manwithnoname
Registered Users (C)
No, it shouldn't matter.
- Home
- Forums
- Immigrant Visas (Green Cards)
- I-485 Issues
- I-485 Issues Common to All Services Centers
- General I-485 and Related Issues
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Invoke AC21 - I40 revoke by employer
- Thread starter GCCovet
- Start date
gettingmygc
Registered Users (C)
Honestly, this sniffs of bodyshop-middle-man-psuedo-sponsorship-for-cut-of-earnings.
Furthermore, I will say that in many contracts - even legitimate ones where the hired consultant is a US resident or citizen, many contracting companies do have a provision in their agreements that the contractor cannot leave the contracting company and go directly to the client for some specified period (normally 6-12 months) after termination. This is normal practice for any temp agency and contracting company because usually, it is the company that locates the client and it makes perfect sense. I am not sure of the legal weight of those kinds of agreements but I suspect they are legitimate in many instances.
While revoking the I-140 may not be a problem, the employer can always file a complaint saying they feel the employee may never have had the intention to stay. I think however, this is unlikely because the employer sounds like a typical sponsorship-for-cut-of-your-earnings-immigration-fraud type company. They would likely not want to expose themselves to scrutiny. However, it's worth considering that they could always take that action.
In this case I am guessing that the consultant located the customer and used the contracting company as a front and sponsor for immigration and the ability to work in the US. Otherwise, it would be extremely unlikely he would go directly to the client without some compensation being paid to the consulting firm.
Thus, investigators could deterine the contracting company had no bona fide requirement for the employee and the underlying LC and I-140 was fraudulent.
While under normal circumstances the revocation of the I-140 makes no difference at this stage, if it is ever revoked for fraud it's game over.
Furthermore, I will say that in many contracts - even legitimate ones where the hired consultant is a US resident or citizen, many contracting companies do have a provision in their agreements that the contractor cannot leave the contracting company and go directly to the client for some specified period (normally 6-12 months) after termination. This is normal practice for any temp agency and contracting company because usually, it is the company that locates the client and it makes perfect sense. I am not sure of the legal weight of those kinds of agreements but I suspect they are legitimate in many instances.
While revoking the I-140 may not be a problem, the employer can always file a complaint saying they feel the employee may never have had the intention to stay. I think however, this is unlikely because the employer sounds like a typical sponsorship-for-cut-of-your-earnings-immigration-fraud type company. They would likely not want to expose themselves to scrutiny. However, it's worth considering that they could always take that action.
In this case I am guessing that the consultant located the customer and used the contracting company as a front and sponsor for immigration and the ability to work in the US. Otherwise, it would be extremely unlikely he would go directly to the client without some compensation being paid to the consulting firm.
Thus, investigators could deterine the contracting company had no bona fide requirement for the employee and the underlying LC and I-140 was fraudulent.
While under normal circumstances the revocation of the I-140 makes no difference at this stage, if it is ever revoked for fraud it's game over.
Last edited by a moderator: