Does AC21 require the new job to be in the same state, same city?
- Thread starter ganshm
- Start date
Independent1971
Registered Users (C)
No
At this time, regulations do not specify whether a new job offer in another "Metropolitan Statistical Area" is relevant for the purposes of retaining the underlying Labor Certification. Therefore, finding a new job outside of your MSA for which the original LC was approved for, appears to be fine.
However, the final regulations governing AC21 were not published yet and predict how they change the interpretation of the law is not quite possible. The sad thing is that one may not be "grandfathered" with old regulations when the new ones will be published.
However, the final regulations governing AC21 were not published yet and predict how they change the interpretation of the law is not quite possible. The sad thing is that one may not be "grandfathered" with old regulations when the new ones will be published.
Then, what's this?
Immigration News Flash
April 9, 2003
Local BCIS Seeking Narrow Interpretation of Adjustment Portability
At a recent meeting with the Baltimore office of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services attorneys of the local chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association were informed that Baltimore has sought guidance from an appellate body dealing with the issue of portability in employment based immigrant cases. Specifically, the office has requested guidance on two cases dealing with portability where the new position (to which the person ported) is in a different state from the original position. The service's position is that since AC21 is silent as to location, a job that is not in the same location (or Metropolitan Statistical Area) is deniable.
Immigration News Flash
April 9, 2003
Local BCIS Seeking Narrow Interpretation of Adjustment Portability
At a recent meeting with the Baltimore office of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services attorneys of the local chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association were informed that Baltimore has sought guidance from an appellate body dealing with the issue of portability in employment based immigrant cases. Specifically, the office has requested guidance on two cases dealing with portability where the new position (to which the person ported) is in a different state from the original position. The service's position is that since AC21 is silent as to location, a job that is not in the same location (or Metropolitan Statistical Area) is deniable.
I had the same issue - what my lawyer told me was that the MSA doesn't matter, however if you are moving out of the jurisdiction of the Service Center, it may cause some delay due to the case being transfered.
BM - your stmt about the MSA and the underlying LC is valid and I too had the same question, however I was told that AC 21 doesn't put geographical restrictions for the new job, as long as the desc and salary requirements are met. One can take up a new job anywhere in the country.
BM - your stmt about the MSA and the underlying LC is valid and I too had the same question, however I was told that AC 21 doesn't put geographical restrictions for the new job, as long as the desc and salary requirements are met. One can take up a new job anywhere in the country.
GCDreamz,
... I was told that AC 21 doesn't put geographical restrictions for the new job, as long as the desc and salary requirements are met...
... for the time being, anyway. But implementing the same rules for AC21 as it is for LC (filed as a non-schedule A, or whatever it is called) would be only logical. At this time, AC21 undermines the whole purpose of Labor Certification process.
Or they will drop the LC worksite restrictions somehow.
One way or another, the whole issue must be approached and cleared up.
... I was told that AC 21 doesn't put geographical restrictions for the new job, as long as the desc and salary requirements are met...
... for the time being, anyway. But implementing the same rules for AC21 as it is for LC (filed as a non-schedule A, or whatever it is called) would be only logical. At this time, AC21 undermines the whole purpose of Labor Certification process.
Or they will drop the LC worksite restrictions somehow.
One way or another, the whole issue must be approached and cleared up.
BM,
I agree with you. The whole AC21 rule is pretty grey and needs to be cleared up. It does contradict a whole lot of existing rules, but was put in place to help applicants and give them a choice and some freedom, so that the sponsoring companies (read body shoppers) cannot continue taking undue advantage of the situation and delay in processing times. Since several cases have been reported where - companies are using the GC process as a pseudo bond to ensure workers stay with them for a long time.
Lets wait and see how does AC21 finally shapes up and what will be the new and hopefully improved GC process, if any.
I agree with you. The whole AC21 rule is pretty grey and needs to be cleared up. It does contradict a whole lot of existing rules, but was put in place to help applicants and give them a choice and some freedom, so that the sponsoring companies (read body shoppers) cannot continue taking undue advantage of the situation and delay in processing times. Since several cases have been reported where - companies are using the GC process as a pseudo bond to ensure workers stay with them for a long time.
Lets wait and see how does AC21 finally shapes up and what will be the new and hopefully improved GC process, if any.