Intent To Deny!
- Thread starter ned
- Start date
poongunranar
Registered Users (C)
Tombaan
§ 106 of AC-21 Act is explicitly clear, while amending § 212(a)(5)(A) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (8 USC § 1182(a)(5)(A)). It mentions about, "with respect to a new job accepted by the individual after the individual changes jobs or employers if the job is in the same or a similar occupational classification as the job for which the certification was issued."
Therefore AC-21 covers your portability so long as you have accepted the job-offer and are working for the new employer in a position very similar to what is stated in the Labor Certification. It is untenable if you are virtually assumed to work for B, literally on paper. Rather, as in your example, your labor certification was filed by Z(say) and you are currently working for A and you hold a future job offer with B, still, in order to avail of AC-21 portability, you ought to get the necessary documents from A and not from B. Also, the job you are performing at A should almost match to a T as that of Z, from where you had launched your GC process.
Hope this helps.
§ 106 of AC-21 Act is explicitly clear, while amending § 212(a)(5)(A) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (8 USC § 1182(a)(5)(A)). It mentions about, "with respect to a new job accepted by the individual after the individual changes jobs or employers if the job is in the same or a similar occupational classification as the job for which the certification was issued."
Therefore AC-21 covers your portability so long as you have accepted the job-offer and are working for the new employer in a position very similar to what is stated in the Labor Certification. It is untenable if you are virtually assumed to work for B, literally on paper. Rather, as in your example, your labor certification was filed by Z(say) and you are currently working for A and you hold a future job offer with B, still, in order to avail of AC-21 portability, you ought to get the necessary documents from A and not from B. Also, the job you are performing at A should almost match to a T as that of Z, from where you had launched your GC process.
Hope this helps.
poongunranar
Registered Users (C)
tombaan
Oh, of course. My understanding of your question was "right at that moment," scenario. You can always keep changing from company A to B to C to D and so on and so forth. Say, one fine day you get a RFE and you happen to work for P at that time, you need to respond to AC21 with P as your current employer. So long as the bottom-line of AC21 is not violated (similar job, similar position, similar pay etc.), you are just fine.
Personal Note:
Personally, even though I am not an attorney-at-law, I am very sanguine and extremely confident of going on appeal of any denial arising out of AC-21, because I am seeing that the verbiage is so generic that it will be a wonderful statute to argue in a court of law with various interpretation for the verbiage in question. And there are many brilliant attorneys-at-law out there, who can rip apart any denial arising out of the bottom-line verbiage of AC-21. It is too soon to see any AC-21 denial case ascending to the level of the Appellate Courts for us to see if INS had even denied anybody based on AC-21. Bottom-line is, just don't feel afraid of AC-21.
tombaan said:
Oh, of course. My understanding of your question was "right at that moment," scenario. You can always keep changing from company A to B to C to D and so on and so forth. Say, one fine day you get a RFE and you happen to work for P at that time, you need to respond to AC21 with P as your current employer. So long as the bottom-line of AC21 is not violated (similar job, similar position, similar pay etc.), you are just fine.
Personal Note:
Personally, even though I am not an attorney-at-law, I am very sanguine and extremely confident of going on appeal of any denial arising out of AC-21, because I am seeing that the verbiage is so generic that it will be a wonderful statute to argue in a court of law with various interpretation for the verbiage in question. And there are many brilliant attorneys-at-law out there, who can rip apart any denial arising out of the bottom-line verbiage of AC-21. It is too soon to see any AC-21 denial case ascending to the level of the Appellate Courts for us to see if INS had even denied anybody based on AC-21. Bottom-line is, just don't feel afraid of AC-21.
poongunranar
Registered Users (C)
tombaan -- your adjudication is just round the corner..
Friend:
Your approval is just around the corner. Be it "purgation of Karma," or a "share of the Lord's redemptive suffering," per Hindu and Christian Theology respectively, it all underscores the value of hope, courage, and faith.
A favorite quote of my favorite American President Abraham Lincoln aptly captures this: "It is said an Eastern monarch once charged his wise men to invent him a sentence to be ever in view, and which should be true and appropriate in all times and situations. They presented him the words: "And this, too, shall pass away." How much it expresses! How chastening in the hour of pride! How consoling in the depths of affliction!"
So, tombaan, "..and this, too, shall pass away."
Friend:
Your approval is just around the corner. Be it "purgation of Karma," or a "share of the Lord's redemptive suffering," per Hindu and Christian Theology respectively, it all underscores the value of hope, courage, and faith.
A favorite quote of my favorite American President Abraham Lincoln aptly captures this: "It is said an Eastern monarch once charged his wise men to invent him a sentence to be ever in view, and which should be true and appropriate in all times and situations. They presented him the words: "And this, too, shall pass away." How much it expresses! How chastening in the hour of pride! How consoling in the depths of affliction!"
So, tombaan, "..and this, too, shall pass away."