how risky is job change after 3-4 months?

[MD_Rockville]

AC-21 don't change sponserer but allows to change employers.

what you are saying is wrong..

1. if i never work for sponsor ( as gc is for future job ) than AC21 does not make any sense ( i.e. i can do whatever i want and change jobs )

2. if i am working for employer who ALSO sponsored by gc then AC21 comes in play..( as i promise to work for same employer when i get gc )..

Conclusively filing AC21 tells INS that i have changed my intent and my new employer is "the employer" i am going to work with once gc is approved.. ( sponser is someone who is going to give you job as well once you are approved..isn't it ? )

JoeF is right here my friend.. IMHO..

 

[dsatish]

dsatish, why are you now joining the ranks of the people who do personal attacks?
I am disappointed. I had thought better of you, in particular here, where qwerty is without a doubt wrong.
Welcome to my killfile.

JoeF,
I never wanted to enter these fights (infact i will quit any thread if some one makes personal comments on me) . I just noticed that , to my surprise, qwerty was posting and arguing pretty decently, where as you are trying to hit him hard on the personal front by labelling him as misinformer, giving dangerous advice, asking him to quit the board, asking him why he is not listening to you etc. This is what i call bullying. It reminded me of the days when you tried to come down heavily on every one (including me) who does not agree with you.
May be i should have remembered that you won't go so hard on every one else and this harshness is reserved for qwerty, who i agree , has unnecessarily picked up personal fights with you in the past. Well, most likely this is my last post in this thread. I just request you to give up the tendency to have the last word on any issue. That way you don't find yourself in ugly fights / arguments. You are a veteran member here with a lot of knowledge on some issues. So maintain your status. Every one will support you if some one pickes up fights with you without provocation.
Sorry for disappointing you, but i felt that we have to give qwerty a chance to post without personal attacks.

 

[dsatish]

Conclusively filing AC21 tells INS that i have changed my intent and my new employer is "the employer" i am going to work with once gc is approved..

Wrong , my friend. First of all, nobody is filing AC21. The law does not require one to file or inform INS. You are just utilising the opportunity provided by the law.
Secondly, by using AC21, you are not telling INS that you are going to work with the new company after the GC is approved. You are just changing the employer . Nothing more, nothing less. In a nut shell, the law allows you to change the employer after 6 months, and you are availing it. No where in the law, it is said that the new employer will become the sponsoring employer. That interpretatiop is just a personal interpretation of some one or some people.

 

[gctechie]

I agree with dsatish here.

JoeF,

You said in the other threrad that since the Seihoon v levy ruling did not EXPLICITLY say that it is applicable to immigrants , we cant accept it and its not precedence. Why are you going against the letter of the Law when the law DOES NOT say that the new employer becomes the "sponsoring employer".

After you change employers using AC21, the new employer DOES NOT become the sponsoring employer - no where in the AC 21 law does it say so. If people want to read "extra meanings" into the law, then go on.

This is my opinion.

 

[rk4gc]

Wrong , my friend. First of all, nobody is filing AC21. The law does not require one to file or inform INS. You are just utilising the opportunity provided by the law.
Secondly, by using AC21, you are not telling INS that you are going to work with the new company after the GC is approved. You are just changing the employer . Nothing more, nothing less. In a nut shell, the law allows you to change the employer after 6 months, and you are availing it. No where in the law, it is said that the new employer will become the sponsoring employer. That interpretatiop is just a personal interpretation of some one or some people.

dsatish,
I disagree with you here. FYI, BCIS expects you to inform if you use AC21, even if BCIS does not expect its better you inform. Take this case.

1. "A" works for company "X" which is "sponsoring" GC for "A".
2. The GC is filed concurrently.
3. I-140 is approved after 180 days and I-485 is still pending.
4. "A" used AC21 and moved to company "Y", didn't care to inform BCIS.
5. Company "X" didn't like it and pulled the "I-140".
6. At this point as BCIS does not have any info about "A"'s AC21 usage, thinking there is no "sponsor" for "A" BCIS issues an "Intent Of Deny" on I-485.

Well now who is the sponsor for "A" and how does "A" support his case ?

 

[NJacob]

Free entertainment by the idiots

My 2 cents...If Querty and Joef can create a separate thread exclusively to fight and see the responses (and views) something constructive could come up.
OR
If these two people are of opposite sex the just like movies they would first fight, then fall in love, then they would stay happily there after
--Tominavhech, PMP

No doubt, for months now, these two have been providing free entertainment for all. No reason for the others to intervene(including the moderators) because they just do not seem to understand simple reasoning.

I agree, a separate thread for these two clowns would be like having everyone tuning in to one TV channel, instead of having to channel surf and wonder where they could be. Sometimes it is the "Life after the Green card forum" and sometimes it is the "US Citizenship forum".

Anyway, let the fun continue, and everyone just sit back, relax and enjoy the show, or shall I say, "Troll", "Plonk", "...killfile...", "Bang", "...aka...", etc

 

[dsatish]

dsatish,
I disagree with you here. FYI, BCIS expects you to inform if you use AC21, even if BCIS does not expect its better you inform. Take this case.

1. "A" works for company "X" which is "sponsoring" GC for "A".
2. The GC is filed concurrently.
3. I-140 is approved after 180 days and I-485 is still pending.
4. "A" used AC21 and moved to company "Y", didn't care to inform BCIS.
5. Company "X" didn't like it and pulled the "I-140".
6. At this point as BCIS does not have any info about "A"'s AC21 usage, thinking there is no "sponsor" for "A" BCIS issues an "Intent Of Deny" on I-485.

Well now who is the sponsor for "A" and how does "A" support his case ?

Very simple. "A" replies that he has joined company "Y" using AC21 and provides the supporting documents.

 

[rk4gc]

Very simple. "A" replies that he has joined company "Y" using AC21 and provides the supporting documents.

Thats true. But what do those supporting documents say ? That "A" has a similer job with "Y" and company "Y" is willing to provide the job after the GC is approved. That makes company "Y" the current sponsor isn't it?

 

[TheRealCanadian]

The law says that an immigrant petition remains valid with respect to the new job or employer.

That merely says that the petition remains valid. It does not impose any burdens of sponsorship or other issues on the new employer.

My own personal take on AC21 is that for all intents and purposes, an individual invoking AC21 essentially becomes self-petitioned; so long as the job meets the "same or similar" requirements of AC21 then we're fine. The new employer needs to take no affirmative steps regarding immigration in an AC21 situation - from its standpoint it is no different then hiring a permanent resident or US citizen.

As I explained before, that is legal language (legalese) for replacing the old job/employer with the new job/employer in the immigrant petition.

Assuming that was true, then the new employer would become a party to the LC or I-140 petition, and could withdraw it. That is clearly not the case. The I-140 stands on its own, so long as the beneficiary meets the requirements of AC21.

So, the law says that the new employer becomes the sponsoring one.

Then it would stand to reason that the new employer becomes the new owner of the I-140. That is clearly not the case.

I am sorry, but I am now getting really pissed off! Nothing personal, but anybody with even a little brain should be able to see that I am right.

This statement allows anyone with a brain to suspect that you are something else.

What you guys say is that if the law doesn't explicitly state something, it isn't part of the law??? So, I can drive you over with my car because the law does not explicitly say that that is prohibited??? Give me a break!!!

Joe, you have gone blue in the face swearing that since Seihoon v. Levy didn't explicitly discuss immigration matters it didn't apply. Now you wish to turn around and apply the exact opposite logic when it suits you.

The only consistency in what you argue seems to be that you are correct.

 

[dsatish]

Thats true. But what do those supporting documents say ? That "A" has a similer job with "Y" and company "Y" is willing to provide the job after the GC is approved. That makes company "Y" the current sponsor isn't it?

I think that we see AC21 from different angles. You think that the new employer is a new sponsorer of your GC where as i think that the new employer is just an employer who is offering you a full time job in the similar skill set. AC21 has tied the employee (us) to the skill set and not to the employer. That was the spirit and let's accept it rather than thinking that , even with AC21 enactment, we are tied to the employer (new).

 

[TheRealCanadian]

The restrictions are encoded in the "with respect to the new job or employer". That is the burden of sponsorship right there. Any employment-based case that requires a sponsor continues to require a sponsor, even with AC21.

No. AC21 clearly states that the LC and I-140 remain alive provided that the beneficiary's new job matches the "same or similar" requirements. That's it. Everything hinges on the beneficiary's job.

 

[TheRealCanadian]

Then you would have to go back to the old employer upon approval of the GC. The law requires that you have the good faith intent to work for the sponsoring employer. So, your assertion leads to an inherent conflict.

No. AC21 means that the beneficiary comes very close to an NIW; everything now hinges on the beneficiary's job. It places zero affirmative obligations on the sponsor.

(EDIT: I've fallen into your trap and called the new employer the sponsor. SIGH.)

 

[TheRealCanadian]

Where did you get that from??? That is definitely not in the law, and it is wrong! Your category does not change. If you were in EB3 before, you are still in EB3, and there is no NIW or any other new categdory defined in the law. You succumbed to wishful thinking.

I'm not suggesting the category has changed, Joe. I'm merely saying that in practice, an EB2/EB3 beneficiary using AC21 becomes very close to an NIW in that he/she is no longer tied to a sponsor throughout the process.

I am puzzled why you insist on a metaphorical interpretation when it suits you but then interpret things literally when you think you can make a point.

 

[TheRealCanadian]

The only thing that matters is what the law says.

The law says that the petition remains valid if the beneficiary switches jobs. Beyond that, it's just your interpretation.

There is no change in categories in the law, so the person would continue to be an EB2/EB3 applicant who needs a sponsor. Period. So, there continues to be a sponsor.

If the concept of a sponsor does not change, then answer this: the I-140 petitioner (the "original sponsor") can withdraw sponsorship without terminating employment simply by withdrawing or revoking the I-140. Can an AC21 "sponsor" do this? If not, it's not really a sponsor, is it?

Or are you claiming that AC21 nebulously amended the notion of sponsorship?

 

[rk4gc]

I think there is some confusion here about the new employer and the new sponsor.

The willam yates document on AC21 clarification clearly states that

It should be noted that there is no requirement in statute or regulations that a beneficiary of a Form I-140 actually be in the underlying employment until permanent residence is authorized. Therefore, it is possible for an alien to qualify for the provisions of 106(c) of AC21 even if he or she has never been employed by the prior petitioning employer or the subsequent employer under section 2049j0 of the Act.

( see doc at this url )
http://www.immigration.com/newsletter1/williamyatesmem.pdf

That means when you are using AC21 you are saying that you are going to have job of similar nature once you get the GC. Its not necessary that you need to find a job right now before adjustment.

Thats makes me think that the new employer with whom I continue after the GC is the sponsor. It does not matter with whom I'm working right now. In most cases though people use AC21 to change to a new employer who continue to offer the job even after GC approval.

 

[FunnyWait]

Yesterday somebody was counting JoeF's posts in one single thread and the number was 45+ !!! What's his score in this thread ?

Now JoeF is accusing dsatish for misinforming/misleading the forum !!! His list of people who mislead the forum is ever increasing and is finally going to reach all users of the board but him !! Grrrreeeeaaattttt !

 

[mrz]

The only thing that matters is what the law says. There is no change in categories in the law, so the person would continue to be an EB2/EB3 applicant who needs a sponsor. Period.
So, there continues to be a sponsor. There is absolutely no doubt about that. The law says so. AC21 did not change that.
You have your choice of who you want the sponsor to be: the first employer, so that you have to go back to the first employer when your I-485 is approved, or the last one...

I agree with JoeF here. If the law doesn't require an employee to work for an employer with a similar job for AC-21 to be active, then why does it have to have that restriction? They can let the employee scot-free, right?

Just bear in mind that AC-21 was enacted to give relief to employees who have to suffer longer as the whole process was taking several years. Nothing changes because of this and only the new employer but with a similar job. Employment based GC's are for a future job and how can that change?

 

[ar888]

INA: ACT 204 - PROCEDURE FOR GRANTING IMMIGRANT VISAS
says this,

(j) 3/ JOB FLEXIBILITY FOR LONG DELAYED APPLICANTS FOR ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS TO PERMANENT RESIDENCE- A petition under subsection (a)(1)(D)for an individual whose application for adjustment of status pursuant to section 245 has been filed and remained unadjudicated for 180 days or more shall remain valid with respect to a new job if the individual changes jobs or employers if the new job is in the same or a similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.

The responsibility is on the individual who is changing the jobs, not on the new employer. It doesn't say that the new employer should file a petition with CIS sponsering GC. It just says that, it is 'expected' (look at the term) that the individual informs CIS about changing the jobs.

As always with CIS, it is a 'gray area'.

 

[FunnyWait]

By the way JoeF - new employer has to sponser what ? approved I140 ? or pending I485 ? or certified Labor ?

 

[rk4gc]

Guys,
I have a question. My GC (140/485) was filed by one company and it layed me off a few months after applying concurrently (less than 6 monts). I moved to company B on the same job title, similar salary meeting all requirements of Ac21, finally I got my GC. did not explicitly invoke Ac21 but I know after 485 is pending for 6 months or more, I can port it to new employer. Now I got my GC (applied by company A) and still working or company B.

Now, if I want to (hypothetical situation!) change job after 3-4 months after getting GC from company B what are my risks? Would company B will have any right on my GC? (never explicitly invoked Ac21)

Is it better to wait till 6 months complete?

Essentially, you used AC21. Company B became your sponsoring employer. So at the time of becoming a PR, you had to have the good faith intent to work for company B indefinitely.
Therefore, all the things explained here: http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=154533 and here: http://www.murthy.com/485faq.html#13 apply.

Well whether we call the New Employer sponsor or not. I guess the above statements are true. I would treat it just like a future employment case.