How long to change job after GC

Status
Not open for further replies.
JoeF,
Why don't you get this simple fact that was explained by me before : The so called "At the time of becoming the PR, the employee should have an intent to work for the sponsoring employer" is NOT VALID ANY MORE.
The AC21 supercedes the old law, though it does not over write the old law.. With AC21, one can ALWAYS HAVE AN INTENTION TO CHANGE EMPLOYERS AFTER 180 DAYS OF FILING i485 while the I485 is pending". So at the time you become the PR (it is the date you get approved), the law allows yoo to have an intent to change the employer. So please let us not hear about that "intent" stuff again.
As for Sheila Murthy or any one else, i am sure that they are only playing a safe game in the absence of clear cut law / regulations. If they give reasonable interpretation (which is to say that you can choose any employer after getting GC), then they are afraid that if at all some one gets into problems, they might sue him / her. Also as Sai-2367 said, lawyers always represent their clients. The GC applicants are not their clients, the employers are their clients. No employer will be happy to lose his employees soon after the GC. So all the lawyers have to give a conservative advise.
I have talked to a well known lawyer (i don't want to disclose the name) about this issue and he told me that there is nothing in the law to prevent you from doing what ever you want to do, the moment after becoming the PR. He suggested that i better wait till i get 1 pay slip (1 month). How ever when i read the FAQ on his web site, the answer was "it is better to stay for 6 months to 1 year with the sponsoring employer". Hope you gt my point.

PS: you have repeatedly referred us to the FAQ by Sheila Murthy. Just read her answer carefully. There are factual errors in it. In her answer to Question13, she says that "Clearly, the law before AC21 was passed in October 2000 required that a person continue working with the employer that sponsored the green card for at least 6 months to 1 year after obtaining the green card". This is clearly not true. I guess that it was unintentional mistake.
Also the over all message was in a vague / suggestive manner rather than a confident answer. I don't blame her for this (i respect any one having a degree from Harward). It's just the law that is stupid. So please do not quote her FAQ again because, as i said, she does not give any confident interpretation of the law egarding job portability.
 
JoeF said:
I would appreciate if you wouldn't misrepresent what I am saying... Besides, I don't have a theory, I am just the messenger...
According to the law, at the time of becoming a PR, both you and your employer are required to have the good faith intent to commence the employer/employee relationship. This is explained by good lawyers, for example in a FAQ provided by Ms. Murthy: http://www.murthy.com/485faq.html#13
In the case discussed here, the employee can argue just fine that he had that intent. It may be different for the employer, though.
So, the poster would be ok.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify. where did i misrepresent what you are saying? if you change
"both you and your employer" to "either you or your employer" then i agree that i am misrepresenting what you are saying. otherwise i am just your loyal messenger.
 
It's time you realize that the law talks only about "intention", and nothing else. Also don't try to hide behind what Murthy writes in her FAQ on her web site. As i have said, she represents her clients (employers) and also any lawyer naturally wants to play it safe on a public platform. I would trust what BCIS says on its web site regarding the rights of a permanent resident. Since Murthy can't answer our questions in an interactive discussion, let us keep her name out of this discussion. Try to argue on your own strength. Tell me one good reason why "intent at the time of becoming a PR" should be measured only by working 6 months to 1 year ? First of all, by definition "intent" is a state of mind at one particular time. So there is no need for you to have the same idea(intent) at all the times. After 1 month, if your idea / intent changes, then in what way, are you violating the "intent" law ?
 
JoeF said:
Why are people like you always looking for a "definite" answer??? There is no definite answer.
Click to expand...
I am not looking for a definite answer. There is a definite answer and I know it. The reason behind continuing the discussion here is , to tell people about the truth (which is that "A PERMANENT RESIDENT CAN CHOOSE ANY JOB HE LIKES"). This truth is clearly told by none other than BCIS on its web site . By scaring people with conservative advise, people like you are unintentionally pushing people towards continuing with their exploitative companies which typically pay you 60 to 70% of the market rate. It may not be true for all the people. But it's true for a vast majority of the people. I don't want people to lose 2000 dollars per month just because of unreasonable fears. One should choose to continue with the sponsoring employer only if he does not get much difference in pay outside.
 
dsatish said:
I don't want people to lose 2000 dollars per month just because of unreasonable fears. One should choose to continue with the sponsoring employer only if he does not get much difference in pay outside.
Click to expand...

And don't forget the crucial job satisfaction. It matters to a lot of people.

I completely agree with your response (and zhu's) whole-heartedly.

A GC holder is free to work for anyone after obtaining his/her employer-sponsored GC. With the passage of AC21, even a monkey could prove *intent* without having worked a day for the sponsoring employer.

The risk involved here is no greater (in fact, far less) than the risk involved with switching jobs. Maybe the new company goes broke within a month of you changing jobs. Or maybe you get laid off by the new company before you could prove your worth.

Changing jobs is fraught with risks and perils in itself. It can turn out to be a great move, or a pretty crappy decision. Losing your GC due to changing jobs too soon, in my opinion, is such a miniscule risk, that its not even worth considering while making your decision.

I think if USCIS (or BCIS or INS or whatever the heck they call themselves at this hour) wants to prove a point, they could do so with anyone. So quit at your heart's content and good luck in your new adventure.

Ms. Murthy is a respected lawyer who is advocating a conservative approach on her public web-site. But, no one ever made it big by being a conservative, scared sissy.

So take a gamble if the reward is worth the risk. If it is a lateral move (financially and otherwise), stick around for a few months and then quit.

Or do your best to get fired by calling your boss a big, fat moron who can't tell his rear from his face.

Either way, who cares.... Its your GC. Enjoy it any way you please.

And remember, cigarettes kill !!!
 
JoeF said:
Companies that exploit their employees are much more likely to report their employees to CIS when they try to leave them. So your own argumentation supports my position. You have the choice between losing a couple of dollars or risking losing the GC...
Click to expand...

I am just curious why you are so obsessed in scaring other people. do you have an example that the company reported to CIS that their employee left the job after GC, and CIS then deported the employee? if you don't have such an example, i suggest you keep your mouth shut, since your argument isn't worth a piece of crap. ("people with with these problems will have more pressing issues to deal with than posting on an internet forum". i absolutely agree. so pls. don't post this crap a again.)
 
JoeF,

I still don't get one thing....There was a law earlier that the employee HAS TO work for a sponsering employee for at least 2 years after 485 approval. They lifted that law sometime back and did not replace it with a new law. It means after the 2 year law was lifted, one can change the job anytime even in one day.

I agree with Zyu and dsatish that too much of a conservative approach may scare people.

In addition to maintaining employers' interests all lawers HAVE TO cover their ass while giving the advice and hence the 6 months to 1 year advice. I don't see any value in 6 months to 1 year advice.

I think you should let go of this conservative approach. What'd u say ?
 
JoeF said:
Are you sleeping well knowing that some people could lose their GC because you have told them that it is ok to change jobs right after getting the GC??? I wouldn't, and hence I give advice I am comfortable with.
Click to expand...
Well, BCIS says that It is OK to chose the job of your choice after becoming the PR. Do you want people to believe BCIS which is the final interpreter and implementor of the immigration law or do you want people to ignore what the BCIS says and instead take Murthy's ADVISE ?
 
JoeF said:
If you were interested in a discussion, you wouldn't call other viewpoints "crap."
Click to expand...
Does it mean that you are not going to call others viewpoints as "BS" any more ?
 
JoeF said:
No objection. But, BCIS and the law also say that you at the time of becoming a PR, you have to have the good faith intent to work for the sponsoring employer. Do you want people to believe that they can ignore the law???
Click to expand...
Well the law you quote only says that "the person should have good faith INTENT to work for sponsor". It does not say "the person HAS TO work for the sponsor". So literally, the law does not even require you to work for even a single day for the sponsoring employer. So there is no contradiction to the basic law that governs all PR's (which is they can always chose their job after becoming PR).
 
> So literally, the law does not even require you to work for even a
> single day for the sponsoring employer. So there is no contradiction
> to the basic law that governs all PR's (which is they can always
> chose their job after becoming PR).

The literal meaning of the words in the federal code means s___ in the arena of immigration law.
There are 'interim rules' 'final rules' and particularly 'field memos' that govern all these things. (Some things are ruled by the principle of 'inertia', others by 'chaos')




(If you want to discuss the finer points of the meaning of 'is' with an IJ one day, go ahead, be my guest.)
 
JoeF said:
In addition, in a court of law, a website, even a government website, does not have any legal value whatsoever. If you are arguing your case based on "but the USCIS website says", you have already lost...
Click to expand...

Yes, it does not have any absolute legal value in the eye of court, but the fact is that most of the information are based on existing immigration laws. Therefore, cartainly it can be presented against USCIS in immigration court. It's the difference between driving license handbook and vehicle code book.
 
dsatish said:
I am not looking for a definite answer. There is a definite answer and I know it. The reason behind continuing the discussion here is , to tell people about the truth (which is that "A PERMANENT RESIDENT CAN CHOOSE ANY JOB HE LIKES").
Click to expand...

I don't think there is any absolute truth in this issue. Eventually it comes to down to each person's initiative/reluctance. Some takes "risk" (you might not agree with this word) within 2-3 months after getting GC and some waits 2-3 years to prove his/her intend.

dsatish said:
By scaring people with conservative advise, people like you are unintentionally pushing people towards continuing with their exploitative companies which typically pay you 60 to 70% of the market rate.....unreasonable fears...
Click to expand...

As this is just discussion, I don't think anyone is pushing anybody else. Expolitation is relative term. If someone gets anything above prevailing wage it cartainly cannot be termed as "exploitation" - atleast not officially.
When it comes to US job market, there is no concept "market rate". It totally depends on how much you can bargain or settle with your employer/to-be-employer, considering various factors - economy, demands for your specific skillset, local living costs and yes, your immigration/work status too. Imimgrant worker have to live with this additional factor that causes little bit less leverage while bargaining.
Regarding 60-70% less than citizen co-workers. There are 100 reasons behind it - immigration law that restricts employee to switch job is just one of them (certainly not the only reason).

Lastly, I am sure you heard the other side of agony too - citizen employee's complaining that companies are laying off citizens - saving H1 visa holders.
 
I could not stop myself getting into this discussion.

People who are questioning the 'intent' and waiting for a period of 6 months after getting GC, If you think that 'intent is BS', then why can't you guys change the jobs after 180 days of 485, why do you have to wait for GC approval and then argue about 'lack of rules' for staying with the sponsoring employer. There is AC-21 to invoke; you don't have to wait for GC approval. So you want to play safe until the GC and then switch jobs? I didn't get the logic here.

One more thing, certain people, who are for changing the jobs 'immediately' after GC, didn't change the jobs yet. They are playing it safe (by claiming that they didn't get a good job offer), waiting until 6 months and change jobs, but 'advising' others that there is no problem in changing jobs. Unfortunate.

Joef said in one of his posts, he himself played it safe and changed jobs after 1 year, and he is advising others, what he believed, what he followed. If you want to give advise others, you do it (change the jobs) and then advise others.


I, myself, changed the job after 1 month. But still I won't give dangerous advise to others. Just because this is a public forum and nobody can sue us, people think they can talk anything they want. But responsible people (like attorneys) always go with conservative approach, not to jeopardize anybody's life.
 
Telangana said:
I could not stop myself getting into this discussion.

People who are questioning the 'intent' and waiting for a period of 6 months after getting GC, If you think that 'intent is BS', then why can't you guys change the jobs after 180 days of 485, why do you have to wait for GC approval and then argue about 'lack of rules' for staying with the sponsoring employer. There is AC-21 to invoke; you don't have to wait for GC approval. So you want to play safe until the GC and then switch jobs? I didn't get the logic here.
Click to expand...

that is because AC21 does not simply say "you can change jobs after 180 days of I-485 filing". there are many clearly defined restrictions (position, salary, job duty etc.) that is the reason why people are reluctant to use it.
but there is no clearly defined restrictions on job change after GC.

people are against JoeF not because whether what he says is right or not (i personally agree with him on some issues), it is because his ego and pedantic altitude. he always tries to scare other people, and force people to agree with his point by repeating the same argument again again and again.
 
JoeF said:
You should always ask a good immigration lawyer. And they are not biased towards an "employer side"... Good lawyers are good because they know their stuff and are objective, not because they favor one side...
Click to expand...

hahahahaha
I believed you to be a lot of things JoeF, but certainly not naive.
Well, you have proved me wrong yet again :)

Good lawyers are good because they protect their clients' interests to the best of their abilities. Nothing else matters to them. Of all people, I hoped you would know that.

The best criminal lawyers protect their clients knowing fully well that they are guilty beyond doubt (anyone remember OJ? or more recently Kobe?)

If they were truly objective, all criminals would be in jail now.

Its NO different with immigration attorneys. They are on the side of whoever pays their bills. PERIOD!!! As with any other profession!!!
 
JoeF said:
And there are regulations in immigration law that makes it illegal.....
Click to expand...

Not always illegal. Normally the salary in LCA is pretty low. For example, LCA mentions $35000. You have 2 years of exprience and you are getting $36000. But with the same experience in same company a citizen or perm resident is getting probably $60000. Whole thing is not illegal. 60-70% less salary mentioned here is compare to so-called "market rate", which does not have meaning in my opinion.
And, obviously there are some other things go which are illegal. For example, "on-bench" (not getting paid), fraudalant LCA for a job that does not exists at all (the very root cause of "on-bench").

JoeF said:
In fact, all this stuff about companies exploiting employees is what the anti-immigrants use all the time to argue for abolishing immigration altogether. If that is so widespread as you guys claim, then you guys accepting such exploitation may be a sign that the anti-immigration guys may be right. I have fought them for years, based on my belief that while abuses happen, they are rare. What I hear here is that you guys claim abuses are widespread. If they are, then why don't you do something about it??? Instead, you accept it and just wait for the GC, and then fight a silly fight with me when I say that you have to have the good faith intent to continue to work for the employer. You should be fighting the exploitation, not me...
Click to expand...

In my opinion, it's not wide-spread and we cannot generalize all the employers that way. It totally depends on type of employers and their various factors. Most of the companies pays fair way - compare to PR/citizens. But obviously there are consulting companies (not product/business consulting, but just provider of human-resources. Probably "agent" is better word) who do this kind of exploitations. But, again it's just generalization for consulting companies. On other hand, there are overseas companies (like Indian companies TCS, Wirpo or Infosys) and they do lots of business here. Their average salary in general lower thru out the board. So I don't see any "exploitation" in that regard too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top