Guys, I have a questions on future or perspective employment,

G

gheewalabhai888

Registered Users (C)
proferred wage etc. I am sure Pork buddy and others are very
comfortable with strong answers:

How do they usually 'word' " Employment RFEs" from the BCIS?
I have seen some RFEs combined with paystub required, W-2 required, last year's tax info required etc.

Can anybody shed some light on these confusing scenerios and when does BCIS invoke these, i.e. what causes to have those permutations and combinations lumped with employment RFEs and what combinations satisfies what specific that BCIS is trying get info for?
 
Ghee and Greenpeace,
I am not aware of any RFE asking for paystub or anything that relates to past employment. As it was clearly indicated by law and also indicated by Pork (and I fully agree with him), I485 is an adjustment that is based on a job offer that is to be accepted (intended to be accepted) in the future. Therefor, it is really immaterial as what you have done in the past and how it relates to your current work.
wr,aghajan
 
My lawer said this is the best way to verify that the future employer is willing to hire you with the declared salary...
 
Guys,

I have a question regarding the employment RFE (aghajan may have already answered my question, still want a confirmation). My current salary is much lower than what is specified in the labor certification and I am wondering if that will have any negative effect on my 485 approval?

Thanks.
 
I have seen so many submitting paystub

along with rfe. I am thinking they must have done that only because BCIS asked for it. paystubs for future employment!?
that doesn't look right, does it?
 
In my case:
I got RFE for employment: BCIS asked for prospective employment (which is standard I guess).
But my lawyer advised me to submit recent pay stubs and last year's W-2 along with the emp. letter. Mine was an AC21 case.

I don't think BCIS (specially NSC) ask for pay stubs, W-2s, Tax returns etc. with the RFEs. But most of the lawyers suggest including them to be in the safe side for not getting a second RFE.

I saw some postings here few months ago that they got their approval just sending the emp. letter after RFE.

You may see some postings where people have mentioned that they got RFE for W-2s, pay stubs, etc. Those becoz of their lawyers asked for them and the applicants might not see the actual RFE. For most of the cases applicants come to know about the RFE through their lawyers.
 
Colohio, actually I agree with your idea.

Yeah, why do they mention paystubs, w2s as part of rfes if they are just submitting them voluntarily!
What is your thought on this, Pork and others?
 
Look today's posting at rupnet

from EAC

User :Verolom last Updated : 5/12/2003
Rfe Type: Employment Rfe Dt :04/10/2003
Proof of employment, tax returns for last two years. Processing resumed 4/30/2003
Ad Find the Best Prices on Computers at DealTime!


Tax return for last two years was part of RFE! What is this?
 
If I may speculate, tax returns are a tool that INS uses to satisfy itself that the applicant/derivatives will not become a ward of the public. They ask for these usually when the other information (like bank statements etc.) submitted to support this aspect of the AOS application is deemed inadequate.

However, I am not sure why the verification is even necessary. If a person has a valid permanent proferred position available, there is little chance of the person ending up as a public ward. And given that the I-485 will not be approved without the availability of a proferred position, the request for tax returns to corroborate the 'public ward' requirement appears to be redundant, unless the wage basis of the proferred position is not adequate to support the applicant and derivatives.

If you consider family-based immigration applications, one can easily see the logic in this approach. I think the new adjudicators at NSC, perhaps working on both, family and employment based applications, are allowing the criteria in one category to impinge on the other.

Here is a brilliant suggestion: By the time a regular in these forums gets his/her approval, they are so well trained in this process that they would be excellent recruiting material for the INS.:D :D
 
I really want to know the answer to this question. BCIS must put their view on this because its causing so much uncertainity to lot of people who may be waiting on false hope.

Also, if BCIS is really interested in not giving state benefits t immigrants then why not make that a law that immigrants may not be eligible for state benefits until 2 years or something like that. Most immigrants anyway wont ask for state benefits for a long time since they are quite young. Moreover, unemployment runs out in 6 months.
 
Krishna02,

"Also, if BCIS is really interested in not giving state benefits t immigrants then why not make that a law that immigrants may not be eligible for state benefits until 2 years or something like that."

BCIS does not make the law; Congress has that responsibility.

"Most immigrants anyway wont ask for state benefits for a long time since they are quite young."

You would be surprised at how many people would be willing to work the system if immigrants were to be made eligible for benefits right away. At best your premise is only true of employment-based immigration.

"Moreover, unemployment runs out in 6 months."

There are a number of social safety net type benefits that are provided beyond unemployment insurance like food stamps, medicaid, social security, medicare etc.

At the risk of being presumptous, I will say that you are only looking at the problem from the perspective of an employment-based immigrant from India (my assumption based on your nom de guerre). However, the reality is that the vast majority of immigration is in family-based categories. Immigration on the basis of employment comprises less than 15% of all immigration.

So there you have it. Short of creating a preferred immigrant class that derives its status based on employment (and thus risking the wrath of the naturalized masses), there are not too many options available.
 
after I-485 and someone gets laid off

lets say the next day, I have seen people wanting to claim UI.
And they say to claim UI is not to be a public ward since it is privately paid by your company as an insurance and controlled by your state. This is a grey area. No written rules, no difinitions, no regulations. I myself think you can legally claim if circumstancial situations arise.
 
sankrityayan

I dont really understand what you are saying. Maybe you are confused at what I was saying.

1. I am not pointing at who makes the law. I am pointing an irony in the existing law.

2. I dont think you make sense. immigrants are eligible for benefits. I am saying after taking all the hardships they may not want to ! Everybody has a reason to immigrate. We in EB may want to get a good opportunity. A refugee may be running from castro and if he comes here the govt wants to take care of him on national interests. The problem is illegal immigrants but then to claim SS, you need to be legal and more importantly have worked to get enuf points.

3. You try living on food stamps. After all the hardships, you want to live without choice. Why not try to go to Congo. I heard food is very cheap there -:) (I really dont know)

4. There is no and should not be a class after immigration.

gheewalabhai888:

There is nothing wrong in claiming UI. Its your right like you claim medical insurance. like it or not, your company pays about 5% of your salary in this.

So back to the original point, the idea is immigrating implies movement of labour. Young migrants contribute more so long as resources are available and the migrants can contribute positively (unlike the fundamentalists).

As you had said earlier, BCIS should be lenient on immigrants like us :D at least because if nothing else, we may contribute as legal counsel :D
 
I do not have anything to add to my earlier comments beyond the simple observation that you continue to look at the issue from the perspective of an employment-based immigrant. To your other retorts, read my earlier post once again and try to catch the nuance; You will feel better. Lastly, if you want to keep this from becoming your soliloquy, refrain from trash-talk.
 
Sankrityayan, are you point finger

at me? I hope you are not telling my contributions
a "trash-talk".

My comments on UI claim was not an answer to any of your posts. Nothing wrong in writing relevent and useful comments as long as we don't get irritated at each other. There is absolutely no personal anger to anybody from my side. But whoever you are pointing this to, I would say we can disagree politely instead.
 
No; My comment was not directed at you. This is a public forum and you are at liberty to post whatever information you think is relevant to the topic on hand.

If you review the thread, you will notice that a matter-of-fact response from me to Krishna02's earlier post drew a rather uncivil retort speculating that food is cheap in Congo etc..etc..

Instead of reacting to it with a rant of my own, I decided to give him / her the benefit of doubt (especially since it is abundantly clear that English is not his / her first language) and, left it with a word of caution.
 
Sankrityayan

First, I dont think its anything wrong to consider from an employment point of view. From this I assume you are family sponsored. And also from your frequent use of special words, it looks like you are from special country. So you dont have to answer me but work on your complex since none of what I said is trash as against the way you put things.

Anyway, the forum is a way to exchange ideas. Ideas are personal and need to be discussed not argued. If you go through the record, I didnt use a single word against you but only at your ideas. For eg. I brought up Congo not because anything is wrong there but just that immigration is done for a reason other than the benefits like foodstamps
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top