Check this.

Location Change

As far as I understand changing a location after the approval of LC is fine as long as the new location is in the same MSA (Metropolitan Statistical Area)

Here is a link to check and see what towns are in your MSA. In this guy's case his labor was approved for Waltham, MA and he was living/working all over the map.

http://stats.bls.gov/oes/2003/may/msa_def.htm#1120

This is a good link too:

http://www.americanlaw.com/q&a46.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's a good news for all the people who are currently working for same employer (or different employer) but at different location then stated in LC.
 
Guys

This is frightening. Please clarify this!
I am using a labor substitution approved for Pittsburgh. My employer is located in Pittsburgh, but my current client is in Maine. I submitted change of address in July 2004. I work in Maine now. So does it mean that I am not working in the same MSA?
Please advise!

TIA
dyno
 

On Second thought, I think the counsel in that case made a wrong appeal. GC is for future employment. So instead of the counsel bringing in the various AC21 rules (which we all know is one of the most confusing USCIS law to date), they could have just submitted a intend of future employment at the location for which the labor is approved. This would have resolved the matter without divulging into various rules regarding I129s and I325s.

What do u guys think?
 
usnycus said:
It's a good news for all the people who are currently working for same employer (or different employer) but at different location then stated in LC.
Click to expand...
usnycus

Why do u say so. The final ruling, if I understood correctly is that though the directors decision to deny is to be withdrawn, the AAO had open a can of worms. It states that the applicant/sponsor had violated the H1B by changing the geographical work location and hence that invalidates the applicants H1B. If that statement by AAO is correct then using that clause the 485 could be rejected as the applicant technically loses his H1B validity since s/he has accepted an employment to change geographic location.

So I feel that the case is still at the discretion of the director. The only way the sponsor could defend this is by providing a intend of future employment letter at the location specified in the labor.

Let me know if I am missing something here!

-dyno
 
dynobuoy said:
usnycus

Why do u say so. The final ruling, if I understood correctly is that though the directors decision to deny is to be withdrawn, the AAO had# open a can of worms#. It states that the applicant/sponsor had violated the H1B by changing the geographical work location and hence that invalidates the applicants H1B. If that statement by AAO is correct then using that clause the 485 could be rejected as the applicant technically loses his H1B validity since s/he has accepted an employment to change geographic location.

-
Click to expand...

Yes,this is really opening many more of grey areas so far implicit not only for
485 for H1 as well.This is not to scare but some one to be prepared how to project PROPERLY and appropriately to CIS to avoid problems.
The additional areas now opened:
1)H1 history is to be carefully correlated to 140/485,G325 form.
2)The documentation prepared shall be with out loose ends and contradictions.
3)Any G325 statements that seems have loose ends,an plausible and legal/logical documentation has to be kept before hand,as far as possible.
4)As far as H1 is concerned,so far out of status/violation is thought
as gap in only I 94.
The incident implies LCA/H1 terms are to be seen strictly-for wages ,title/role,
nature,places of work deviations have to be avoided/amended to H1, so that
violations doesn't result.If already observed any deviations better to prepare
substantiations than just leaving work of reply to lawyers alone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top