how risky is job change after 3-4 months?

[mrz]

True even for those who haven't used AC21. Even the old law DOES NOT REQUIRE that you need to work for them after GC. It only requires that you need to have an intention of working for them. See the difference ?

Ofcourse, just to be safe, i won't suggest any one to change jobs without working for a single day. I have never advocated that. One should give atleast a month time in the worst case. It all depends on INS interprets this "intent" stuff . I guess that we better take th guidance of 30-60-90 ruling because that case is also about how to measure a person's intent ?

Your arguments are very misleading. At one time, you say that the law does NOT even require you to work for the employer but you have to have the intention and later you say that use the 90 day rule to be safe. What is it?

If the LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE ONE TO WORK FOR THE EMPLOYER BUT ONLY THE INTENTION (you might have the intention on the day it was adjudicated and not the next day?), why use 90 day rule at all?

If you don't know how USCIS is going to *interpret* it, then don't you think it's risky to quit after 3 months or even after 6 months? Why advocate the 90 day rule? You feel that 90 days is safe, JoeF thinks 6 months so does few lawyers and I have no idea what to think as unless someone is hit hard with this limit (if the GC is revoked by not staying longer), how can anyone advocate such a limit?

 

[TheRealCanadian]

Maybe, you are lucky that they didn't ask you. I know they have asked all sorts of docs from the AC-21 employer.

USCIS can ask for whatever they want. They can ask me if I prefer boxers or briefs, or wether I prefer brunettes or blondes. However, if they deny me for the answers (or lack thereof) to those questions, then I can appeal, and I believe that I would win.

If you look at the letter of the law, AC21 clearly states that the alien needs to be employed in a "same or similar" job as that in the LC at the time of ajudication. The only way that USCIS can deny the I-485 under AC21 is if the alien fails to provide such evidence. If the alien provides evidence (even though it's not what USCIS requested) then the alien will win.

How is the employer obligated to do something that the employer has never agreed to do? A sponsor (or its representative) signs the I-140 and makes certain assertions under oath, on penalty of perjury. The AC21 employer has agreed to nothing, asserted to nothing, sworn to nothing.

Where does the intent of working with the employer or AC-21 employer come into picture after the GC is approved? Employee is free to go the day after the adjudication?

Please take a moment and read what I have written. I have never claimed that AC21 eliminated any intent on the part of the alien. I merely disagree with the notion that AC21 places any obligation on the new employer.

 

[TheRealCanadian]

Your arguments are very misleading. At one time, you say that the law does NOT even require you to work for the employer but you have to have the intention and later you say that use the 90 day rule to be safe. What is it?

Both. I have the intent to work for my employer. I go to my I-485 interview on Friday and get approved. On Monday, I am laid off. I have never worked for my employer as a PR, yet I have clear intent. All is good.

The reason why 90 days crops in is that USCIS may claim that if you leave the employer voluntarily within a short period of time, your actions imply that you did not have requisite intent at the time of approval.

 

[mrz]

Please take a moment and read what I have written. I have never claimed that AC21 eliminated any intent on the part of the alien. I merely disagree with the notion that AC21 places any obligation on the new employer.

Hmmm, I even lost track of where we started and how far we have drum-rolled this discussion? The topic was "How risk is job change after 3-4 months?". I thought we were discussing that even if one uses AC-21, they have to have the intent of working for the AC-21 employer. The *employer* and *sponsor* terms somehow got in to the discussion and we digressed a bit or maybe I am halucinating?

Hmmm, it's time to hit the bed and a nice entertainment for one day and bidding good bye to this thread. See you all in an another heated discussion as I don't have the energy or inclination to post on this any more...

 

[dsatish]

Your arguments are very misleading. At one time, you say that the law does NOT even require you to work for the employer but you have to have the intention and later you say that use the 90 day rule to be safe. What is it?

I am not saying different things at different times. I guess that you are not getting what i am saying. Let me explain. The law is not written in black and white.There are some grey areas and varied interpretations on it. My interpretation is that , in the post AC21 era, you don't need to work for the sponsoring employer after 180 days of I485. But when i give suggestion, i put some factor of safety on my interpretation and suggest people to follow the 30-60-90 guidance. You don't always go by your exact calculation, right ? We should always leave some room for unforeseen situations.

 

[dsatish]

Hmmm, it's time to hit the bed and a nice entertainment for one day and bidding good bye to this thread. I don't have the energy or inclination to post on this any more...

Same here. Good bye to this thread.

 

[ar888]

AC-21 employer has no other obligation? Then, tell me why does USCIS have to have that restriction... How do you measure the intent after getting GC if there is no obligation with the AC-21 employer?

Which restriction? Both parties should have the 'intent' at the time of approval and the new employer should have the ability to pay.

Basically, you are saying that you apply in AC-21 and you are free to go on the day your 485 is approved, right? Then, the folks who don't use AC-21 are screwed that they have to stay with the employer proving the intent and all the crap... Doesn't make any sense to me!

Don't put the words in my mouth, which I didn't say . Employ should have the 'intent' to work for the new employer at the time of approval, that didn't change. Keep in mind that I never said whether the new employer can/can not be considered as sponsor. I only said that CIS never made it clear about the sponsorship under AC21.

 

[MD_Rockville]

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.

then INS should not approve anyone who has been laid off, or resigned, or quit the sponsering employer..right ? but thats not the case..INS has approved many KNOWING that the applicant is no more working with sponsers and has been laid off..
why do they approve then looking at the employement letter..why they need employment letter at all for future employment ? if applicant does not have a employement letter from sponser just deny the case..but that does not happen..

 

[qwertyisback]

qwerty,
I appreciate your civic reincarnation. I suggest that don't give up this civicness just because of provocation from JoeF. You need to learn from JoeF how not to use bad language and still kill other guy with bullying arguments . Also never attack moderators.

dsatish and other moderators, thanx for your support.
dsatish, my intension is not to "kill" anybody here, but to open up forum and hear all voices and experiences, thats it. And this thread just did that.

 

[qwertyisback]

then INS should not approve anyone who has been laid off, or resigned, or quit the sponsering employer..right ? but thats not the case..INS has approved many KNOWING that the applicant is no more working with sponsers and has been laid off..

CIS approves such cases (laid of from sponserer,..etc) based on AC-21 law. Though applicant is not working with sponserer anymore, CIS just makes sure with employment letter from new employer(by issuing RFE) that new job is same and similer position as per LC for applicant. Thats it. That doesn't constitute by any way that new employer is sponserer. period.

 

[TheRealCanadian]

And that makes the new employer the sponsor. ... I think we can now conclude that I have been right all along.

You still haven't answered my earlier question. If the AC21 employer is the "sponsor" as you claim, how can this entity terminate sponsorship without terminating employment? The original sponsor can do this.

Why are you ducking the question?

 

[qwertyisback]

It is as clear as it can be. I have been correct all along. End of story.
...

If you want to feel it that way, go ahead, good for you. But unfortunately your feeling is not facts. end of story.

 

[ar888]

I apologize for the big post , these are excerpts from 'Murthy's website'.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The AC21 provisions statute speaks in terms of allowing a person with an application for adjustment of status, pending for 180 days or more, to change jobs without affecting the validity of the underlying labor certification or I-140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker. The new job must be in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the labor certification and/or I-140 was filed. Some lawyers interpret this as a requirement that the applicant work for the sponsoring employer during the 180-day period prior to changing jobs. This inference is based upon the use of the words “change jobs” and “new job,” from which it can be argued that in order to change a job and obtain a “new job” there must be an “old job” with the sponsoring employer. This is neither an illogical nor far-fetched reading of the statute.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The June 2001 INS Guidance summarizes that Section 106(c) of AC21 provides that both the labor certification and the approved Form I-140 to continue to remain valid where the person changes jobs, if the following two conditions are met:

(a) Form I-485 or the application to adjust status, on the basis of the employment-based (EB) immigrant petition has been filed and remains unadjudicated for over 180 days or longer; and

(b) The new job offer is in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the certification or approval was initially made.

The June 2001 INS Guidance requires that the I-485 applicant notify the INS when s/he no longer intends to enter into employment with the sponsoring employer. The June 2001 INS Guidance explains that if the INS has reason to believe that the applicant's intent has changed, a Request for Evidence (RFE) may be issued to clarify the applicant's intent with regard to employment.

The June 2001 INS Guidance explains that the I-485 applicant requires a letter from the new employer verifying the new job offer and providing the following details: the new job title, job description, and salary. Although AC21 does not contain any restrictions on salary, the INS clarifies that this information on salary is necessary in order to determine whether the I-485 applicant is admissible under the public charge provisions. A person who fails to meet the public charge provisions could be inadmissible under law. The June 2001 INS Guidance also refers to the U.S. Department of Labor's Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) or on-line O*NET Classification System or similar publications. Again, AILA recommended that the INS broaden its definition of same or similar job title and not make it very narrow and restrictive by requiring that the new employer's job match the DOT or similar publications, since AC21 does not appear to require such a narrow interpretation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Doesn't this say that only the original employer is the sponsoring employer, not the new one. Only the 'intent' is not changed, not the 'sponsorship'.


I've asked the same question to Rajiv, he said that the new employer does not become the 'sponsor' but was curious to know, what was our exact concern.

 

[TheRealCanadian]

The applicant has to have the good faith to work for the new employer, which by that fact becomes the sponsoring employer.

Then why do you keep refusing to answer my question?

 

[qwertyisback]

I've asked the same question to Rajiv, he said that the new employer does not become the 'sponsor' .

I think above quote is kind of verdict for this matter, as nobody from this forum can claim to know more than esteem lawyer like Rajiv. So everybody stop arguing about it and just read what Rajiv said about it .
Issue closed.

 

[maybesomeday]

So is the consenus here that there is only one original sponsor (with 140) and with AC21 the beneficiary can switch employers but should still have good faith intent (whatever the heck that means) to join the designated new employer after getting the GC?

I would think with AC21, the hard look INS put to the permanent nature of the future employment would be softened since any new employer basically has suffered no hardship in getting the beneficiary to the point of achieving the GC. Also, since with AC21 the beneficiary can change jobs a bizzilion times between 485 pending 180 days and 485 approved, it seems quite silly to place a permanent requirement on any job at that point.

 

[qwertyisback]

So is the consenus here that there is only one original sponsor (with 140) and with AC21 the beneficiary can switch employers but should still have good faith intent (whatever the heck that means) to join the designated new employer after getting the GC?

I would think with AC21, the hard look INS put to the permanent nature of the future employment would be softened since any new employer basically has suffered no hardship in getting the beneficiary to the point of achieving the GC. Also, since with AC21 the beneficiary can change jobs a bizzilion times between 485 pending 180 days and 485 approved, it seems quite silly to place a permanent requirement on any job at that point.

I second your opinion. Its just matter of time , CIS might issue some memo to confirm it.

 

[GC050102]

Why a thread with over 100 posts is needed for this remains a mystery to me (unless some always want to "fight" with me...)

No offense JoeF, but you know the reason, don't you

Opinions don't matter. The law is the only thing that matters. And as the law stands, the applicant, even when using AC21, has to have the good faith intent to work for the (new, sponsoring, whatever-you-call-it) employer. Period. End of story....)

You said, in one of the posts that 'the only possible conclusion is that the new employer becomes the required sponsoring employer'.

This is the reason this thread went on and on....Now Rajiv said that is not true.

I am just pointing it out, not trying to contradict you or fight with you. Be cool .

 

[qwertyisback]

Opinions don't matter. )

Applies to your opinion for sure, as your conclusion turned out foobar now.
And everybody shares their thoughts, you like it or not.

 

[maybesomeday]

That is wrong. If there wasn't this requirement to have the good faith intent to work for the (new) employer, CIS could just say, "after 180 days, we just give you the GC." That's obviously not the case. The requirement to have the good faith intent to work for the employer at the time of becoming a PR continues to exist. You are "tied" to the employer, to use dsatish's words.

Well, as everyone knows (some quite painfully) there's more to the requirements for getting a EB green card than just a job (background, name check, etc.) so they couldn't just give it out after 180 days without doing all the other checks and balances. Also, even with AC21, there is still the requirement that whatever jobs (interim from 180 days to GC) are taken must match up job duties with original petition so the USCIS must still adjudicate and check for this criteria. I would just like to see that they at some point clarify that this (job duties) is really the main requirement that they're looking for (at least as far as the employment portion goes).

You must admit that it does seem silly on the surface that one is allowed to change jobs multiple times in quick succession after 180days but at the point of getting the actual card your feet get stuck in cement.