job change after 4 month of GC-ing

sometwo

Registered Users (C)
Hi guys - I need an advise

A new offer may be on its way (great job, money and location), but my GC is only 3 months old. I can extend the wait time up until 4 month the longest. What to do? I know about 30-60-90 days rule but still in doubt. Will I be questioned regarding my intent in the future? and why lawers recommend 6 month of stay with the sponsor if 30-60-90 rule exists?

Thank you all
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Doubt will never be removed. Most would wait 6 months.

30-60-90 has nothing to do with this
 
That 30-60-90 rule was about somebody who entered with a B1/B2 visa and shortly thereafter tried to change to student status. It had nothing to do with the green card, where the rules and expectations are different.

6 months is a guideline, not a hard and fast rule (because there is no clear rule). The 6 months guideline might have been derived from the 180-day period of AC21 (the line of reasoning being that if it is OK to change jobs 180 days after filing the I-485, it should be OK to change jobs 180 days after the green card).

Since there is no clear rule, you just have to evaluate the risk/reward and decide for yourself. The longer you worked for them between filing the I-485 and getting your GC, the lower the risk. Four months post-GC shouldn't look too bad if you have spent 1 or 2 years with the employer while your I-485 was pending.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
the 6 month 'rule' (jacko is correct that there is no rule) was in place long before AC21 was enacted.
 
Thanks guys

Cool joke, KMax

No, my I-485 was pending only 8 months - not to long I guess.

...when it'll be time with no immigration desisions to make?
 
...when it'll be time with no immigration desisions to make?
If you don't apply for naturalization, USCIS probably will never know or care about your job change situation.

If it is a top priority for you to build a "bulletproof" case for naturalization, 4 months post-GC probably isn't enough to be "bulletproof". But if you are willing to take a little risk for the sake of the reward of the better job, 8 months post-485 plus 4 months post-GC isn't all that bad. Life isn't free of risk.
 
That 30-60-90 rule was about somebody who entered with a B1/B2 visa and shortly thereafter tried to change to student status. It had nothing to do with the green card, where the rules and expectations are different.

It's all about "intent" whether it is for non-immigrant visa or greencard.
Seihoon Levy's case seems to make some lawyers to apply 30-60-90 guidance for all the case involving intent.

http://www.usvisahelp.com/index.php...:issues-of-intent&option=com_content&Itemid=5

Intent to Work for the I-140 or I-360 Petitioner
Employment-based nonimmigrant visa holders can obtain permanent residence (PR) either by Consular Processing or by Adjustment of Status. If Consular Processing is chosen, the alien must present a letter of employment at the time of the Consulate interview abroad, stating that upon receiving of PR status, he or she intends to work indefinitely for the petitioning employer on the underlying I-140 petition. This statement is required based on the underlying assumption that the alien is entering the U.S. primarily to work in an occupation for which there is a shortage of U.S. workers. Unfortunately intent is a difficult thing to document or to prove.

For beneficiaries of I-360 Religious Worker Petitions, there is an additional intent requirement. Not only must the beneficiary intend, at the time of the consulate interview or adjustment of status to work for the I-360 petitioner after he is granted permanent residence; he must also be entering the U.S. "solely" to carry on religious work in the denomination that sponsored the I-360. This means that he must intend to work full time for the I-360 petitioner and that he must not intend to engage in additional, supplemental employment apart from his religious work.

If USCIS believes that a permanent resident received a green card following a Consular Processing interview at which he or she misrepresented his/her intention to continue working for the petitioning employer, or to work "solely" as a religious worker in the I-360 context, then he or she may be guilty of making a material misrepresentation (fraud) and may never be able to become a naturalized citizen based on that green card. In addition, USCIS routinely deports individuals who make such misrepresentations.

There are two ways in which the alien’s intent at the time of the Consulate interview may come into question. The first would be if someone reported the alien’s misrepresentation to the USCIS. The tip-off could come from an aggrieved employer who supported the alien’s immigration process in anticipation of a continued employment; or it could come from a fellow employee who is aware of the situation. It could also come from an angry ex-boyfriend or girlfriend. Anyone can call USCIS to report that someone has broken immigration laws. Upon receiving a tip-off, USCIS would have to launch an investigation. The other way in which the alien’s misrepresentation might be discovered would be at the time of his or her Naturalization interview. The USCIS officer conducting the interview would query the alien on his or her actions following receipt of permanent status. If at that time it came out that the alien changed employers of his/her own accord immediately following receipt of permanent resident status, he or she could be deemed ineligible for naturalization.

In order to determine whether the alien truthfully represented his or her intent to remain with his or her petitioning U.S. employer after receiving the green card, the USCIS uses the standard created by Seihoon v. Levy. That is, USCIS examines the “rapid course of events” following the alien’s receipt of his or her green card. The Department of State has reduced this rule to a 30-60-90 day formula which USCIS generally follows. If an alien ends employment with the petitioning employer within 30 days of receiving his/her green card, then it is highly likely that USCIS will decide that the alien’s intent at the Consulate interview was not, as he/she stated, to remain with the petitioning employer indefinitely. After 60 days have passed, it is less likely (but still risky) that USCIS will determine that the alien lied about his/her intent at the Consulate interview. And after 90 days, it is highly unlikely that USCIS will have a problem with the alien’s change of employment.
 
It's all about "intent" whether it is for non-immigrant visa or greencard.
Seihoon Levy's case seems to make some lawyers to apply 30-60-90 guidance for all the case involving intent.
That doesn't mean the courts will agree when it comes to EB green cards. Court rulings can be very context-dependent.

It does not always make sense to apply the same length of time to all different types of intent. Different purposes have different levels of expectations of time and permanence. Congress has recognized this when it comes to marriage, writing a two-year minimum into law. With AC21 they have hinted at 180 days being reasonable, but until there is a court ruling or administrative memo specific to the employment context, lawyers and the rest of us will continue to be guessing.
 
Thanks guys for your valuable inputs

Seihoon Levy's case seems references CP only, no word about AOS GC. Can we assume that rules applies are the same?

1) Rajiv's opinion: http://boards.immigration.com/showthread.php?t=154533
after speculating about the issue he wraps up with the following PS part "I doubt very much CIS would go so far as to deny citizenship where an employee left too soon. Under the current scheme of things (AC21, processing delays) such a case would be a bad case for CIS to fight. So as one community member said, don't worry." (C)

2) http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=176490
"Law does not work that way as most people in these forums think. It is non-trivial to affect anyone's legal residency status after approval since to do that the state must recourse to lengthy court proceedings against an individual." (C) (dr_gc)

So many different opinions, but I personally think that 90 days should suffice, if one stays in the same specialty as written in LC
 
Seihoon Levy's case seems references CP only, no word about AOS GC. Can we assume that rules applies are the same?
No, we can't assume that. We can only hope and guess, until the courts or Congress or USCIS provides some clear criteria for EB-GC.
 
No, we can't assume that. We can only hope and guess, until the courts or Congress or USCIS provides some clear criteria for EB-GC.

Agreed, but CP looks more restrictive since candidate didn't have a chance to work for sponsor at all, while AOS people already worked and contributed. Of course it's not implied rather rational thoughts
 
Agreed, but CP looks more restrictive since candidate didn't have a chance to work for sponsor at all, while AOS people already worked and contributed.
Sounds reasonable, but we still can't really know until somebody with the appropriate authority clarifies the criteria in writing. If you're looking for something to give you a 100% safe basis to change jobs now, you're not going to find it. Just decide if the job opportunity is worth the risk, and go for it if it's worth it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well I notified my employer I was changing jobs 8 months after receiving the GC. My employer is saying she will send a letter to USCIS stating that she is no longer my sponsor and that I need to find a new sponsor. The I-140 was approved over a year ago through Premium processing. I can't recall that the documentation required for the I-140 included a financial sponsorship for three years !!??

What can I do? Should this be a reason for concern?
Thanks
 
Well I notified my employer I was changing jobs 8 months after receiving the GC. My employer is saying she will send a letter to USCIS stating that she is no longer my sponsor and that I need to find a new sponsor. The I-140 was approved over a year ago through Premium processing. I can't recall that the documentation required for the I-140 included a financial sponsorship for three years !!??

What can I do? Should this be a reason for concern?
Thanks
Your employer is thinking like a family-based green card sponsor, where the sponsor is financially responsible for the new immigrant for a number of years. USCIS will most likely ignore that letter. If USCIS contacts you about it, deal with it when the time comes, otherwise don't worry about it.
 
Top