Does 23% salary hike poses any risk?
- Thread starter GCPEN
- Start date
NOT A PROBLEM (even if it varies by 50%). I have seen many people who have replied to RFE with salary fluctuations of 50% and still got approved. Hey remember one thing, GC is for future employment. So the salary mentioned in LC should be paid after getting the GC. So right now, there won't be any problems.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that huge changes to one's salary could cause issues because the USCIS will often take this to mean that your duties have changed significantly from what was specified on the LC? Certainly at the LC stage, this would probably cause the LC to be rejected, no?
For the GC stage, I would think that a 23% increase *might* be ok but I'm guessing that a 50% increase would trigger an RFE to explain the change (e.g. you moved to a higher cost of living area / increase was over X years since LC was filed / duties are still very similar to what they were originally / average salary for that type of job increased etc.). Even under AC21, the job has to be roughly similar to the one for which the GC was started and a 50% change in salary (unless explainable as mentioned above) would raise a red flag afaik?
ETA
For the GC stage, I would think that a 23% increase *might* be ok but I'm guessing that a 50% increase would trigger an RFE to explain the change (e.g. you moved to a higher cost of living area / increase was over X years since LC was filed / duties are still very similar to what they were originally / average salary for that type of job increased etc.). Even under AC21, the job has to be roughly similar to the one for which the GC was started and a 50% change in salary (unless explainable as mentioned above) would raise a red flag afaik?
ETA
TheRealCanadian
Volunteer Moderator
ETA-GC said:
USCIS uses pay, duties, and title to determine if a job is similar. If the pay is 50% higher or lower, it might be argued that the job is in fact not similar - at which point you would need to point out change of location and time, and the duties and title.
FWIW, my LC had a rate of $71k and at my interview I was making $90k. No problem.
opticalguy_sfo
Registered Users (C)
I can't believe people are actually discussing about pay hikes and if it is ok!
this is not my opinion but a AILA and immigration lawyer's quote: pay hikes are actually considered a positive for your case and not negative. Pay mentioned in the labor is individual's minimum salary and anything more is a positive. It is un-american to think that you will not get a raise after working for a company and not get yearly raises. Now, getting less salary than your LC is whole different ball game. It is actually considred a negative, but demographics are also in play here. If economy is bad, then any fluctuation of 10-15% less than your actual salary mentioned in labor is still ok.
Now people can deduce their own conclusion from above statement.
this is not my opinion but a AILA and immigration lawyer's quote: pay hikes are actually considered a positive for your case and not negative. Pay mentioned in the labor is individual's minimum salary and anything more is a positive. It is un-american to think that you will not get a raise after working for a company and not get yearly raises. Now, getting less salary than your LC is whole different ball game. It is actually considred a negative, but demographics are also in play here. If economy is bad, then any fluctuation of 10-15% less than your actual salary mentioned in labor is still ok.
Now people can deduce their own conclusion from above statement.
TheRealCanadian
Volunteer Moderator
opticalguy_sfo said:
I can. I've heard anecdotal stories about people running into issues at Montreal consular IV interviews when making substantially more than the LC salary - the consular officer intimated that the company had lowballed the salary at the LC stage to discourage Americans from applying.
As well, does common sense indicate that a job paying $200k is the same as one paying $90k?
ETA-GC said:
You are wrong. I have seen people (last year) who have replied to RFE with salaries that varied by 50% compared to the one mentioned in LC. All the fears about red flag are based on natural reasoning and common sense ( i also believed that even 20% change is risky
). But INS is quite liberal in this sense (in fact in many senses) and we have never seen any one getting into problems on salary issue. While i admit that the past is no guarantee for future actions of INS, i sincerely believe that there is no need to get scarred on an issue on which INS has never ruled adversly. We need to understand INS through their actions where ever the law is not clearly defined. If the worst comes (getting a dennial because of huge difference in salary), a smart lawyer can put in convincing arguments and pull you out of the problem. A lot of factors influence salary , for example location, skillset demand, labor shortage, employer's size etc.PS : My interest and authority
on this subject comes from the fact that when i have applied for I485 my salary has dropped by 40% compared to the salary mentioned in my LC. I have submitted my pay slips (the ones with 40% less salary 
) when i have applied for I485, then again while applying for EAD renewal etc. My I485 is approved without an RFE. Last year, i was little afrid on the salary issue and asked lot of people about their experiences and my conclusions are based on all of that.
Last edited by a moderator:
TheRealCanadian
Volunteer Moderator
dsatish said:
dsatish, there's a subtlety here that I think everyone needs to grasp. If there is a significant (~50% or more) change in salary, I think one needs to be aware that the question "is this really a same/similar job" may come up. Doesn't mean it will, and even if it does, it doesn't mean the case will be rejected.
But if one is in such a situation, they need to be aware of that possibility and gather evidence (job duties, change of location to higher/lower cost of living area, etc.) that it is a similar/same job.
What position would you rather be in, one where you are hemming and hawing when the question is asked, with nothing to provide in response, or one where you have anticipated the question and can answer with confidence? I know what I'd rather do.
A lot of immigrants here seem to waver between overconfidence and panic. Neither emotion is good. What everyone needs to do is dispassionately attempt to identify all the potential problems that could come up, and instead of worry about them (which does nothing to solve the problem) make sure they can address them. That's real empowerment, and that's my goal.
There are a 101 things that can go wrong in the GC process. You and I have both been here long enough to see that, and the trick is to make sure that you can deal with problems as they happen instead of react to them. I was worried when I went in for my interview, but I was confident that any possible question that the interviewer could raise (EVL, degree, proof of legal stats, proof of marriage/shared life) I had evidence to address.
That's a great situation to be in. I want everyone to be in that situation, confident that they looked at all the problems and didn't have to worry anymore since they had evidence to defeat them.
dsatish said:
Yes, this is an example of what I was suggesting could happen -- an RFE due to a significant change in the applicant's salary. I didn't say that the RFE couldn't be overcome (as long as the duties still match and the salary change can be explained/justified), just that the salary change itself could raise a red flag.
As you say, the important thing is the job description -- if you are still doing substantially the same job you should be fine. But, while I'm sure there are exceptions, I'd bet that in most cases where someone gets a *50%* raise (or cut) in salary their duties *have* changed significantly.
(Keep in mind that the original poster mentioned a 23% increase over 4 years which is probably a lot easier to justify than the 50% number that a followup post mentioned as being ok.)
If nothing else, an RFE can delay your case be several months...
ETA