Changing Job prematurely After GC?

[qwerty987666]

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

Thanx for sharing experience. Rememebr, CIS website information or CIS officer information hold more value than one individual's opinion on this forum. But I still suggest following comments if you have plans to change employer after GC.

Prudent thing to do is, "GC holder should consult lawyer, hear out other experiences and make your own judgement"

 

[agc2005]

then how about employer not paying after GC approval and in bench.

 

[qwerty987666]

then how about employer not paying after GC approval and in bench.

Refer the link http://uscis.gov/graphics/lawsregs/...104_11b6203.pdf
It clearly shows that if GC sponserer don't pay LC salary, CIS can potentialy revoke GC. And it also stressed that paying wages agreed at LC after GC is very important.

My advice is don't use above excuse, to leave employer after GC. You can definately change employer after GC but should not be based on reason quoted above(as far as CIS point of view).So How soon you can change job it after GC?? Grey area, contact lawyer and discuss your issues and based on lawyers advice, make your decesion.

Never ever document that after GC, your employer is not paying you as promised on GC or whatever such that. And if at all you document it, keep those docs for youself, don't show it to CIS. If you show it to CIS, you simply asking for trouble yourself, it means that you are proving that your GC has been approved based on fradulent intent of your employer. And CIS can doubt legitimacy of your GC.

 

[Koolbreez]

I guess you are looking for personal experience.. Here is mine.. The Citizenship process was put on hold because I had changed employers eight months after getting my GC. Fortunately, (In retrospect) it was a lay-off and not my idea to leave at all...I had to get a letter from the employer (ten years after that fact) not only stating that was indeed the case, but also why they had laid me off... They only went ahead with the process after all those documents were furnished.

 

[mrz]

I guess you are looking for personal experience.. Here is mine.. The Citizenship process was put on hold because I had changed employers eight months after getting my GC. Fortunately, (In retrospect) it was a lay-off and not my idea to leave at all...I had to get a letter from the employer (ten years after that fact) not only stating that was indeed the case, but also why they had laid me off... They only went ahead with the process after all those documents were furnished.

Ha ha! Nice try. Do you own a consulting company with lots of immigrants or potential immigrants? I think so.

 

[mrz]

Please explain what owning a company has to do with naturalization.

Well, let's see... If I *own* a company (scary thought, right?) and have lots of recently graduated or graduating GC holders, wouldn't I scare those poor chumps to stay with me for a while and milk some more? Hmmm... I guess so. Not that I would pull such a low life, scumbag, mean spirited tactic but some *might*!

I am dazed that you couldn't understand what I was implying... Or, you are trying to pull a ?!?

Btw, if the above post is true, then it blows your 6 month rule-of-thumb. In that hapless case, the new ROT should be more than a year, or who knows, may be work with the sponsoring employer till one retires???

 

[gctechie]

problem after 8 months?!

Could be that KoolBreeze's case was before USCIS threw out the 2 year waiting period after GC clause.

 

[mrz]

Again, what does that have to do with naturalization of the owner? Do you have any evidence for that "milking", btw?

Gosh, it has nothing to do with the owner's naturalization. It's just an anonymous poster (aren't we all?) claiming that he/she had problems during the naturalization stage because he/she left the employer in 8 months. Scary tactic, right? If someone posts like this, then whoever reads this thread, which I am sure lot of them do, will be afraid to leave their respective employer. Get it or you want me to explain even further???

Do I have evidence of the milking theory? Gosh, what planet are you in? Most of the desi consulting companies do this... Please someone explain to JoeF about these atrocities...

No, why? As I have said over and over, it depends on the individual circumstances. In some cases, a timeframe of less than 6 months may be ok, in other cases, a longer timeframe may be required. THat's why it is a rule of thumb. Please re-read my posts on that subject...

What circumstances?? Whoever gets an employment based GC needs to have the intent. Unless there are layoffs, I don't see why/how that intent can change for anyone? We are talking about how long one needs to have the intent after approval, right?

Your 6 months preaching don't hold any ground if you believe that the initial poster had issues even after 8 months (I don't believe that post is genuine but I've been proven wrong before). Intent should *always* be there for an employee. If the employer breaks the employee's intent by the way of layoffs, then the employee is scot-free... What other circumstances are there?

 

[djh]

hmmmm seems to me "foolbreez" is a suspect poster.

Now let's look at this. This person has "3" posts and just starting posting on the 14th of this month.

Now this person "allegedly" had immigration problems sometime back and has since cleared up the problems and has only "NOW" started posting on this forum. With all these "alleged" problems they haven't posted a single post in the citizenship forum requesting advice or help.

And now, out of the blue they just happen to be posting here on this board in support of our resident Misinformer of bad information on this thread....

hmmmm seems to coincidental to me.... what pathetic tactics.

 

[djh]

Dude, you seriously need to get back on your meds.

You really have an over inflated idea of yourself....too funny. Thanks for the laugh anyway. Man that is hysterical.

Oh, and for your paranoia...."they" are after you joe

 

[mrz]

Fact is, the posts of real experience show that my claims are correct.

Your claims? What are you, a USCIS agent?? Man, it's just a forum to exchange ideas and you take it way too personally. You put forth your ideas umpteen times and suppress all others by repeating the same thing. Let others comment on it too. Seems to me that you always want the last say on *most* of the topics? Why?

Oh, and btw, you didn't answer my questions. Let me repeat them:You apparently only want to hear from people that didn't run into problems. Is that so? Is that why you also completely ignored the experience in the citizenship forum that also contradicts you?

Yes, I am like this: "trio of monkeys - Only hear what I want to hear, see what I want to see and talk what I want to talk". Happy now?

Like I said earlier, in the other 6 month theory thread, this is my last posting on this thread. Or, for that matter, I will force myself to abstain from any of the threads that you participate because you always want to *claim* that your claims are well, whatever! You somehow, with your persistence, drive me away. Thank you and now, I can spend some quality time on other things. Thank you again.

 

[djh]

NO, actually I have replied to you, many times to show you how biased and one sided you are. But it's pointless talking to you.... If I say the a green light is green, you say no it's red and you can't accept my seeing it's red and blah blah blah.

I have more hope of talking to a fool than to respond to you, I'm tired of it and can't waste my time.

Go read the many people, and forget who you call a troll...but that would be a lot of people anyway...read the opinions of others who say...JoeF is..."fill in the blank" even those that say your contribution most times here is a good thing...they still bad you....but i guess they are trolls, who are qwerty too...too funny man.... you need to get yourself a life.

 

[Nathang]

Because of too many users fight about others views, facts are missing.
Friends, people need to know the whats the rule or law is about leaving the employer after getting GC. because of cross fights, topic is left out somewhere.. please...

 

[Nathang]

Thank you JoeF, this helps.

 

[FunnyWait]

JoeF is way too obsessed with this board/forum and with his views. I think we all need to discuss this issue ignoring him. Let's ignore all the posts that he will post and make a healthy discussion. how about that ?

I think the guy who wrote about his personal experience, does not seem real to me. We can't just go by one line details ....we need either more details or in the absence of that it's just trash.

 

[FunnyWait]

The same question again: Do you want to discuss me or real experience???
Fact is we have two reports of real experience that show that leaving the employer too soon can cause problems.
And it seems that you only consider experience reports that contradict you as "not real."
You apparently only want to hear from people that didn't run into problems. Is that so?

Ignore this post and let's focus on discussion.

 

[gcformt]

Terminated 2 weeks after getting arroved

Hi Joeg/Gurus.

I have been reading the about the impacts of changing emloyers after getting GC. Here is my situation.

I was approved in the first week of december and stamped couple of weeks after that. I was terminated by the employer on 31st dec & i was told this in wriitng on 12th dec. I went ahead and stamped my passport & should recieve the card in couple of weeks.

I also found a new job last week and joined the new company.
I have a terminated notice from the employer & I didnt resign on my own.

Do you think I will have any problems at all. I had the intent to work for the employer but there was a change of intent from his side. Worked for him on a full time basis for more 3 years before that.

Thanks for your imput.

 

[gctechie]

After going through the various threads on the topic, my take is that Seihoon v/s Levy establishes "precedence" as far as " good faith intent" goes. My understanding of "precedence" tells me that in this instance, whether the case is for non-immigrant or immigrant does not matter as the case in question is one of "intent" & intent should be the same for immigrant or non-immigrant.

So as per Seihoon v/s Levy , I think It is ok to quit sponsoring employer 90 days after getting GC & it is VERY UNLIKELY ( to borrow the wording from the case ) that USCIS can make a credible case against the immigrant for non-intent 90 days after GC approval.

 

[gctechie]

No lawyer even claims that. Please point to a lawyer arguing that it establishes precedence.

Sure.

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

The Law Offices of James D.Eiss

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.

Even though "precedence" has not been explicitly stated, it is pretty evident. Also, i recommend following it more as a Rule of Thumb

Based on the above, The Rule of Thumb should be that It is ok to quit the sponsoring employer 90 days after GC approval. However individual circumstances will vary, and one should always consult a lawyer before taking a decision.

Unless you can point to solid evidence for your claim, your conclusion is not valid. Or in other words, you can't conclude anything if the premise is invalid

We dont have "solid evidence" for any anything, including any "rule of thumb". The closest we have is the verdict in Seihoon v/s Levy and the Courts interpretation of "rapid course of events" after getting GC. So as such any premise is invalid, whether 90 days or 180 days. However if we DO need to formulate a Rule of Thumb, 90 days would be a good one considering Seihoon v/s Levy.

Ofcourse one can quit after 6 months, 1 year , 2 years or even 5 years , with progressively lesser chance of any issue, but what we are considering here is the "minimum" safe period of time , considering similar cases prosecuted by USCIS with respect to "intent" and previous rulings given by the Honorable Courts with respect to "good faith intent" in ANY context.

I do however accept the fact that there could be a case in Court tomorrow and the Court could rule that the employee should stay with the sponsoring employer for 2 years atleast to prove "intent". However I see no reason for the Courts to "revise" the time period from 90 days to 180 days or more for immigrants in particular while keeping it as 90 days for non-immigrants to prove "intent" (Will immigrants have "lesser" intent than non-immigrants?!!! ). So the previous 30-60-90 day rule could still be considered for immigrants, accepting the fact that the one cannot predict in advance what the Court will say in a "future case" - 90 days, 180 days, 360 days, 2 years? So, it is imperative to consult a lawyer before taking any decision.

 

[gctechie]

JoeF,

I think i have mentioned in my previous post that though the lawyer does not mention specifically about precedence, it is quite clear what he means by saying 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 agree with what he says. Would be interesting to see what Murthy , Khanna et al have to say about this argument.

I think my previous post conveys what I have to say about the issue and lets leave it at that. The "90 days" suggestion that i have is a Rule of Thumb which can be over-turned \ over-ruled by a Court of Law at any point of time in favor of a longer period of time - 6 months, 1 year, 2 years , 5 years whatever.

Apart from the 90 day Rule of Thumb, the individual circumstance also matters, regarding whether the new job is a significantly better paying one, the manner of leaving the employer etc. Hence the need to consult a good attorney always.

If anyone does approach an attorney regarding this issue, I will be interested in knowing what his/her attroney says about what i have said in my previous post with regard to "intent" as defined by Seihoon v/s Levy case.

So lets just leave it at that.