I don't understand the argument of 'leaving the company after GC'

[qwertyisback]

You don’t want to give the USCIS any ammunition they could use against you later if they or someone else (like a politician or government bureaucrat) is looking for any means to get rid of you.

Why you are so pessimistic??? If US government want to get rid of us then they can simply stop immigration or naturalization. Why they have to play such games like first give USC and then try to revoke it... I don't get it. Are we all are victims of some BIG consipiracy?. Please explain.

 

[hipka]

See highlighted part above. It says after 5 yrs of getting GC, you get kind of immunity regarding your GC and USC (note USC not GC) can be taken away only if you withheld or misrepresented yourself during the naturalization process.

Does "Intent after GC" is any way related to naturalization process?? N400 don't even ask any q/s related to "intent"... Then there is no misreprestation there. (And don't compare to extreme case, In those cases,US government can make life more miserable than you would ever worry about your USC)

See N-400 part 10, question23. If you give false or misleading info. while applying for immigration benefit then you are in trouble always. If you never intended to work for sponsor after GC then you lied when you applied for GC and you don't have any protection after 5 yrs!!

 

[chinabee]

There is no law saying that the 'intent of GC' needs to be questioned when the citizenship is being applied.

 

[hipka]

Why you are so pessimistic??? If US government want to get rid of us then they can simply stop immigration or naturalization. Why they have to play such games like first give USC and then try to revoke it... I don't get it. Are we all are victims of some BIG consipiracy?. Please explain.

I am pessimistic because I have suffered at the hands of employers and health care system here. Nobody wants to get rid of us and there is no conspiracy, its only highlighting the loopholes which can potentially be used to discriminate( although not intended to discriminate )

 

[zyu]

See N-400 part 10, question23. If you give false or misleading info. while applying for immigration benefit then you are in trouble always. If you never intended to work for sponsor after GC then you lied when you applied for GC and you don't have any protection after 5 yrs!!

everybody that i know who came here on F-1 lied about there intent when they were interviewed ("i don't have immigration intent blah, blah, ..."). so what? everybody is hostaged by the CIS in the rest of his/her life? give me a break.

if you are obsessed to negative thinking, enjoy it yourself. do not spread out your negative and pessimistic thoughts on the forum.

 

[qwertyisback]

I am pessimistic because I have suffered at the hands of employers and health care system here. Nobody wants to get rid of us and there is no conspiracy, its only highlighting the loopholes which can potentially be used to discriminate( although not intended to discriminate )

What have you suffered?? Can you tell ? so that everybody can learn something from it.

 

[hipka]

There is no law saying that the 'intent of GC' needs to be questioned when the citizenship is being applied.

No, but by answering yes to question 23,part 10 you are stating that everything on your GC application was truthful and in your GC application you stated that you intended to work for your employer after getting the GC!
If you did not intend to work for your employer after GC then answer no to question 23 and see what happens.

 

[qwertyisback]

No, but by answering yes to question 23,part 10 you are stating that everything on your GC application was truthful and in your GC application you stated that you intended to work for your employer after getting the GC!

Which part of GC application, we state something like that??

 

[hipka]

everybody that i know who came here on F-1 lied about there intent when they were interviewed ("i don't have immigration intent blah, blah, ..."). so what? everybody is hostaged by the CIS in the rest of his/her life? give me a break.

if you are obsessed to negative thinking, enjoy it yourself. do not spread out your negative and pessimistic thoughts on the forum.

Nobody is a hostage, thats the way the system is --you have to claim you don't have immigrant intent to get F-1,--you have to show a future job and claim no american is ready to take it to get your GC etc...and finally you have to claim you never lied to get your citizenship!!
I'm not a negative thinker, just venting out frustration will be positive in a few days.

 

[hipka]

Which part of GC application, we state something like that??

Thats a good point, its not stated directly but implied when you file 485 and send a letter of support from your employer.

 

[qwertyisback]

Thats a good point, its not stated directly but implied when you file 485 and send a letter of support from your employer.

That letter can be categorized as Intent of employer than employee. So in your consipiracy theories, all employers should be screwed by CIS... RIGHT

 

[chinabee]

The letter of support is the intent of the EMPLOYER to retain the employee for service rather the intent of the employee.

 

[hipka]

That letter can be categorized as Intent of employer than employee. So in your consipiracy theories, all employers should be screwed by CIS... RIGHT

The employer can definitely be screwed by CIS if they did not intend to hire the employee after GC and gave it to him just for the GC application

 

[qwertyisback]

Ok , friends ,chinabee, zyu and others, Give Hipka some break, As he had suffered in the hands of employer and insurance companies.
Hipka, you might share your suffering that will vent out frustation than anything else. May God bless you in tough time.

 

[hipka]

The letter of support is the intent of the EMPLOYER to retain the employee for service rather the intent of the employee.

But when you use it to support your 485 application, it becomes your intent to join them after GC

 

[hipka]

Ok , friends ,chinabee, zyu and others, Give Hipka some break, As he had suffered in the hands of employer and insurance companies.
Hipka, you might share your suffering that will vent out frustation than anything else. May God bless you in tough time.

Thanks buddy! No probs! feel much better now
By the I'm planning to change jobs on march 1'st( after 2yrs torture ) so whiling away time on this board

 

[manik_baasha]

everybody that i know who came here on F-1 lied about there intent when they were interviewed ("i don't have immigration intent blah, blah, ..."). so what? everybody is hostaged by the CIS in the rest of his/her life? give me a break.

if you are obsessed to negative thinking, enjoy it yourself. do not spread out your negative and pessimistic thoughts on the forum.

That's probably why they have the dual intent clause while applying for immigration. Dual intent didn't make the original intent fraudulent. So although not explicitly stated in the law, having one intent at one time and 2 intents at another is not illegal. So, technically, one could have the intent to work for the employer and vice-versa but also have an overriding intent to work for another employer or get self employed. That does not make the original intent fraudulent right?

The "on a permanent basis" is BS. It needs to be corrected. Most, if not all, large companies sign an "At will employment" with the applicant. So technically, they want you on a permanent basis but could end the employment at any time without any reason and you have to work for the employer on a permanent basis but could terminate the employment at any time without any reason. A contradiction. Now, if it was found that the employee did not have the intent to work on a permanent basis, there's refuge in the at will employment clause. How could enforcing one's rights break the law? Man I'm good.

 

[hipka]

That's probably why they have the dual intent clause while applying for immigration. Dual intent didn't make the original intent fraudulent. So although not explicitly stated in the law, having one intent at one time and 2 intents at another is not illegal. So, technically, one could have the intent to work for the employer and vice-versa but also have an overriding intent to work for another employer or get self employed. That does not make the original intent fraudulent right?

The "on a permanent basis" is BS. It needs to be corrected. Most, if not all, large companies sign an "At will employment" with the applicant. So technically, they want you on a permanent basis but could end the employment at any time without any reason and you have to work for the employer on a permanent basis but could terminate the employment at any time without any reason. A contradiction. Now, if it was found that the employee did not have the intent to work on a permanent basis, there's refuge in the at will employment clause. How could enforcing one's rights break the law? Man I'm good.

Dual intent is possible for H-1 visa not F-1, for F-1 you must have the intent to return home which is no longer the case when you convert to H-1.

On a permanent basis means the employment should be indefnite and not have a specific end date. At will employment is the reason citizens can quit their jobs at any time. There is no refuge in at will employment if you did not intend to work for the sponsor. Basically you are getting the GC to work in the at will job.

 

[chinabee]

According to your logic, you'd better die with your employer otherwise you break the term 'permanent'.

If you want to win your argument, you'd better provide either of the following:

1. an actual case that somebody's citizenship application is denied because s/he left the sponsoring company too soon.
2. the law or the regulation publised by INS

Dual intent is possible for H-1 visa not F-1, for F-1 you must have the intent to return home which is no longer the case when you convert to H-1.

On a permanent basis means the employment should be indefnite and not have a specific end date. At will employment is the reason citizens can quit their jobs at any time. There is no refuge in at will employment if you did not intend to work for the sponsor. Basically you are getting the GC to work in the at will job.

 

[hipka]

According to your logic, you'd better die with your employer otherwise you break the term 'permanent'.

If you want to win your argument, you'd better provide either of the following:

1. an actual case that somebody's citizenship application is denied because s/he left the sponsoring company too soon.
2. the law or the regulation publised by INS

According to my logic you should work for sometime with your employer, 6 months at least.
--There is no case where the citizenship was denied because s/he left the emp. too soon as ppl. were not leaving the emp. before AC21 and its too early for post AC21 citizenship cases yet.
-- There is no law which states that you have to work after GC approval only a law which prevents fraud and fraud could be argued if one leaves the job quickly.
During N-400 questions can be asked about how quickly you left the GC sponsor (read transcript from murthy.com attorney)

shivdeep
Member posted July 16, 2003 07:19 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can any one please let me know all the requirements needed to apply for Employment based Naturalization and ALSO should we produce any documents to BCIS to clarify how long one worked with the GC sponsoring or AC21 employer at the time of applying for Citizenship?

Thanks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 87 | Registered: May 02, 2002

Attorney_8
Attorney posted July 18, 2003 06:17 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One applying for naturalization must generally provide proof that they have paid their taxes the last few years and that they have met continuity of residence requirements. To prove how long a person stayed with the original or AC21 sponsoring employer if the person is no longer working there by the time that the naturalization process begins, it is advisable to get a letter from the company confirming the date of resignation or layoff at the time that the resignation or layoff occurs. Otherwise, there is a risk that the company will not still be open at the time of naturalization.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 816 | Registered: August 21, 2002

Superho
Member posted July 18, 2003 10:16 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't most companies have a "check-out sheet" that the resigning employee and company rep have to sign? Would that be enough? Also, what abgout the final pay stub and W-2?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 872 | Registered: April 08, 2003

Attorney_6
Attorney posted July 18, 2003 01:31 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not necessary to submit documentation of the length of post-green card employment with the sponsor (or AC21 employer) with the N-400. However, the examiner is likely to ask how long the applicant worked for the sponsor after green card approval. If documentation of this fact is requested, it could take a variety of forms--including the W-2/tax filing, any letters from the employer and the like. It may generally be wise to get a reference type letter, to use for a number of purposes, including naturalization.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 768 | Registered: February 23, 2002