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

[wurzbach]

Approximately four months later, the law was changed to get rid of this clause. Some people on the boards when they start researching this issue they will find this case and hang onto it without realizing that the law has actually been changed which made the case irrelevant to people now.
The cases you point out are relatively old. It could be that because of the defeats, USCIS stopped challenging people.

I know what you are talking about. Originally, an INS CFR provision specifically stated that there was no requirement for aliens to stay with their employer permanently. after some battles, INS deleted this spcific provision. But this does not mean that by deleting this provision, they changed to add the requirement for GC receivers. The case in my first post of this topic still cited the unexisted provision to address the policy. the dissent opinion in that case shares the same opinion as yours (by stating that the provision did not exist). But that did not affect the outcome of that case and dissent opinion was not law. by the way, the ability to change CFR provision by USCIS does not mean that USCIS has the power to change any law. Only congress and courts have that power.

 

[wurzbach]

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.

seems you need more education on the immigration history. But unfortunately I have no time to teach you for free. just tell you a principle. During the first 100 years of US, the immigration policy is: everyone can immigrate to US until the door was shut up; after that, the policy is: no one can immigrate to US until the door is opened. Do you understand?

by the way, who digged up a unrelated case and claimed that the so called "repid course of events" theory is appliable here?

 

[wurzbach]

I'm quite aware USCIS has not power to change law. However, they do change their interpretation quite often.


immigration-law.com
04/09/2005: DHS May Revoke Approved I-140 Petitions Anytime Under the New Law

On August 2, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals in the Second Circuit ruled in the Firstland International case that the INS was not permitted to revoke the approved I-140 petition when the beneficiary had already been present in the U.S. This decision was based on the then Section 205 of the Immigration and Nationality Act which provided that the Secretary of State was allowed to revoke the approved I-140 petition before the alien beneficiary was admitted to the U.S., but once the alien beneficiary was admitted to the U.S., the approved I-140 petition could not be revoked. However, believe or not, without much publicity and public notice, the Section 205 was amended by the Congress and signed into law on December 17, 2004 giving authority to the DHS to revoke the approved I-140 petitions anytime. This amendment applies retroactively to the decisions of revocation before, on, or after the effective date of this legislation. This amendment killed the Firstland International decision

I revised my first response to your post.

revoke I-140 is another issue. we can talk about it later.

 

[wurzbach]

My point is that maybe the cases you quoted are the only ones out there discussing this issue.

Yes, you are right. Normally, litigants should find out the cases that exactly addressed the issue at bar. If they cannot find out any, they will turn to the cases that are mostly close to the issue and then try to make a guess about how the courts will decide the issue.

You can make a very good argument that USCIS may change their operations on the law. But as long as the case law was not outdated by the congress actions or more recent courts opinions, they are still in effect. USCIS cannot make a case that is contradictive to the settled case law. If they chose to do it, they will lose in courts unless the courts make a mandacious step to abort the presedent case law. But that rarely happened.

If there is no statute amendments or court opinions that specificlly change the case law, you can fairly rely on the case law and make your choice. You cannot argue that you need to make a rain check since the law may change right after you take the desired action. the fairness of the American legal system requires that the law must be predictable. what makes the law predictble? the litigants have the right to rely on the settled law and predict for the future. It is not a basis of this legal system for any litigants to make a prediction on what has never happened.

 

[pralay]

seems you need more education on the immigration history. But unfortunately I have no time to teach you for free. just tell you a principle. During the first 100 years of US, the immigration policy is: everyone can immigrate to US until the door was shut up; after that, the policy is: no one can immigrate to US until the door is opened. Do you understand?

I thought of not replying this newly digged case. But I think I should reply.
After doing one month of "research", is this all you got to prove their theory? A 1968 case? Here the case said:

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.
​

Does it ring any bell to you, Mr. Researcher? Months back you were teaching constitution to everbody. Now you are teaching US immigration history.

This case does NOT say that it's intent is not required. This case does NOT say that person can obtain GC without good faith. But rather the respondent argued that even though he changed his employment immediately after getting GC, he obtained the GC in good faith (that is "intention of working for the woven goods manufacturer"). Then after one month "he heard that in Connecticut work was available at $2.50 an hour". That means he still had to prove that that he entered USA with good faith to work for GC sponsor and he changed his mind later (to change employment).

Now read what later paragraph said (especially bold underlined words):

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.​

There two key things in this case:
Point 1. Respondent was not aware of working condition before coming to USA. He saw working condition and decided to look for better opportunity (keep in mind that he did not look other employment immediately after getting GC, but he tried to stick with employer by requested for "transfer" to a better job location).

Point 2. He heard of Connecticut job after one month and decided to take up that opportunity.

Now, let's try to fit this case with our present circumstances:
Person A is working for company X. He got his GC for through company X. After getting GC, he changed his employment to company Y.

Now, tell me, does Point 1 apply to person A? No, because he is aware of working condition even before getting GC. It's like saying "I was happy with company A before getting GC and then become unhappy immediately getting GC". No, this argument may not work always (but it can work in a few cases).

Does Point 2 apply to Person A? Possibly. It's possible that he did not look for job before getting GC, but he started looking for job after getting GC (because GC gave him better options to get new job). This is where the issue becomes dangerious for person A. Read again what court document says (I quoted above): "there is no evidence that respondent took employment in the United States as part of a scheme to obtain other employment".

With combination of Point 1 (person A was aware of working condition before getting GC, because he was working there already) and Point 2 (he changed job immediately after getting GC), USCIS can argue that he "took employment (GC employment with company X) in the United States as part of a scheme to obtain other employment (employment with company Y)".

In fact when I hear people saying: "I got my GC, why can't I change my job immediately?" I hear an alarm. USCIS can hit people right there with above argument: you were aware of the job profile (GC job position) even before getting GC. That means you just waited to get GC so that you can change job ("a scheme to obtain other employment").

So, Mr. Wurzbach (aka researcher), your cited case is irrelevent when it comes to intent or good faith issue (actually not irrelevent but it does not prove that employee's intent is not required as you cliamed in past). This Canadian respondent neither argued that he did not have intent nor he argued that he did not have good faith. But rather he had to show that circumstances changed after getting GC. Of course even today a person can go to court (if USCIS revokes his GC) argue same thing. But he/she still needs to show that he got his GC in good faith (not as a scheme to change other employment), just like Canadian respondent showed 40 years back.

by the way, who digged up a unrelated case and claimed that the so called "repid course of events" theory is appliable here?

Showing a recent article from an attorney's site is not "digging". Go back to Lexis-nexis and do more research for next one month. You may find some more cases. BTW, don't tell me after one month "I have patiently explained to you months ago", when your arguments and fake research were refuted by many already. You haven't shown anything new, you haven't shown anything that supports your argument. All you have shown is new kind of snake oils.

 

[hadron]

Cases 40 years old are worthless for today's law. Trying to derive some information useful for today from them is folly.

Todays court decisions are BASED on precedent 40 years old. To justify the detention without charge or trial of 'enemy combatants', the supreme court went back to decisions made in the 40s regarding the detention and execution of some Nazi spies in Florida.

The problem is, as Pralay pointed out, that this case doesn't proove wurzbachs contention at all. The alien after all took up employment for the woven goods company AND managed to convince the court that he had the intent to stay with this company at the time he entered the country. He could demonstrate that he changed this intent only AFTER starting to work for the company and this is why he prevailed.
Close but no cigar.

 

[TheRealCanadian]

But that's not immigration law. The immigration law has changed significantly since 40 years back, hence cases from that time, with a different immigration law, have no bearing on today. Furthermore, this wasn't even a Supreme Court decision. It was a lower court, and therefore has even less precedent-setting power.

Just because a precdent is old in an area with legislative changes, doesn't automatically invalidate it. As an example, Brown v. Topeka Board of Ed is still I believe valid, controlling precedent a half-century later, despite the fact that civil rights has been the subject of copious legislation by Congress since the 1950s.

If a precedent has been raised, it is presumed valid unless one can suggest that a later revision of the statute or higher court ruling contradicts it. While old precedents should be treated with care because in an area like immigration law they are likely to have been overturned or made invalid due to statutory revisions, the fact that they are old does not in and of itself make them invalid unless you explicitly demonstrate otherwise.

The 1967 ruling to me indicates a clear requirement for intent at the time of becoming a permanent resident, and I would consider it valid despite its age unless someone can cite a later statute or decision contradicting it.

 

[hadron]

But that's not immigration law.

Immigration law is law. Not different from other areas of civil or criminal law. The concept of precedent is the same.

Furthermore, this wasn't even a Supreme Court decision. It was a lower court, and therefore has even less precedent-setting power.

Today, if someone entered on a labor cert based immigrant visa without having ever worked for the sponsoring company before, started to work for them and after a week or so left, he could cite this precedent if he ever got into trouble. Doesn't mean he would prevail, but that is the nice thing about law that nothing is carved in stone.

In the same vein, you can't use Supreme Court decisions regarding slavery from 100 years back to justify slavery today.

Gee, you might want to polish up your knowledge of US history before your interview. I would hope they had done away with slavery 10 years before WW1.

The reason why supreme court decisions condoning slavery have no bearing is because there has been a trail of subsequent decisions outlawing it.

In this case, do you (or wurzbach) even know if and how intent was required 40 years back?

I don't know that for a fact. But the courts decision seemed to rest on the fact that he took the initial job 'in good faith', and what else is intent ?

 

[pralay]

The problem is, as Pralay pointed out, that this case doesn't proove wurzbachs contention at all. The alien after all took up employment for the woven goods company AND managed to convince the court that he had the intent to stay with this company at the time he entered the country. He could demonstrate that he changed this intent only AFTER starting to work for the company and this is why he prevailed.
Close but no cigar.

This guys is trying desperately to prove that changing job immediately after not a problem (if someone is questioned about his obtaining GC in good faith). The "conclusion" of his "research" is fixed (even before doing research). Now is he trying to align his "research" so that he can arrive to the "conclusion". Unfortunately he is not smart enough to do that and sell it. It's not "honest research" (because his "conclusion" is fixed even before starting research).

Once in awhile he finds some case where people were successful to keep GC (this the latest case he mentioned). His theory is that, if someone is able to keep his GC after changing job, that indicates "good faith intent" (to work for GC sponsor) is not required. If today USCIS takes 100 GC holders (who changed job immediately after getting GC), it's possible that 5 or 10 or 20 or may be 50 people will be able argue successfully that they got their GC in good faith (hence will be able to keep their GC). But that does not change the fact that getting GC in good faith is an important condition and factor. Those 5, 10, 20 or 50% will be successful because they will be able to show that they got their GC in good faith.

Going back to that 40 year old Canadian respondent's case. In past TheRealCanadian (another Canadian ) articulated pretty well in this issue:
http://boards.immigration.com/showpost.php?p=1304809&postcount=5

In the question "what changed", this person (40 years back) was able to show that "whatever changed" is all after getting GC in good faith. He started working for GC sponsor and found working condition unsatisfactory (he did not work before getting GC). Then he requested for transfer. That was even worse. Then after one month he started looking for job and "heard" about Connecticut job. These are all his evidence that he got GC in good faith (in other word, when he got his GC, changing employment to Connnecticut job or other jobs were not in his mind).

Over and over I said (and many others said) that you can change your job next day after getting GC, provided you can show that you got your GC in good faith. This 40 year old case also says that "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." (but also keep in mind that, law was changed later when there were two years of condition, but that was also changed farther later - but overall the issue of good faith intent remains always). So, if you think you can change your job immediately after getting GC and still can answer "what changed" question convincingly (therefore can show that you got your GC in good faith), go ahead and change your job.

But, Mr. Wurzbach is trying to give people a wrong illusion that failure to answer "what changed" question is not going to cause any problem. This is where he is trying to sell his snake oil for one more time.

 

[pralay]

.
The 1967 ruling to me indicates a clear requirement for intent at the time of becoming a permanent resident, and I would consider it valid despite its age unless someone can cite a later statute or decision contradicting it.

Irony is that Wurzbach is citing the cases which contradict his own theory. It's amazing that in clear daylight he is citing cases to backup his own argument, which is just opposite what those case rulings said. It's like trying to sell a red car as black car. "See, this is a black".

 

[wurzbach]

The 1967 ruling to me indicates a clear requirement for intent at the time of becoming a permanent resident, and I would consider it valid despite its age unless someone can cite a later statute or decision contradicting it.

I feel your concern deserves my time more .

You are right that this 1967 case was decided based on the absence of "bad faith". But the requirement of "intention to work for the employer in good faith" at the time of application seems to be undermined by the case in my first post, which was a later case and decided by a higher authority. In that case, as I said, the alien clearly disclosed his intention to leave the certified job when he got a dentist degree. isn't that a "bad faith" for getting a green card? there is some review which interpretated the case by saying that [this case law] allows the applicants to reserve his intention [to leave the employer] when he files the application.

 

[pralay]

.In that case, as I said, the alien clearly disclosed his intention to leave the certified job when he got a dentist degree.

Again you are misleading (more snake oil). That was INS's assumption that as he planning to go to dentist school, indicates he is not getting his GC is good faith (because he is going to leave his job after certain period of time in future anyway). Basically the court said that going to denist school does not indicate that he is getting GC in "bad faith". According to court, as long as the person intend to work for GC sponsor (as cook) for "resonable period of time", it's fine. He does not have to work "forever". As he is not going to work as cook "forever" any ambition of future career is fine. Basically court drew a clear line between "what can be considered bad faith" and "future ambition".
Read RealCanadian's retirement example again.

 

[TheRealCanadian]

In that case, as I said, the alien clearly disclosed his intention to leave the certified job when he got a dentist degree. isn't that a "bad faith" for getting a green card?

Again, if I intend to stop working one day and retire, does that mean that I cannot get a Green Card?

In the case you cite, the applicant clearly had the good faith intent to work for the employer for an indefinite period, although at some point that employment would cease. I don't see how that contradicts the intent requirement at all.

 

[pralay]

Again, if I intend to stop working one day and retire, does that mean that I cannot get a Green Card?

I don't think he got it because he refuses to get it (willful ignorance). He would rather try to sell his snake oil by claiming "final answer" as an product of lots of "research".

 

[wurzbach]

Again, if I intend to stop working one day and retire, does that mean that I cannot get a Green Card?

In the case you cite, the applicant clearly had the good faith intent to work for the employer for an indefinite period, although at some point that employment would cease. I don't see how that contradicts the intent requirement at all.

for your question, you should ask JoeF and Pralay, not me.

And you seem fogetting what we were talking about. pralay and JoeF claimed again and again that "you should not show any suspecion to INS" that you do not intend to work for the GC sponsor permanently at the time of filing application. Otherwise you are in bad faith and hiding a 'material fact" (subject to Fraud accusation). if you quickly leave your employer after GC, you must prove to INS that you did not have that bad faith.

 

[pralay]

And you seem fogetting what we were talking about. The "jobless idiots" pralay and JoeF claimed again and again that "you should not show any suspecion to INS" that you do not intend to work for the GC sponsor permanently at the time of filing application.

You still did not understand the difference between "forever" and "permanent". Didn't I mention one of the message that you can leave your job day after geting GC provided you can prove that you had good faith on the day when you got your GC? Does it translate to you "forever"? Did we ever say that person needs to work "forever"? Of course your excuse was that for "common people" all are same. No they are not same. First learn the difference, then argue. Before teaching others immigration history, learn the meanings of those very basic words/phrases. And it seems you refuse to accept the explanation for given by RealCanadian just yesterday but rather want to keep the misconception in your head with "common people"'s understanding.

Otherwise you are in bad faith and hiding a 'material fact" (subject to Fraud accusation). if you quickly leave your employer after GC, you must prove to INS that you did not have that bad faith.

Being blinded by your illusion you forgot that the case of Canadian respondent came to court because he changed job "quickly" (because INS was suspicious that he did not get his GC in good faith). Each case is different. In this case using his own circumstances (which may not apply to other's cases) he was able to prove that he got his GC in good faith. Your theory is that as this guy was successful, everybody is going to successful (if taken to court). But you cannot handover this case law in court and tell immigration judge "this guy got GC 40 years back, so you cannot question my intent". Judge will ask you to prove your good faith intent very same way this guy was asked to do so 40 years back. That's the lesson of this case. If you haven't got it, that's unfortunate.

check these points from the two jobless idiots with the two cases I gave you, I think you will understand their stupidity.

It seems you cannot fathom the fact after you found a 40 year old case after doing so-called "research" and posted it here, we are investing our time to find holes in your arguments. Quite frustrating, isn't it? Otherwise, there is no other reason to call us "jobless idiots" and venting that frustration. Probably you dreamed of a smooth ride (no reply, no rebuttal) after posting your "final answer". Labeling your argument as a product of "research" does not make your argument a single ounce heavy in merit, but proves that you are poser who wants to sell something dubious. It may work in some villages where most of the people are uneducated (they will buy your snake oil when you utter the word "research"), but not in an immigration forum. Wrong place, dude!

 

[TheRealCanadian]

Brown v. Board of Education is a Supreme Court decision. Quite different than a decision from some lower court. The precedent would only be valid in the jurisdiction of the court.

That's very true, but that doesn't stop other courts from taking notice of this, deciding it is applicable and then applying it in their own jurisdictions. They're just not obligated to. Either way, a lower court decision is no different than a Supreme Court decision in that it has no expiration date. If it has not been superceded by statute or other precedent, it remains equally valid no matter wether it was handed down in 1967 or 1997.

And wurzbach has shown the decision he quoted to be valid how? He didn't do a comparative analysis of the relevant immigration law then and now. ... I argue that wurzbach has not shown that it applies today. That's his snakeoil.

He's not under any obligation to do so, nor should he be asked to prove a negative. He's pointed out a precedent that clearly indicates that intent is what is required. If you believe it has been superceded, then please tell us in what decision or statute.

 

[pralay]

He's pointed out a precedent that clearly indicates that intent is what is required.

It's always so - intent is required. These two cases demonstrate that. But Wurzbach has his own twisted interpretation. In past he claimed that employee's good faith intent is not required. Then he found Yui Sing Tse v INS case. Using this case he started arguing about the definition about "forever" and "permanent" (with an excuse of "common people"'s understanding). Of course he sneaked in the snake oil which you already pointed out:

"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)"​

Here he cleverly avoided to explain what is "time of entry".

 

[vitalsigns]

There's no such a thing as intent after you got the GC, time frame and all that crap.

 

[vitalsigns]

Do you find pleasure from hearing people say: "JoeF thank you for your advice, you are like a lawyer I never had..."

You guys remind me of people who have nothing else to do but to argue about nothing. Who did your advice about the intent help to? Who? Only your ego. That's about it.