said:
I dont think its fair to bash JoeF because he says 6 months is a safe enough period to leave the sponsoring employer. Almost every attorney says the same, to be on the safe side , especially since there has been no judgement/memo /law passed to the contrary.

Even iam in a situation where i would like to jump ship at the earliest opportunity. But that doesnt mean that what JoeF says is not right because i dont like it. I'll probably wait till 3 months anyways and then consult my attorney at that time. Maybe its being paranoid, but its better to be safe than be sorry with the USCIS.

My gut feeling tells me its allright to shift jobs after 3 months! :)
Click to expand...

Yes Joef is right. if you can wait for 6 months you will be safe.

But the question is: what about if you have to leave you employer in 6 months? We need to find out a solution in this case to make us safe.

There is a wonderful Thread here by Unitednations(UN): As promised - How to overcome ability to pay issues.

You can not say to people, you can not have Ability to pay issue, other wise your I-140 get denied.

What UN is doing is I know you have ability to pay issues right now, I help you find the way how to overcome this issue. UN did a good job.

Why don't we do the same thing here? We have to leave the employer before 6 months? what kind of thing we need to do to solve this porblem?

any though?

Thanks
 
If it was as clear cut as you suggest, we wouldn't have this discussion. So, unless you can provide some cases where immigrants were able to use this rule, it continues to be the opinion of one lawyer

Iam not saying its clear-cut. Also, even the 6 month rule of thumb is "just the opinion of some lawyers".

And in fact, I have seen no other lawyer to even suggest that this would apply to immigrants.

I dont think it has been asked.

With case law, a lot of the arguments in court are if the current case is similar or not to some existing ruling.

As far as "intent" goes its the "smae case". Whether immigant or non-immigrant is a technicality.

Furthermore, for non-immigrants, there actually is a CIS memo talking about this rule.If CIS intended to use this rule for immigrants as well, they would have brought out a memo to that effect. They haven't.

CIS issued a memo because there was a court ruling and the court ruling was binding upon CIS and it applied to non-immigrants. It DOES NOT mean that it is NOT applicable to immigrants, just because CIS DID NOT issue a memo. Since we still dont have a court ruling for immigrants, its still a matter of conjecture as you say, but i would say its a pretty strong case to extrapolate the "intent" reasoning to an immigrant case - if and when such a case is opened.

Note that the CIS memo was based on the Court ruling. Meaning , it was the Court ruling that drove the issue of the memo. Since the court ruling was in the context of a non-immigrant case, the memo issued was also for the same.

If tomorrow there is an immigrant case, the above rule would, in MY OPINION , be a strong point of precedence atleast with respect to intent. And if a Court issues a similar ruling USCIS would issue a similar memo for immigrants too.

USCIS would be quite bold if they dis-regarded the 30-60-90 day rule "intent" clause and "rapid course of events" criterion before prosecuting a similar case , albeit for an immigrant case. I would be very surprised.

Might be interesting to know the opinion of other lawyers about this.
 
Read again my comments

There is no such thing like "GC holder has to stay for 6months with employer", as there is no CIS publication or law supports this theory, its just somebody's opinion. So don't hold much value. I see more risk here, as lawyer is not involved, CIS might conclude "lack of intent" after GC holder followed above rule as well. As CIS don't give a damn to such rule of thumb of one individual

Prudent thing to do is, "GC holder should consult lawyer, hear out other experiences and make their own judgement" Thats it. There is no risk associate with it as decesion is taken with lawyers suggestion.
 
let me add what I heard while stamping my passport for GC
The office stamp my passport and said, this is temporary approval in 3 to 6 months you will be getting physical card, but from now you can work for any company in the country. what does it mean , could people who got GC stamping add the conversation that made from the officer?

can I take the officer statement that I can work for any company in the country
 
I have the intent forever
but how about the following factors
1) getting a job that has better pay and benefits (but still the desc remains as per LC)
2) employer is not treating well
3) how about employer not paying while the project is over (in consulting company)
other things....


we have intent to work for the sponsor company forever, but also we are not slave to the employer right?
 
I have the intent forever
but how about the following factors
1) getting a job that has better pay and benefits (but still the desc remains as per LC)
2) employer is not treating well
3) how about employer not paying while the project is over (in consulting company)
other things....


we have intent to work for the sponsor company forever, but also we are not slave to the employer right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top