Leaving Employer after Greencard

[pralay]

Agree with you! The core of the theory invented by Pralay and JoeF is: leaving job after GC can cause conviction of "fraud" (so that you will be deported). But actually, they really do not know what is the legal meaning of "fraud"(JoeF does not know fraud involves facts you presented to USCIS), how to prove it and who should prove it (pralay repeatedly claimed that the burden is on the applicants).

It seems you are keep paying for Westlaw and Lexis-Nexis and still did not understand what is "fraud". Fraud is a fraud.

It only remind me that famous quote of justice Stewart regarding pornography "I know it when I see it."

United States Supreme COurt gave a clear explanation on how to prove "fraud"----the four elements:" 8 USCS § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) requires the government prove by clear and convincing evidence four things: (1) the person misrepresented or concealed some fact; (2) the person did so willfully; (3) the fact was material; and (4) the misrepresentation resulted in the person obtaining a visa, documentation, or entry into the United States. Kalejs v INS (1993, CA7) 10 F3d 441"

So, every person who has suspision on his situation, check your case in light of the four elements set by the US supreme court, find the answers by yourself. Do not be mislead or scared by some persons who do not understand the law!

Again, you cannot argue directly with point and hence citing various unrelated topics in dubious ways. As usual you don't understand the meaning of "meterial" and "material representation". You are having hard time to understand that providing I-140 with I-1485 is material representation and you get your GC based on that "material representation".

 

[hrh]

Thanks again Enquirer, i am not worried about them having all the information, my real concern is that will the fact i had two jobs make them think i didn't have the intent to work after the approval. I do have all the records to prove that i did work for the sponsoring employer, it did take a long time to get I-485 approved, almost three years infact. I also understand I-485 is based on future employment, thats what worries me from reading all these posts. Its interpatation of the officer and how he acts. I am just worried about it prolonging the process more then anything. Thanks again for your input, i appriciate your advice.

Regards

HRH

 

[pralay]

Keep your wise talk to yourself... LAW IS NOT CLEAR...THERE IS NO TIMELINE GIVEN.... Any kid with least of common sense can understand that...AND unless you are "Putting the head in the sand and hoping that these rules are existing"...

That's exactly. Atleast you are admitting that "law is not clear". That is why many lawyers prescribe conservative approach. But I don't think you understood that. Why do I say so? Read bellow.....

Aaaaree... I dont know how you and your friends imagined this 6 months rule.... pure nonsense...misleading people.... If asked why "6 months..." you guys are giving crap... 6 months are enough to prove that you had intent of staying with the employer....In the same spirit... why dont you say "6 years are enough to prove the intent".... The reason is simple...
6 MONTHS suits you and your friends best... and you are jealous of ppl changing jobs and getting good salaries as soon as they get GC.

.....

You have false imaginations of 6 months and "intent crap"....

A classic example of contradicting yourself in a single post. You started your post with "law is not clear", then you are making above statement in a definitive way, without any doubt in mind. Think through first and then post your message.

As a side note, 6 month is not a "rule". It's a thumb rule advised by many lawyers. You are making some comment without properly knowing whether it is a "rule" or what is not.

You imagined some rule and and scared of that rule... This reminds me of my own fear of heights... I am scared to death when I visit tall buildings/towers or even just mountains... I feel any moment it may collapse...I have false imaginations of tall buildings...

That's more of your mental problem. I am not "scared to death" for "intent". Intent is a fundamental issue for any immigration benefit. For over time to time I said, there should not be any artificial timeframe, but it should be determined based on individual circumstance. 6 month thumb rule is advised my many good immigration lawyers, not me. They are not mental patients, but they are good in interpreting immigration laws (atleast better than you and me). If your psychologist says that you have fear of height, then probably you have it. If an immigration lawyer suggests 6 month thumb rule, probably there is reason behind it.

So, its not an issue of your "fear of height" or my "fear of intent". Your analogy shows only your neivete regarding this topic.

PS: CP is totally different ball game. I cant say the same thing with CP.

Different ball game? What makes you think so? Give some reason.

 

[pralay]

If there's no fraud - how can an immigration court bring charges against you?

First of all, immigration court does not bring charge against immigrants, but USCIS does.

Yes, immigration courts and criminanl courts are different. In criminal court, prosecutor needs to prove that defendant is guilty. Failure to prove it without resonable doubt means that defandant is innocent.

But in immigration court, it goes by immigration rules. In immigration court, very basic immigration rule prevails - whether immigrant is eligible for immigration benefit or not. Immigrant's attorney needs to prove that immigrant is eligible for immigration benefit and USCIS accusation is unfair. Judge makes decision based on the facts given. There is no "immigrant until proven ineligible" in immigration court.

 

[pralay]

Ok, if you are certain about it I can't argure that. Never been to any of those courts. Can you refer me to a link that you know of, I'd like to update myself on the difference between criminal and immigration courts? Thanks.

Actually it's very simple - court does not make laws, but interprets existing laws, whether it's criminal laws or immigration laws. Court does not have authority to go beyond this boundary. It always has to act and make decision based the laws given. In criminal law, it's innoccent until proven guilty. But immigration law, an immigrant needs to prove that he/she is eligible for immigration benefit. In USCIS's word "USCIS need not prove ineligibility". Basically immigration laws are based on two basic conditions:
1. immigration benefits are not rights, but privileges.
2. Burden of proof is always on applicants (petitioner or beneficiary).
The immigration court needs to abide by these two conditions too.

For example, person X's GC is revoked by USCIS for some reason. Now, person X can go to immigration court and "prove" that the reason USCIS revoked his GC is not true. Proving the reason for revocation given by USCIS wrong automatically implies that person X is "eligible to retain his GC". But, onus is on person X to prove that USCIS is wrong.

You can go through all the immigration court appeal forms.
http://www.usdoj.gov/eoir/formslist.htm

Most of the appeal related form clear say:
"The burden of proof is on you to prove that you meet all of the statutory requirements for ...."

But in criminal court, the "burden of proof" is always on prosecutor to prove the defendant is guilty.

 

[arizonian]

Our spammer is so desparate he is staying up all night to control this forum

Looks like you are the one trying to control the forum, and from what I see, you are not having much luck.


Grow up vitalsigns. JoeF is a respectable member of this forum and he has offered nothing but cautious and well researched advise on the questions posed on this very interesting forum. We appreciate him being here.

 

[GCdreamer2006]

Based on "intent", it makes sense one cannot leave prior to 6 mo

I am also very interested in this topic.

Recently I read on immigration-law.com that if a person could be haunted even after approval of greencard if it is proved that one didn't have the intent to remain with sponsoring employer during the GC process or just after approval. It addressed this specific topic you guys are discussing here. According to immigration-law lawyer, it seems that - unfortunately - what Joef says it makes sense.

I think this idea that one cannot change greencards upon immediate approval of GC is the most bizarre and absurd concept of all this immigration process. Even more because there is no law or rule that governs this. It is simply ridiculous. I had faith that with this AC21, the idea was that I could go ahead and change jobs after 180 days of pending I-485+GC approved, but according to Mathew Oh states below, no way. Read below:
"...
Once you pass 180 days, any attempt by your employer to revoke your I-140 petition will have no affect on your pending I-485 application. There is one big "caveat," though. Even though the employer withdrawal and revocation of your I-140 petition will not affect your green card process, the employer can request the USCIS to revoke the petition for certain good causes. Typical ground for revocation is "fraud." There is a concept in the immigration law, "preconceived intent," which constitutes a misrepresentation or in worst case a fraud. When you take the job with the "preconceived intent" not to work for the employer for a period of indefinite duration once your green card is approved, the USCIS can revoke your approved I-140 petition even after 180 days of I-485 filing. Such revocation will kill your pending I-485 as it is not covered by the AC-21 portability provision. One can form such intent to change employment after filing I-140 petition and after passing 180 days. However, should the USCIS obtain a material evidence that before 180 days, you had formed an intent not to work for the petitioning employer, the employer can argue and establish your "preconceived intent" not to work for the employer and request the USCIS to revoke your I-140 petition. In your case, you even formed your intent not to work for the employer for a period of indefinite duration and to work only until you reach 180 days before you join the company. It is a classical case of preconceived intent and a fraud. Such fraudulent activity can haunt even after you obtain the green card once the USCIS establishes it by a material evidence. Sometimes, an angry employer can go all the way to collect such evidence to destroy your green card opportunity. People should never form such "preconcceived intent during the employment with the original green card sponsoring employer, at least not until one is eligible for portability under AC 21. When one does not invoke AC 21 and not change employment, this issue will remain with the current employer even after 180 days of I-485 filing if the employer establishes by a material evidence that you had such a preconceived intent. Good faith is good faith, and fraud is fraud. "