Final answers about INTENT and CHANGING JOB OR OCCUPATION after GC!!!

[wurzbach]

about INTENT and CHANGING JOB OR OCCUPATION after GC!!!

I have spent some time on this issue again last night. Here are the authorities interpreting exactly the issue that ignited hot fighting on the board. After reading these interpretations, I believe that you can find the correct answer on this issue. I can assure you that any other opinions by any lawyers that contradict with these authorities are not worth of your attention and you should ignore them. The key case that exactly addressed this issue is Yui Sing Tse v Immigration & Naturalization Service (1979, CA9) 596 F2d 831

Here is my outline from these authorities:

1) There is no requirement that the alien remain permanently in the job for which he has been certified.once an alien has received labor certification for a particular job, she is not required to remain for any specific period of time in the job for which she received the certification.

2) He must intend to take the position for a reasonable length of time at the time of entry.(if you have worked for your employer since the time of labor certificate until the time you receive the approval of AOS, in light of the long time of processing, I believe that you have satisfied the requirement of "reasonable time of period")

3) restricting job opportunities on the basis of alienage and freezing aliens in their certified jobs raise substantial constitutional problems.

Here are three law review excerpts:

1) "There is no requirement that the alien remain permanently in the job for which he has been certified. He must, however, intend to take the position for a reasonable length of time, and the reasonableness of the employment period must be determined in light of "the interest served by the statute and the interest in freedom to change employment." There is nothing to prevent an alien from changing employment to improve himself. The question that normally arises is whether an alien disqualifies himself from a labor certification if he intends at the time of his application to remain at the certified job only for a temporary period until he can do better.

The Ninth Circuit's opinion in Yui Sing Tse v. INS illustrates the opposing views on this issue. In this case, an alien obtained certification as a cook and intended to work in that capacity until he could qualify as a dentist. The court weighed the interest protected by the INS--protecting American workers--with the alien's interest in obtaining "the opportunity to earn a living, to improve his economic circumstances, and to engage in common occupations, without unreasonable limitation or invidious discrimination." Because the alien's hopes of being a dentist could not be realized until the distant future, the INS was being overly protective of the interests of American workers. Furthermore, restricting job opportunities on the basis of alienage and freezing aliens in their certified jobs raise substantial constitutional problems.The court found no difficulty with the alien's aspirations and upheld the certification." (17 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 265)

2) "once an alien has received labor certification for a particular job, she is not required to remain for any specific period of time in the job for which she received the certification. Neither INA section 212(a)(5)(A) nor any other provision of law requires the alien to work for the employer indefinitely or for any stated period of time. An alien is not ineligible for labor certification when, at the time of entry, she intends to engage in the certified employment only for a period of time until she is able to advance to another profession. Thus, once the alien has been employed for a reasonable period of time in the certified job opportunity, she may resign and then compete against U.S. workers for other employment in oversupplied fields." (16 Hous. J. Int'l L 43 (1993))

3) "the court, in Yui Sing Tse v Immigration & Naturalization Service (1979, CA9) 596 F2d 831, decided that the fact that the petitioning student with a labor certification intended to attend dental school while working did not render him ineligible from consideration for a Sixth Preference Visa under 8 U.S.C.A. § 1153(a)(6) as being employed in temporary or seasonal work. Admitted on a student visa, he was certified for employment as a Chinese specialty cook on the application of a Chinese restaurateur, for whom he worked from 1973 until the present except for a period of physical incapacity resulting from an accidental injury. At a deportation hearing at which the student renewed his application for adjustment of status following its denial, he disclosed that he was planning to enroll later that year in dental school, which would require 4 years to complete, and that he would continue working as a full-time Chinese specialty cook to support himself and his family while attending school. The board had held him ineligible as a matter of law because he intended to change his occupation in the future from that identified in the labor certificate on which his eligibility for a visa was based. Section 1153(a)(6) limits preference to persons capable of performing labor not of a temporary or seasonal nature, noted the court, but the reference is to the nature of the employment itself, which must be permanent in character, and the job for which the student was certified here is not temporary or seasonal. It is appropriate, commented the court, to require that an alien intend to occupy the certified occupation for a reasonable period of time, but to hold, as the board did, that an alien is not eligible for admission as a preference immigrant when his intention at entry is to engage in the certified employment unless and until he can complete the educational and other requirements for advancement to the profession of dentistry fails to recognize that both the interest underlying the grant of preference and the interest in freedom of opportunity for self-improvement would be substantially served by the student's admission. The pertinent regulation does not require that a petitioner intend to remain in the certified job forever, continued the court, as it only requires that at the time of entry both the employer and the employee intend that the latter will be employed in the job on which the labor certification is based--a condition satisfied here." (80 A.L.R. Fed. 676)


------

side note: change the title due to new update of a case.

 

[hadron]

Isn't that lovely, a 'final answer' in a matter of law !

A lower court precedent case from 26 years ago (at a time when there were still rules on how long you had to stay with the sponsoring employer) might be interesting, but it is definitely not a 'final answer'.

The fact is that there is no guidance by INS/USCIS on this issue. There seems to be a customary period that people are advised to stick with an employer. If you intend to take a shortcut, sure, go ahead, just be aware that you are doing this at your own risk. But please, don't sell your opinion as a fact for others to risk their legal well-being.

 

[wurzbach]

Isn't that lovely, a 'final answer' in a matter of law !

This is my final answer to this issue after extensive legal research.

And the three points I listed are the current law or policy on this issue in the united states (no matter whether you believe it or not). It is true that this case was from the 9th circuit long time ago, but it is still a good law and if you are living in the 9th circuit area, this will be your saving straw and the INS officers and district courts must follows the decision of this case; if you are out of the 9th circuit, this case is extrmemly persuissive (almost madantory since no cases on this issue came out from other circuits).

I have nothing of my own to sell. All I said are from authorities (statutes, court opinions and law reviews.......). I am trying not to answer any individual problems because I know that everyone who has the ability to read can find the answers from the materials that I have provided.

by the way, if you want to stay with your employer for 20 years, no one will bother you, just go ahead and do it! my post is only for those who want to change their jobs after geting GC.

 

[hadron]

And the three points I listed are the current law or policy on this issue in the united states

So you issued the 'policy' and that should suffice as an explanation ?


(you read the law, you read some decisions, you mix it with what you wish to be true and sell it as truth here. You would make a horrible attorney.)

 

[pralay]

1) There is no requirement that the alien remain permanently in the job for which he has been certified.once an alien has received labor certification for a particular job, she is not required to remain for any specific period of time in the job for which she received the certification.

There is no requirement to "remain" permanently, but there is a requirement that you got your GC in good faith (and that is intent to work for GC sponsor parmamently - i.e. permanent position - i.e. not in a temporary position). No matter how much you do research, if you don't understand this basic fact, it's futile.

2) He must intend to take the position for a reasonable length of time at the time of entry.(if you have worked for your employer since the time of labor certificate until the time you receive the approval of AOS, in light of the long time of processing, I believe that you have satisfied the requirement of "reasonable time of period")

Do you understand what is "time of entry" or "time of admission"? You are admitted as LPR on the day when you are granted your LPR status (the day when your I-485 approved).

3) restricting job opportunities on the basis of alienage and freezing aliens in their certified jobs raise substantial constitutional problems.

"Intent" is not a tool to restrict job opportunity. Your above statement is just another hopeless effort to redefine "intent".

 

[Vik Pal]

Quote from examples

Please stop mudslinging each other. None of you is a lawyer so you can discuss this topic endlesssly and hurl abuses over each other but to no avail.

What we need to know is that is there any example of any individual having been denied citizenship just because he/she changed job immediately or even in 3-6-12 months of GC after getting GC.

Also, is there any example of anybody having GC revoked due to this "early" job hopping.

Please quote examples because laws can get very complex and controversial too. If you do not know of any example case then please keep quite and let the experts like Mr Khanna do the talk.

Thanks very much.

 

[pralay]

Here are three law review excerpts:

1) "There is no requirement that the alien remain permanently in the job for which he has been certified. He must, however, intend to take the position for a reasonable length of time, and the reasonableness of the employment period must be determined in light of "the interest served by the statute and the interest in freedom to change employment." There is nothing to prevent an alien from changing employment to improve himself. The question that normally arises is whether an alien disqualifies himself from a labor certification if he intends at the time of his application to remain at the certified job only for a temporary period until he can do better.

The Ninth Circuit's opinion in Yui Sing Tse v. INS illustrates the opposing views on this issue. In this case, an alien obtained certification as a cook and intended to work in that capacity until he could qualify as a dentist. The court weighed the interest protected by the INS--protecting American workers--with the alien's interest in obtaining "the opportunity to earn a living, to improve his economic circumstances, and to engage in common occupations, without unreasonable limitation or invidious discrimination." Because the alien's hopes of being a dentist could not be realized until the distant future, the INS was being overly protective of the interests of American workers. Furthermore, restricting job opportunities on the basis of alienage and freezing aliens in their certified jobs raise substantial constitutional problems.The court found no difficulty with the alien's aspirations and upheld the certification." (17 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 265)

2) "once an alien has received labor certification for a particular job, she is not required to remain for any specific period of time in the job for which she received the certification. Neither INA section 212(a)(5)(A) nor any other provision of law requires the alien to work for the employer indefinitely or for any stated period of time. An alien is not ineligible for labor certification when, at the time of entry, she intends to engage in the certified employment only for a period of time until she is able to advance to another profession. Thus, once the alien has been employed for a reasonable period of time in the certified job opportunity, she may resign and then compete against U.S. workers for other employment in oversupplied fields." (16 Hous. J. Int'l L 43 (1993))

3) "the court, in Yui Sing Tse v Immigration & Naturalization Service (1979, CA9) 596 F2d 831, decided that the fact that the petitioning student with a labor certification intended to attend dental school while working did not render him ineligible from consideration for a Sixth Preference Visa under 8 U.S.C.A. § 1153(a)(6) as being employed in temporary or seasonal work. Admitted on a student visa, he was certified for employment as a Chinese specialty cook on the application of a Chinese restaurateur, for whom he worked from 1973 until the present except for a period of physical incapacity resulting from an accidental injury. At a deportation hearing at which the student renewed his application for adjustment of status following its denial, he disclosed that he was planning to enroll later that year in dental school, which would require 4 years to complete, and that he would continue working as a full-time Chinese specialty cook to support himself and his family while attending school. The board had held him ineligible as a matter of law because he intended to change his occupation in the future from that identified in the labor certificate on which his eligibility for a visa was based. Section 1153(a)(6) limits preference to persons capable of performing labor not of a temporary or seasonal nature, noted the court, but the reference is to the nature of the employment itself, which must be permanent in character, and the job for which the student was certified here is not temporary or seasonal. It is appropriate, commented the court, to require that an alien intend to occupy the certified occupation for a reasonable period of time, but to hold, as the board did, that an alien is not eligible for admission as a preference immigrant when his intention at entry is to engage in the certified employment unless and until he can complete the educational and other requirements for advancement to the profession of dentistry fails to recognize that both the interest underlying the grant of preference and the interest in freedom of opportunity for self-improvement would be substantially served by the student's admission. The pertinent regulation does not require that a petitioner intend to remain in the certified job forever, continued the court, as it only requires that at the time of entry both the employer and the employee intend that the latter will be employed in the job on which the labor certification is based--a condition satisfied here." (80 A.L.R. Fed. 676)

First of all, I did not expect you to quote this case where it clearly shows that intent is required for beneficiary's side too. In past you claimed that there is no intent required from employee's side. This case just contradicts your own earlier claims, theories and imaginations. This case proves two basic fundamental facts of employment GC.

1. Beneficiary requires intent (to work for GC sponsor).
2. INS can make issue if they have suspicion that beneficiary does not have intent (or had no intent). And that suspicion can be raised by many ways - including attending school in an unrelated fields from GC job field (dental school in this specific case).

Second point is very important. Most of the good attornies are concerned about this 2nd point and that's why they recommand that someone should not show any indication or sign to USCIS that would raise USCIS's suspicion. Their argument is that leaving job immediately after getting GC can give that indication. Now, you might win in your or lose in immigration court, but that comes much later after going through long ordeals (financial and mental).

Coming back to Yui Sing Tse v INS case. Why did his case go to court? Because INS claimed that: the fact that he was planning to attend dental school is a good indication that he did not file his AOS in good faith (working as a cook for GC sponsor). On the other hand, Yui's argument is that attending dental school does no mean that he does not intend to work as a cook for GC sponsor in permanent position for "a reasonable length of time". As long he has intend to work for GC sponsor in parmament position, he is eligible for AOS. There is a difference between "parmenent" and "forever". Attending dental school indicates that he is not going to work as cook "forever" in his life, but that may not indicate that he is not going to work as cook "parmanently" (and this is the argument where INS stumbled in court). "Working forever" and "working for resonable period of time for parmanent position" are not same. Read carefully what this case says:

He must, however, intend to take the position for a reasonable length of time, and the reasonableness of the employment period must be determined in light of "the interest served by the statute and the interest in freedom to change employment."
​

Lastly, declaring your own argument as "final answer" is laughable. You have showed that you have no authority in this subject that would make your argument "final answer". This post is as bad as your earlier arguments you made month back (want link?). On the contrary, this case (Yui Sing Tse v INS) shows that intent is an important factor in employment GC. Did you really "intend" to cite this case to make your argument? Quite ironic, isn't it?

 

[pralay]

I have nothing of my own to sell. All I said are from authorities (statutes, court opinions and law reviews.......).

Except once in while citing an asylum case (Singh v INS) and trying to sell it as a case for AR-11 compliance. Then, citing a case involving non-immigrant visa intent ( Gun Choe v INS ) and trying to sell it as a case involving intent in employment GC.

You are definitely trying to "sell" something. Unfortunately you are a very bad salesman. Keep trying.

 

[wurzbach]

First of all, I did not expect you to quote this case where it clearly shows that intent is required for beneficiary's side too.

In the past, you guys claimed that the employee must bear "good faith intent" to work for the employer "PERMANENTLY" (and you guys cited Mr.Khanna's words which suggested a way to prove that the employee intended to work "permanently" by staying with his employer for certain time after GC). I said that's wrong. there is no such requirement on employee's side.When the employee and the employer cooperate to get the GC, no one denies that the employee must intend to work for the employer. But "intend to work for the employer" is patently different from "intend in good faith to work permanently". This case I cited clearly tells you that the employee do not need to intend to work for the employer permanetly at the time of filing his application. The intent he must bears is only to work for the employer for a reasonable length of time. And even this intent does not need to be in "good faith". you can have your plan to leave your employer in the future (including after getting you GC) before you file your application.

As long he has intend to work for GC sponsor in parmament position, he is eligible for AOS.

Hi, pralay, where is the "good faith intent" that you claimed again and again?

There is a difference between "parmenent" and "forever".

I am lost. What's the differece?

to common people, "permanently", "forever" and "indefinitely" bears the same meaning.

the reasonableness of the employment period must be determined in light of "the interest served by the statute and the interest in freedom to change employment."

Pay attention to "the interest in freedom to change employemt". That is the basis of my past constitutional arguments which you and JoeF naively ignored.

--------------
i have no time to laugh at you and Joef for your shortage of familarity with the Ameerican legal system. It is true that this case went to court. and it is good for you to ask why. But you should not stop there and must go further and ask" why this guy won his case and why INS did not make similar case during the past 26 years"?

The answer is that there is no "suspecion" to USCIS anymore on the issue of "requiring the employee to work for the employer permanently". On the employee's side, the key is not whether you intend to work for the employer or not (if you want to get your GC through your employer, you must intend to work for your employer) at the time of application. what most employees worry about is WHETHER THE LAW REQUIRES THEM TO WORK FOR THE EMPLOYER PERMANENTLY BY RECEIVING THE GREEN CARD. if there is no such requirement, you can freely leave your employer after GC, no matter how long you may stay with them (after GC).

Further, the lawyer who suggests "someone should not show any indication or sign to USCIS that would raise USCIS's suspicion." is clearly not a good lawyer. The plaintiff in the case of Yui Sing Tse v INS disclose his plan to INS and court that he will leave his certified job, but he still won his case.

Praly, do not just read those words that seem to support you. read the whole thing that I gave you. I can easily pick up some words for my points: for example,

"once an alien has received labor certification for a particular job, she is not required to remain for any specific period of time in the job for which she received the certification. Neither INA section 212(a)(5)(A) nor any other provision of law requires the alien to work for the employer indefinitely or for any stated period of time. "

 

[TheRealCanadian]

to common people, "permanently", "forever" and "indefinitely" bears the same meaning.

To some common people, empty and full can mean the same thing too. However, "forever" and "indefinite" have clearly different meanings. Indefinite does NOT need to mean permanent or forever, only that no ending date is specified.

It's legal to have intent to end a GC job one day, and you're not telling us anything we don't already know. Otherwise, you'd have situations where the consular officer would ask the intending immigrant, "Do you intend to retire?" and if the alien replied in the affirmative, would instantly deny the IV because the alien intended to leave his job eventually.

Pay attention to "the interest in freedom to change employemt". That is the basis of my past constitutional arguments which you and JoeF naively ignored.

Oh please.

There is no law that forces me to work for any particular employer, and yes with a GC I can quit my job the day after I get my GC. USCIS cannot force me to work for my sponsoring employer. However, in your rush to quote the Constitution you have obviously missed the very important fact that while you have a Constitutional right to quit your job, you posess no Constitutional right whatsoever to become a permanent resident.

It's much the same as marriage-based Green Cards. USCIS cannot force you to remain married to your USC spouse, but if you divorce before the two-year conditional period is up, if they decide to revoke your LPR status your hopping up and down claiming constitutional protection won't get you very far.

As an aside, I liked your original post. You started with three quotes, and then magically attempted to link in your own personal unsupported supposition: "(if you have worked for your employer since the time of labor certificate until the time you receive the approval of AOS, in light of the long time of processing, I believe that you have satisfied the requirement of "reasonable time of period)" I like that particular bit of snake oil, trying to sneak that one in.

 

[pralay]

In the past, you guys claimed that the employee must bear "good faith intent" to work for the employer "PERMANENTLY" (and you guys cited Mr.Khanna's words which suggested a way to prove that the employee intended to work "permanently" by staying with his employer for certain time after GC). I said that's wrong. there is no such requirement on employee's side.When the employee and the employer cooperate to get the GC, no one denies that the employee must intend to work for the employer. But "intend to work for the employer" is patently different from "intend in good faith to work permanently". This case I cited clearly tells you that the employee do not need to intend to work for the employer permanetly at the time of filing his application. The intent he must bears is only to work for the employer for a reasonable length of time. And even this intent does not need to be in "good faith". you can have your plan to leave your employer in the future (including after getting you GC) before you file your application.
.

Yes, still I say that employee must intent to work "parmamently". And that means, the job position which does not have any specific timelimit. For example, if a job position has specific timelimit, that is not permanent. If I say that I am going to employ a person for ONLY 1 year, that is not a parmanent job position. Good example are H1 and L1 jobs. But "parmanent" does not equate to "forever". Most of the job positions in this world are not for "forever", but has its own lifetime. But still they can be "parmanent". What is parmanent? Read this the very case that you cited:

"...and the reasonableness of the employment period must be determined in light of "the interest served by the statute and the interest in freedom to change employment."
​

For example, I am working to company ABC for a "permanent position". In indicates that my job position does not have any specific timelimit. That does not mean that I am going to work for ABC "forever" or this job position is for "forever".

.
Hi, pralay, where is the "good faith intent" that you claimed again and again?
.

You haven't improved. Playing word game does not your twisted interpretation valid. You do not understand what those word means and that's why you play with all kind of combinations.

.
I am lost. What's the differece?

to common people, "permanently", "forever" and "indefinitely" bears the same meaning.
.

Now I understand what is your problem. You do not understand the meaning of very basic concepts. You argue without understanding the meaning of words or phrases. Do you remember "material fact"? "Permanent" mean that there is no specific timelimit. Read my ealier example of company ABC again. Unable to fathom or unable to understand?

I.
Pay attention to "the interest in freedom to change employemt". That is the basis of my past constitutional arguments which you and JoeF naively ignored..

No, I did not ignore. That's the reason I quoted the full-sentence earlier. Again, parmanent does not mean forever. Here the full sentence:

"...and the reasonableness of the employment period must be determined in light of "the interest served by the statute and the interest in freedom to change employment."
​

This is balancing act between "the interest served by the statute" and "the interest in freedom to change employment". You are the person who is ignoring first part and cherry-picking only 2nd part that suits with your argument.

If doctor told me to have a capsule with water everyday, should I just drink water and ignore capsule? Will that serve the purpose? You cherry-picked argument is exactly doing that.

 

[pralay]

.
As an aside, I liked your original post. You started with three quotes, and then magically attempted to link in your own personal unsupported supposition: "(if you have worked for your employer since the time of labor certificate until the time you receive the approval of AOS, in light of the long time of processing, I believe that you have satisfied the requirement of "reasonable time of period)" I like that particular bit of snake oil, trying to sneak that one in.

Of course he attempts to link unrelated things, cherry-picks words and misinterpret cases in a very twisted fashion. And this is not the first time. But of couse he claims that "I have nothing of my own to sell".
http://boards.immigration.com/showpost.php?p=1318867&postcount=6

Here some more snake oil he tried to sell in past:

Snake Oil Bottle 1: Singh v INS: Singh's asylum application was denied because he did not notify INS for address change. Later court excused Singh for the failure to notify INS. Wurzbach cited this case and told that failure to file AR-11 is not going to cause problem.

Snake Oil Bottle 2: Ghaly v INS: Ghaly's EB I-485 was denied because his ex-wife (US citizen) confessed that Ghaly got married to her to evade immigration law (which made him deportable). Wurzbach tried to use this case in a very bizzare way to show that intent is not an issue in employment based GC.

Snake Oil Bottle 3: Gun Choe v INS: Gun Choe entered USA with non-immigrant visa but with immigrant intent. Then he filed for AOS. INS denied his AOS on the basis that as he entered USA with non-immigrant visa but immigrant intent which made his non-immigrant visa invalid (hence, his AOS application invalid). But court overturned that decision on basis that he would be getting his GC anyway through CP. Therefore, it's OK to grant him GC through AOS. Warzbach tried to sell this case as an issue for intent in employment based GC.

You will find more bottles which I don't remember at this moment. If you are interested just read his older posts.

 

[wurzbach]

snake oil, trying to sneak that one in.

if you call that "snake oil". fine. i have a lot reserved for you. Willing to pay for it?

 

[qwertyisback]

TRC, lately you are posting like , you are under spell of resident members of this forum . Bottomline is nobody can show single case being in trouble for leaving job early, But there are other case like wurbach posted which supports thats changing job is not issue.

wurbach, you are good man, I and many other senior members on this forum agree with you completely.. Cheers

Lately , I stopped visiting this forum because of very poor quality of information posted here repeatedly and don't have to any plans to contribute such poorly managed foums in the future. But hey, I can keep bugging here once in a while to tell everybody that there is a life after green card , if you stay away from postings from some members of this forum

 

[wurzbach]

Yes, still I say that employee must intent to work "parmamently".

sure, this is your point. But it is wrong according to the case above.

And that means, the job position which does not have any specific timelimit.

This is your interpretation??? where is the logic? it is on the employee's side when you are talking about his "intent" to work for the employer while it is on the employer's side when you are talking about the permanency of the job position. You are so great to jump so easily! The character (permanency) of the position bears nothing to do with the employee's intent (as I have patiently explained to you months ago).

You are the person who is ignoring first part and cherry-picking only 2nd part that suits with your argument.

give me a damn example how I ignored the first part (read my three points in the first post). Empty accusation means nothing to persuation, execpt waste your own time (just like what JoeF did).

 

[pralay]

.
wurbach, you are good man, I and many other senior members on this forum agree with you completely.. Cheers.

"Senior member"! Who else in your team?

.
Lately, I stopped visiting this forum because of very poor quality of information posted here repeatedly and don't have to any plans to contribute such poorly managed foums in the future.

And "good quality of information" means name-calling, personal attacks. It's very unfortunate that moderator often deleted your "contribution" of "good quality of information". But hey, why don't you write to Rajiv Khanna and become a moderator (just like RealCanadian), so that you can keep your "contributions"?

 

[pralay]

sure, this is your point. But it is wrong according to the case above..

No, actually this case does not define what is "parmanent". You are confusing between "forever" and "paramnent" because you do not understand the difference. But rather this case just says that INS should not assume that the person need to work for "forever". A "resonable period of time" can be considered as parmanent because of two reasons - (1) from employer side, when job position was created it did not have any specific term-limit. (2) from employee's viewpoint, employee had intent to work for that parmanent job position. Intent to work is still required. But you jumped into conclusion that as "reasonable period of time" is not "forever", there is no intent required from employee's side. This is where you are trying to sneak your snake oil. There is nothing wrong or contradictory in case decision. What is wrong is your misinterpretation - aka snake oil.

This is your interpretation??? where is the logic? it is on the employee's side when you are talking about his "intent" to work for the employer while it is on the employer's side when you are talking about the permanency of the job position. You are so great to jump so easily! The character (permanency) of the position bears nothing to do with the employee's intent (as I have patiently explained to you months ago)..

This is where you fail to understand that employee needs to have intent for working with GC sponsor. And this is where good faith intent comes to picture. Over and over I said (and others said) and that you can leave your job day after getting GC provided you can show that go your GC in good faith (and that is intent to work for GC sposor in parmanent job position). Does it indicates that person need to work "forever" or "indefinite"? You are jumping to incorrect interpretation that "permanent position" equates to "forever" or "indefinite". I am surprised that you have not understood very simple examples RealCanadian provided (retirement example and marriage example).

.The character (permanency) of the position bears nothing to do with the employee's intent (as I have patiently explained to you months ago)..

You can claim whatever you want but that does not change the facts that you interpretations were wrong and there were ample replies to those posts. Only thing you could explain that you are a poser and have no idea what you are talkig about. This is not the first time you are quoting unrelated case to make your point. Just try to remember all the snake oil bottles you tried to sell in past (I listed above).

give me a damn example how I ignored the first part (read my three points in the first post).

Of course you ignored first part. The specific cour statement keeps a balance between 1st part ("interest served by the statute") and 2nd part ("interest in freedom to change employment"). But you chose to stress only on 2nd part.

Empty accusation means nothing to persuation, execpt waste your own time (just like what JoeF did).

Each time I quoted your own statement. It's not empty accusation. Let me tell you what is waste of time:
1. Trying to discerdit lawyers like Rajiv Khanna by starting a thread with title "problems with Mr.Khanna's opinion ......."
2. Quoting unrelated cases to make your point (of couse selectively quoting word from the case document).
3. Trying to discerdit everybody who disagree with you (and that includes all lawyers who contradicts your arguments).
4. Playing word game and using words/phrases without understanding the meaning of them ("material fact", "permanent", "immigration benefit").
3. Trying to sell your snake oil with label "final answer". Sound familiar because most of those kind of sellers try to sell with words like "final answer", "final breakthrough", "ultimate solution".

 

[hadron]

Wow, full blown flame war, cool.

 

[wurzbach]

Here is my outline from these authorities:

read the following case and combine this case with the case in the original post, you will get the final answers and see how rediculous of some incompetent lawyers and their representatives on this forum, such as JoeF and Pralay.
--------------------
Matter of Marcoux

In Deportation Proceedings
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS

1968 BIA LEXIS 92; 12 I. & N. Dec. 827

August 15, 1968, Decided by Board

HEADNOTES:

In the absence of fraud, an alien who entered the United States as an immigrant based on a labor certification for employment as a trainee weaver of woven goods but who because of dissatisfaction with working conditions and low wages left such certified employment after 5 days and thereafter obtained non-related employment as a fiber glass repairer for which he did not have a labor certification, is not deportable for lack of a valid labor certification at entry. [Matter of Tucker, Int. Dec. No. 1758, distinguished.]


OPINION: [**827] The special inquiry officer terminated proceedings and certified his order. We will make no change in his order.

Respondent, a 32-year-old married male, a native and citizen of Canada, was admitted to the United States for permanent residence on November 29, 1967. In Canada, he had been a truck and taxi driver for three years. He had a labor certification issued to him because he was coming to Maine for employment as a trainee weaver of [*2] woven goods. He was to be paid about $1.65 an hour. He began this employment the day after his entry.

Respondent was unhappy in his job which required him to sit at a bench and make five knots every 30 seconds for eight hours a day. He planned to ask for a transfer. In fact, he was put elsewhere but liked this even less. A few days after he began to work, he heard that in Connecticut work was available at $2.50 an hour. On December 9, 1967, he went to Hartford, Connecticut, where on about December 13, 1967, he applied for a job with the Kaman Aircraft Corporation. On December 18, 1967 he started to work for them repairing fiber glass -- a job he did not consider a skilled one. He did not have a labor certification for the second job.

[**828] Respondent testified that he entered the United States with the intention of working for the woven goods manufacturer (Ex. 3, p. 2), that he had contact with no other employer before he came to the United States (p. 12), that he used his own money to come, that he came willing to work and earn a living, and that he did not see that he had done anything wrong.

The special inquiry officer terminated proceedings finding that respondent [*3] entered the United States in good faith to take employment with the woven goods manufacturer, that he had left because he had found working conditions unsatisfactory and wages low, and that while he did not have a labor certification for the second employment, there was an obvious need for his services.

At oral argument, the Appellate Trial Attorney contended that if one comes to take certified employment with which he becomes dissatisfied, he should leave the United States and seek a new certification because his entrance was conditioned upon his working for a particular United States employer. He contended that the purpose of the law is to permit selected people to enter for jobs which cannot be filled by labor in the United States, and that only by requiring the departure of the person who did not give the job a reasonable trial can the purpose of the law be achieved. The Appellate Trial Attorney believes that the respondent did not give the first job a reasonable trial since he only worked five days, had no previous experience on the job and had been hired to learn the job. The Appellate Trial Attorney draws an analogy, between the instant case and that of a person the Board [*4] found deportable because he had taken a job other than the one for which he had a certification. He also stated that an informal inquiry at the United States Department of Labor in Boston, Massachusetts, revealed that respondent's job was not one for which a labor certification would be issued because it required no particular specialized skill or experience and was essentially an apprenticeship.

We believe that the decision of the special inquiry officer properly disposed of the case. There was no requirement in the law that an alien who took a job for which he has a labor certification must remain on the job any particular length of time. There is no evidence that respondent took employment in the United States as part of a scheme to obtain other employment. The record reveals that he entered the United States to take the certified employment in good faith. Matter of Tucker, Int. Dec. No. 1758, involved an alien who had a labor certification as a domestic but took employment as a machine operator although employment as a domestic appeared to be available. She never took certified employment. In the instant case, respondent did take certified employment.

[**829] Respondent [*5] made two visits to Canada. He last returned on March 4, 1968 when he brought his wife and children to the United States for permanent residence. At the time of his reentry he was returning to continue his employment with the aircraft company.

ORDER: It is ordered that no change be made in the order of the special inquiry officer.

 

[pralay]

read the following case and combine this case with the case in the original post, you will get the final answers and see how rediculous of some incompetent lawyers and their representatives on this forum, such as JoeF and Pralay.

I can show 200 year old cases and say that if you arrive at port of NYC on a steam-ship and you look healthy (without any visible desease), you are all set to get permanent residentship. You don't even need any sort of "intent", AOS processing or AC21 law. You are that much ridiculous!!! Unitednations posted the rebuttal well.

BTW, We are not representative of anyone. We say what we believe and understand. Keep digging 40, 50 or 100 year old cases and live with your emotions. Unfortunately it's not going to change today's law. These are just your desparate attempts to change today's law in light to past world.