how risky is job change after 3-4 months?

[immi_09]

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?

 

[qwertyisback]

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.

Not TRUE!!! Is there any CIS regulations says like that explicitely??? NO.
Its just your conclusion that company B becomes sponserer, good for you.
But bottomline is sponserer is the one who files/approves LC/I140 and apply for 485 application. AC-21 don't change sponserer but allows to change employers

 

[qwertyisback]

Yes, there is. INA 204.
It clearly states that the new employer becomes the sponsor.
Please do not provide clearly false advice.

I don't think so,it don't says that "new employer becomes the sponsor". Its your conclusion. Thats it. very debatable , unless CIS issues some memo on it.

 

[qwertyisback]

It says that the petition remains valid with respect to a new job or employer.
That is law-speak for "at every place where the old job or employer is mentioned, the new job or employer gets inserted."
That automatically makes the new employer the sponsor.
If you don't believe me, why don't you ask a lawyer? You suggest that in other cases, why not here???
And again, please stop giving clearly false advice.

Exactly, its not quoted in the law, you interpreted it in that way. And it doesn't fit in your theory as you said many times that "you always quote law not interpret it" And you force others also not to interpret it... RIGHT. Then why exception this time?? (personally.I don't mind if you interpret).
As well, I am not giving any advice, I am justing pointing facts. You like it or not. Thats your problem.

 

[qwertyisback]

It is not an interpretaion. It is the law. Period.

Read what you said in last post.It clearly shows that you interpreted. (Fine with me)

It says that the petition remains valid with respect to a new job or employer.
That automatically makes the new employer the sponsor.

.

But law don't says like that or even CIS haven't said like that in any memo or publication. Thats what I am pointing out to everybody. Does it look like to advice to anybody??

 

[qwertyisback]

I am just showing facts, but you constitute them as fight. Can't help.
memebrs, what others think about it?? Any thoughts?? Share it.

 

[qwertyisback]

Why don't you ask your lawyer? Your "facts" will quickly disintegrate.
Your lawyer will tell you that I am right. Are you afraid of that?

If you pay lawyers tab, then no problem whatsoever.

 

[qwertyisback]

Oh, are you chicken? Afraid you would be proven wrong?
As I said, any lawyer would confirm what I am saying.

Looks like someone wants to start fight with me again. Don't blame me later.

As I said, any lawyer would confirm what I am saying..

Your statement is just prediction, Have you started reading minds of lawyers as well??. Why don't you ask your lawyer, rather than predicting lawyers response.

I beleive in facts not in predictions. OK.

Unless CIS comes with some memo/publication, facts doesn't change i.e
sponserer is the one who files/approves LC/I140 and apply for 485 application. AC-21 don't change sponserer but allows to change employers.

 

[qwertyisback]

I don't predict anything. I know this because this is what the law says.
If you use AC21, the new employer becomes the sponsor.

Law doesn't say that. Period.

Show me where law says following line,mentioned in your quote.
"If you use AC21, the new employer becomes the sponsor"

Its your words and your conclusion. Again period.

 

[qwertyisback]

INA 204.
Of course the law doesn't use my lay-person language. Learn legalese...
And stop giving false, dangerous advice.

OK, so you agree that law doesn't say that "If you use AC21, the new employer becomes the sponsor". Very good.
Its your conclusion, in lay-persons language. Thats what I am saying all the time.

 

[qwertyisback]

If you don't believe me, ask a lawyer, and leave this board.

So you want me leave this board only because I don't agree with you. That is what your agenda on picking all those silly fights(whoever disagrees with you, should leave the board)?? So why didn't you just asked it before... everybody could have saved lot of trauma of fights.

Let me think about "leaving board"? I will let you know ....

members, do you think that I should leave board as I don't agree with JoeF... Please post your thoughts.

 

[gb111]

i think....

So you want me leave this board only because I don't agree with you. That is what your agenda on picking all those silly fights(whoever disagrees with you, should leave the board)?? So why didn't you just asked it before... everybody could have saved lot of trauma of fights.

Let me think about "leaving board"? I will let you know ....

members, do you think that I should leave board as I don't agree with JoeF... Please post your thoughts.

You should leave this board, not because you don't agree with him, but because you are proving yourself to be almost as big a loser as he is.

And I prefer he keep his title, so that is why you should leave. If you take over the title, it'll take away a source of my online entertainment.

Ok, now i better vamoose back into the void before he gets me banned or notify my employer or go cry to his mommy ....

I just love the fact that the guy hasn't still gotten a life in the 3 or so months that i have stayed away from this board. See ya in a couple of months, and keep up the nonsense.

 

[qwertyisback]

You should leave this board, not because you don't agree with him, but because you are proving yourself to be almost as big a loser as he is.

I don't understands your frustation. !!! How you constitute me as loser?? just because I am not as frustated as you or what?? As a matter of fact, Your residance in "Void" proves you as loser.

BTW , I am not inclined to take any title whatsoever. So don't worry about your online entertainment, it will be there as long as you wish

 

[qwertyisback]

You are giving false and dangerous advice. That's the problem.
Stop giving false advice.
Once more: When you use AC21, the new employer becomes the sponsoring employer. This is specified in the immigration law, INA 204.

Posting same things again don't prove anything. Fact remains fact.

Once more for you
Unless CIS comes with some memo/publication, facts doesn't change i.e
sponserer is the one who files/approves LC/I140 and apply for 485 application. AC-21 don't change sponserer but allows to change employers.

 

[qwertyisback]

And we again have qwerty posting falsehoods and not stopping despite repeatedly being asked to.
Qwerty is again making a mockery of this board.

Don't make me to break my peace!!!, I am just disagreeing with you, and you are making BS allegation on me. If you don't agree with me, thats fine, but stop posting rubbish here... OK , be Good.

moderators, JoeF is making BS allegation on me and trying to wage silly fight with me and others again.Don't jump in the end like HERO and ban somebody, if you want to act, act now or stay quite forever. (This is for all moderators, not just for this forums moderator)

 

[dsatish]

The arguments are going no where. Just repetetive.
I think that we have to conduct a public poll to know where most of the members stand on this interpretation of INA.

 

[dsatish]

And we again have qwerty posting falsehoods and not stopping despite repeatedly being asked to.
Qwerty is again making a mockery of this board. He obviously didn't learn anything from the last time he disrupted this board.

JoeF,
Don't bully others too hard (seems like you are back to old habit after some gap). Why should qwerty stop posting just because you ask him repeatedly? He is sticking to the argument where as you are the one who is going more personal on him in this thread.
It is not just qwerty who is disrupting this board, but both of you.

 

[tominavhech]

suggestion

The arguments are going no where. Just repetetive.
I think that we have to conduct a public poll to know where most of the members stand on this interpretation of INA.

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

 

[dsatish]

moderators, Don't jump in the end like HERO and ban somebody, if you want to act, act now or stay quite forever. (This is for all moderators, not just for this forums moderator)

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.

 

[ar888]

Both of you,

Stop this nonsense. If you guys don't agree with each other, just ignore the other person's post. Why are you keep on posting the same thing again and again?