Filing Issue

my attorney says there should be no problem

I talked to my lawyer yesterday and he said there should be no problem and there are some people in another SC who did apply similarly, not all lawyers can be wrong..so i am going to trust him on this one.

keeping my fingers crossed and hoping for the best. thanks a lot guys wishing you all the best
 
should not be a problem

My company Headquarters is under NSC and they apply for I-140 for every one there.I 485 is filed in the service center where ever the person/applicant lives.We had no problem so far and had several approvals.Hope this helps.
 
july_485

the issue over here is not just different i140 location from i485 but also different labour location from i485. Does your labour clearance location comes under CSC juridiction or NSC juridiction?
 
Madha, Labor and I140 "has" to be from the same location which is based on your employers

I485 can be either from your residence service centre or from the center where your I140&Labor was approved. There is no problem here so guys quit worrying.My RD/ND is March 18th and my FP region is SJC
 
Once again

1. You can file I-485 to the service center which has jurisdiction over your actual place of residence. It has nothing to do with "which service center approved your I-140". These are two independent things. You can not file 485 to the service center which approved your I-140 if you don\'t actually live in that jurisdiction.

2. Any change in the job location, as specified in your labor certificate, invalidates the labor certificate (and I-140).

3. AC21 provides some flexibility as to change in location. But only after you have filed your I-485. If your 485 is not approved within 6 months you will be fine. But, if the job location was changed before filing 485 and you and your employer knew that you were never going to work on the job site specified in the labor, your employer (and you) are committing fraud by lying to the govt. agency. Period. But, if at the time of filing 485, your employer, in good faith, believes that he is going to move you back to the original location after your green card is approved, you are fine.

4. Just because my friend was not caught shoplifting does not mean that I will not be caught too (or shoplifting is legal).

Ask any lawyer to talk to me if he/she does not agree with this. Period.
 
Wrong again

labor and I-140 are two independent things. If your job location is in lets say San Jose, your labor will go to San Francisco. Now, your I-140 should go to CSC. But if your company has this arrangement with INS to consolidate all their petition to one service center, your I-140 might go to CSC or to this other service center.
 
right on target !

What you have stated ( esp in 2,3 ) is exactly what my company\'s laywer firm told me when I was talking to them about an internal transfer to a different location. I agree with you on 4 too.
But if you read on this or any other I485 message boards you will find that many ppl have very less scruples about "shoplifting" ;) I think the reason is the tremendous importance is given to GC plus the fact that INS ignores such fraud more frequently than it catches it.
 
No Title

newly saint,

Please read "Where to file:" under "Employment-based applications" of I-485 instructions ( http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/formsfee/forms/i-485.htm ), it says:

b Where to File:
The Service Center that has jurisdiction over your intended place of employment.

Some time back some one on this board posted a link to a PDF file that describes CSC processing document, as per that we know that one can file I-485 at SC based on place of residence too.

Now most of the times LC, I-140 are processed based on job location unless a company has a special agrement with INS to process all applications at one single location. If the company has that agrement and that SC is different than other two then may be the applicant has one more choice to file for I-485. But note that each and every SC deals with this issue differently. In case of other SC\'s it is highly possible that the case may be transferred to other lication based on their logic.

- PCee
 
newly saint

you are scaring me man, isn\'t GC for future job, then it should\'nt matter where i currently work right...

if INS has problem with location, Does it sends an RFE asking for the explanation or invalidate my labour directly? if they issue an RFE, Does letter from my company stating that i\'ll will work at LC location upon approval of GC will be OK?

Are you a lawyer or attorney? i\'m asking this not to ridicule you or anything, in fact i really appreciate your view/opinion. i just need to know where you are getting this news from. since my lawyer don\'t see problem with it. i\'m spending sleepless nights on this issue and i don\'t want screw up GC just because i filled it on wrong SC.
 
As I told you, most people

should have no issue, thanks to AC21. No need to be sleepless.

I am not an attorney ( my words should not be taken as advice) but I will be one day . I am engineer like most of the people on this board (I am also a law student).
 
Just a thought...

newly saint,

In some other thread ( newly saint "Company Not filing I-485" 4/30/02 9:23pm )you wrote to some one (who suggested using AC21 -ofcourse I agree that it is not at all a good idea to begin with but...) that it would be some thing like encouraging some one to commit fraud!

Now, let me take your case as example. You wrote in your previous note that you are an Engineer like most of the people on this board (so I am guessing that you are a software engineer like so many other people on this board), and you are also a law student and you want to become an attorney one day! You know what? For EB based GC one need to have intent to work for GC job indefinitely after getting GC! Now based on your previous note Don\'t you think you are committing fraud and lying to INS to get your GC? As you wrote in some other thread ( newly saint "INS Zero Tolerance Policy" 4/30/02 10:28pm ) if INS has zero tolerance policy Don\'t you think you should be sent back home (where ever you are from) because of above problem?

- PCee
 
not necessarily

PCee
  1) apart from the fact that you cannot prove intent becoming a lawyer does not necessarily mean that he will practice law. so the intent point is moot.
   2) about indefinitely working for the same job , he can always become a citizen after 5 yrs and then practice law.

It is obvious that his case is WAYYY different than the dude who is trying to file AOS WITHOUT a job !!!
 
No Title

sandpa,

I responded to "newly saint" in that way by reading all his recent posts in several threads (please read them to understand where I am coming from). I do understand the difference between some one doing some thing wrong vs. whether it can be proved or not! "newly saint" was talking in absolute terms so..

In the other case the guy is getting transferred to India temporarily because of economic down turn here in US. I think it is possible that the employer may support the idea that once things get better (may be after 6 months) can offer the GC specified job. So at this point of time the employee can file it as on the basis of "future job". As a cost cutting mesure the employer may not be filing any I-485s but it seems they left it to employees! Now in this picture is any thing wrong, that can be proved? I am not sure! Now considering that several attorneys are suggesting clients saying that it\'s okay even if some one lost the job before 180 days at I-485 stage with the hope that INS won\'t send an RFE with in 180 days, I guess in current case it looked possible even though it is kind of going a bit too far.

Now in newly saint\'s case, if we talk only in absolute terms: (s)he wants to become an attorney some day and is a law student now. Based on his/her message -the clear intent at this point of time is to become an attorney, and it sounded as a conflict to EB based GC job! I am not talking about whether it can be proved or not but just a thought!

There is another possibility (50%) too, "newly saint" may not be a primary applicant for GC but is a software engineer.

- PCee
 
PCee, you are wrong

******** you wrote *************
In the other case the guy is getting transferred to India temporarily because of economic down turn here in US. I think it is possible that the employer may support the idea that once things get better (may be after 6 months) can offer the GC specified job. So at this point of time the employee can file it as on the basis of "future job". As a cost cutting mesure the employer may not be filing any I-485s but it seems they left it to employees! Now in this picture is any thing wrong, that can be proved? I am not sure! Now considering that several attorneys are suggesting clients saying that it\'s okay even if some one lost the job before 180 days at I-485 stage with the hope that INS won\'t send an RFE with in 180 days, I guess in current case it looked possible even though it is kind of going a bit too far.
***************************

You are completely out of line here. An employer can not say that he will hire the employee once the economy gets better (after 6 months as you said), how does employer know that the economy will get better and he will have opening.

Future job in other words also means "immediate job opening". What if INS say "ok we will approve your case in one day, will you be able to hire the employee tomorrow". If the answer is "no" than employer can not support I-485 filing. It will be fraud if the employer does so.

Remember, employer signs an affidavit stating that he has immediate opening (regardless of any precondition like state of economy) when labor certificate is filed.
 
Employees/employers future intents

with regards to employee-employer relationship does not matter at all unless one of them (or both) do some act or attempt to do an act leading to realization of their intent.

I intent to pratice law some day. this statement is not definite. It does not indicate to any act I am going to do immediately after getting my green card (and it certainly does not indicate that I will quite my job immediately).

INS says that the relationship should be permanent but they don\'t define "permanent" in terms on years... but it certainly does not mean "foreever".

PCee, I hope you are learning something ?
 
No Title

newly saint,

I don\'t know how you are able to say somany thing with such certainity! I mean using words like "you are wrong..", "No", "Yes" etc. In my view any law is subject to interpretation!

First, can you please spend some time first to understand complete thing rather than just picking up only lines that you want to pick or understand? In my previous post it seems you ignored following words that are in
b bold.
Please note that I was not sure about those areas so I was just speculating hoping that it will give some ideas to discuss with their attorney!

****************
In the other case the guy is getting transferred to India temporarily because of economic down turn here in US. I
b think it is possible
that the employer may support the idea that once things get better (
b may be
after 6 months) can offer the GC specified job. So at this point of time the employee can file it as on the basis of "future job". As a cost cutting mesure the employer may not be filing any I-485s but it seems they left it to employees! Now in this picture is any thing wrong, that can be proved?
b I am not sure!
Now considering that several attorneys are suggesting clients saying that it\'s okay even if some one lost the job before 180 days at I-485 stage with the hope that INS won\'t send an RFE with in 180 days, I
b guess in current case it
b looked possible
even though it is
b kind of going a bit too far.
***************

I am not an attorney, I am writing based on experiences, comments from other members and their attorney\'s advises that are posted on this board and others.

"Planning" may not be a word in your dictionary but I am sure it is in American business\'s! Yes, most of the companies will have outlook of their company why ahead of time. A good company will plan hiring and firing way in advance! Yes, a company can predict several quarters ahead of time (that\'s what runs stock market), that they would need some people down the line with specified job description. I know and saw several employers that are willing to help employees in which ever way they could, without breaking any law! They MAY be going through some tough times at current time but it doesn\'t mean that they cannot plan to hire any more people in the future! Let\'s say if they lay off 300 (just a random number) people now with the clause saying that for green card purpose we can support your GC by saying will hire in future and some take that option and get GC and the employer may really give them a job (doesn\'t matter one day or one year). Note that for some employers it may be costly to keep H1 employees vs ones with GCs! It could pay back in terms of "remaining employee retainment", save some H1, H4 extension costs, there could be some other restrictions on how many H1 employees they can keep vs others etc.

Which ever way I see "Future job" and translate it I am not able to end up with "immediate job opening" intrepretation! I don\'t know what is your basis on this! I do remember some attorney commenting on the subject that "If some one is layed off and if the employer says that it is a temporary layoff then still employee can continue green card on future job basis"! (I am not able to find a link to that comment at this point of time, though)!

I don\'t think some one coming to this discussion board is expecting any exact leagal advise! Rather they are expecting some ideas and experiences so that one can talk to an attorney about those ideas and see which are practical, applicable, fusible etc. Some thing doesn\'t look practical or logical to you, doesn\'t mean that it cannot be done! It only means, just your ignorance.

- PCee
 
No Title

newly saint,

Now, you are trying to talk in practical terms instead of absolute terms (so that, that interpretation can help you)!

Based on what you wrote until now my understanding is (I may be wrong):
1. You filed EB based GC for an Engineer job and you intend to work for that GC job "permanently", fulltime.
2. You intend to become an attorney and you already started attending a law school (means you already started doing something leading to realization of this goal).
3. Speeking in absolute terms, above two intentions look to me contradicting!

You wrote:
***********
I intent to pratice law some day. this statement is not definite. It does not indicate to any act I am going to do immediately after getting my green card (and it certainly does not indicate that
b I will quite my job
b immediately).
***********

Let me compare this situation to the following:
An immigrant who marries a citizen for the purpose of Green card, while GC is still under process starts searching for another girl from his country to marry (because he likes a wife with same cultural background rather than current wife!) so that once he gets a GC, he can divorce and marry that new girl, arguing that I am not going to marry that girl
b immediatly)

Do you see any problem with this case?

I know, you will immediately say that these two things are not same (I also agree that they are not), but by following absoulte terms and the way you are interpreting law for others I don\'t see any difference between this case and yours!

I don\'t know why I am spending so much time arguing with you with the hope that you will understand one day, but based on how far it came until now, you may never!

In my view you tried to be a bit too smart some times in some notes and unnecessarily scaring people from sharing their ideas!

Please see your postings in following threads to understand what I am talking about:
INScsc "CSC - Stoppped processing" 5/1/02 1:47pm
sonofindia "desperately need help. cased beyond JIT time, 3 fax inquiries are done, nothing happened" 4/26/02 11:57am

1. Whether you agree or not several people on this board and some of their attorneys agree that CSC stopped approving cases for some time (not sure if it resumed or not).
2. For you 4 months delay may be barable (in your I-140 case) but for some other people who filed in March, 2001 it may sound a bit rediculous to still wait for their AOS while people filed in Sept 2001 getting their approval!

I thought you were kind of rude to these people in those threads! Its just my feeling...

-PCee
 
PCee, again you are completely mistaken

Labor are filed based on "immediate job openning" not on "planned job openning". Rest of the things you said to describe how this "planned job openning" works is total garbage from labor certification point of view.

Meaning -> An employer can not say that I am trying to hire a person for a position which might come up 12 months from now.
 
Just a general comment

One should not come to this board to seek legal advice. Attorneys are supposed to dispense legal advice not people like us.

If you are in a critical situation, consult atleast two independent immigration attorneys. My personal opinion is that only third class attorneys become immigration attorney (However, I don\'t want to generalize it, there are many exceptions).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top