Leaving Employer Soon After Gc....

[a.bhai]

Recently GC has approved. I had a verble despute[zagada] with emploer and situation is such that I will have to leave employer after a month from GC approved . I am sure he will not rewoke gc, but I am worried is such a short worked period will create any problem with N400[citizenship approval] ?

Please share opinions and views...............Thank.

 

[dr_gc]

I don't think it will make any difference to what happens when you apply in five years. One can leave the employer even after one week of GC provided you maintain your profession for which your labor was approved for another six months. AC 21 allows you to change jobs even before your green card approval provided you maintain your profession.

If you are paranoid kind as most Indians from middle or lower middle class backgrounds are - don't submit a resignation from your side no matter what in such a situation. Let them lay you off or fire you giving some excuse. All you do is maintain copy of that letter to demonstrate that you had no choice but to leave.

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. The courts proceedings are extremely expensive and time consuming. The state has better things to spend money than harrass a law abiding citizen who is paying his taxes, and has not been involved any major criminal activity.

I am not a lawyer, but I have done enough litigation on non-immigration issues.

 

[gcsuffer]

I don't think it will make any difference to what happens when you apply in five years. One can leave the employer even after one week of GC provided you maintain your profession for which your labor was approved for another six months. AC 21 allows you to change jobs even before your green card approval provided you maintain your profession.

If you are paranoid kind as most Indians from middle or lower middle class backgrounds are - don't submit a resignation from your side no matter what in such a situation. Let them lay you off or fire you giving some excuse. All you do is maintain copy of that letter to demonstrate that you had no choice but to leave.

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. The courts proceedings are extremely expensive and time consuming. The state has better things to spend money than harrass a law abiding citizen who is paying his taxes, and has not been involved any major criminal activity.

I am not a lawyer, but I have done enough litigation on non-immigration issues.

Can the IO make the decision to remove the PR or the state must get involve? If the state must get involve, I agree what you say.

However, I think it is virtual zero chance to get the PR removed. In my opinion, the chance to get the PR removed is much less than the chance one wins a powerball. People want to have a peace of mind. Who wants to worry about the PR for 5 years everyday especially they don't like their home countries for different reasons.

In my opinion, China and India are growing rapidly. In 10~20 years, the power will shift to Asia. Ameica needs more immigrants to work for them. American does not have enough engineers like China or India. I don't think US wants to kick any engineer out. By that time, people may go home for better jobs.

I think he can tell his employer to leave of absent for a few weeks with some 'good' reasons. Then he can keep extending it. His employer either will let him go or really wait for him for months!

 

[dr_gc]

JoeF writes in good faith:


Quote:
Originally Posted by dr_gc
I don't think it will make any difference to what happens when you apply in five years. One can leave the employer even after one week of GC provided you maintain your profession for which your labor was approved for another six months.
Hmm, no. See http://immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=154533
-----------------------
And So??
That is just a (well intentiond) opinion with no particular case law to support it. There are equally well meaning but different opinions from other lawyers.


Quote:
AC 21 allows you to change jobs even before your green card approval provided you maintain your profession.
AC21 does explicitly not apply after I-485 approval.
----------------

I think you didn't read mail carefully. I didn't say Ac21 applies after I-485 approval.

It is about the legal argument of law itself allowing the intent to be with sponsoring employer to be morphed to the intent of being in the same profession on a date earlier than when a person is being asked to prove "the intent" to be with an sponsoring employer. Since, the law itself allowed change in the intent, it will be untenable to question that intent at a subsequent date.

Quote:
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.
First off, it is not the state. Immigration law is federal. If somebody, e.g., the employer, complains to CIS with credible evidence, CIS can start an investigation. Eventually, it would end up in front of an immigration judge, and the judge rules on it. All these judges do all day long is ruling on immigration matters.

-----------
The "state" above refers to the "the federal government or an agency acting on behalf of it e.g., cis". Similar to the meaning of "state" in the meeting of commonwealth heads of state.

So? You can always challenge those decisions in the United States Court of Appeals.


Quote:
The courts proceedings are extremely expensive and time consuming.

These things are not overly expensive nor time consuming. This is not civil litigation...
----------------

I have no idea if cis employs cheap lawyers .
No wonder they had so many problems in sending Elian Gonzalez back to cuba.

Quote:
The state has better things to spend money than harrass a law abiding citizen who is paying his taxes, and has not been involved any major criminal activity.


Well, leaving an employer too soon after getting the GC could be a violation of immigration law. Courts are there to resolve such matters and rule if there was a violation of law or not.
-----------------------------

Voilation of which law? Where is the exact wording in any law that says any thing about how long one needs to maintain the "intent" after grant of GC. There is no specific case law - it is all speculation and good faith advice. How come intent is OK after six months but not after 4 1/2 months?

I am not saying don't play safe if you can, but at the same time you don't have to be paranoid about it, and take the nonsense from evil employers that maltreat you or exploit you.

I am not a lawyer - consult a lawyer before acting on any advice.

 

[dr_gc]

JoeF:

Please do not get sarcastic - let us keep it respectful. It is surely not my intent to say that others are wrong. I am merely questioning the probability of cis to revoke GC or deny citizenship 5-6 years down the road.

The problem in saying that individual circumstances matter hardly solves any problem since it is as vague a guideline as can be. The only case law that someone quoted is matter of intent: Seihoon v Levy from the site of James D. Eiss Esq.'s website. It says after 90 days, you are as good as a free bird.

I will be first person to say that if a sponsor complains about a person leaving soon after I-485, the person may indeed get in real trouble since the onus to provide proof of the intent to remain permanently with the employer will now be on the GC holder. He would face a major hurdle as to prove the intent, which is contrary to his actions. An Immigration Judge, who is most likely to be sympathetic to the employer and/or cis, may very well set aside GC holder's all statements as mere excuses. However, if the employer *does not* complain, as is the case with the original poster - then the answer, IMHO, is not so clear-cut.

I understand that some overtly aggressive immigration officer may enquire the intent of a person six years down the road, causing major attack of anxiety, or mental breakdown in the weak hearted at the time of citizenship interview. However, it is hard for me to believe that CIS would go to the extent of asking GC intent to be investigated for fraud after so much time has lapsed, and there is no aggrieved party, and recommend denial of citizenship. Unfortunately, I do not have any first hand data to back up this assertion, and would be happy to be corrected by those who have evidence to the contrary. Yes, I do understand some people are having nervous breakdown due to this issue before going to interview. But, merely being asked questions is not sufficient what happens after that is more important.

I would indeed like to know any one whose citizenship has been denied, or GC revoked for a reason of changing the job soon after I-485 approval if the employer never complained, and the person has remained in the same profession. I would be happy to organise or contribute to their legal defence funds, if needed.

disclaimer- I am not a lawyer, please always talk to a lawyer to deal with complex immigration related legal issues.

 

[TheRealCanadian]

Except that Seihoon v. Levy doesn't apply to I-485s. It applies to people entering the country on a non-immigrant visa. I am well aware of this case.

Can you point out a single court case that explicitly backs up your assertion?

If USCIS claims that Seihoon v. Levy is applicable to immigrant cases, a court would consider it reasonable. If anything, because we're talking permanent immigration, a federal judge might consider the time limits in Seihoon v. Levy too short, and extend them.

 

[TheRealCanadian]

Seyhoon v. Levy was about a non-immigrant change of status. There is no comparable court case for the intent of employment-sponsored immigrants.

If you read Seihoon carefully, it establishes the principle that actions shortly after the conferral of an immigration benefit can reasonably be used to determine intent at the time of conferral. That doesn't magically change in immigrant cases - Seihoon is all about intent, and only tangentially about immigration or non-immigrant cases.

Speculating about what a judge may or may not do once such a case comes before the judge may be a nice thing to spend time, but that's about it. Case law is littered with decisions that defy common sense...

I'm engaged in reasonable speculation based on my reading of the statute. We've had this discussion many times, you've never answered what aspect of Seihoon v. Levy makes it inapplicable in immigrant cases. If a government lawyer suggests that Seihoon is applicable, and the judge turns to you and says "Give me a good reason why it's not", what will you say??

As I said, idle speculation. Until there is an immigration case where Seihoon v. Levy is brought in, such speculation is a waste of time.

You may consider it a wasteful exercise. I think it's reasonable speculation. What would you do with an attorney who answered all of your questions on potential outcome with "This is just waseful speculation. Let's see what will happen."??

 

[pralay]

Seyhoon v. Levy was about a non-immigrant change of status. There is no comparable court case for the intent of employment-sponsored immigrants. That's why nobody at this point can claim that Seihoon v. Levy would work for immigrant cases.

I think James Eiss's article discussed the very quintessential concept of intent without doing any categorization of immigrant and non-immigrant. Most of the immigration laws have a basic premise of intent and it is not limited to non-immigration category.

 

[TheRealCanadian]

No. It establishes that actions shortly after admission in a specific non-immigrant status can reasonably be used to determine intent.

Are you now going to claim that Seihoon is only applicable to aliens in the same, specific non-immigrant status as referenced by Seihoon? You're being deliberately obtuse on the non-immigrant aspect of the case.

The fact is that it has never been tested in an immigrant case. Hence, anybody claiming it applies is speculating. Point me to an immigrant case that shows that it applies there. Anything else is speculation. I am not a lawyer. Ask a lawyer, instead of speculate about these things. Better yet, submit your case to the courts so that the courts can rule about it. Until then, it is speculation, nothing more.

Yet you are doing something equally dangerous, running around claiming that Seihoon doesn't apply in an immigrant case. The fact remains that it's a reasonable decision. The fact also remains that while you're running around claiming it doesn't apply, you are unable to provide a single cogent reason why it shouldn't. That says more than any denial can.

Has it ever occured to you that the reason why there's no established case law on the subject is that no federal court judge has ever considered it worthwhile to hear an appeal of a case challenging a decision based on it?

 

[a.bhai]

Thanks for deep discussion.

Hi dr gc, Joef, TheRealCanadian

Thank you for deep explanation-argument-re explanation-re argument......

Any of you or elseone have heard rgarding deportation or cancellation or punishment or prosecution for leaving job before six months or so ? I heard that if you apply for citizenship after about two yeras later i.e. after seven years then there will be no more chances of any dificulty. Logic behind this is , probably, at the time of apply one have to mention his last five yrs work detail from dt of application of N400. Any way this is also a guess, and not a solid/perfact solution.

Please share your opinions and views. a.......................bhai.

 

[VerySilly]

Hi dr gc, Joef, TheRealCanadian

Thank you for deep explanation-argument-re explanation-re argument......

Any of you or elseone have heard rgarding deportation or cancellation or punishment or prosecution for leaving job before six months or so ? I heard that if you apply for citizenship after about two yeras later i.e. after seven years then there will be no more chances of any dificulty. Logic behind this is , probably, at the time of apply one have to mention his last five yrs work detail from dt of application of N400. Any way this is also a guess, and not a solid/perfact solution.

Please share your opinions and views. a.......................bhai.

Don't fall for any of this "very deep" discussions. These "deep disgusting" members are just prime example of "empty mind ,devil's house". Start filtering out 90% crap posted on these forums by few, that will benefit you alot

Now, first of all, don't worry too much, when you become eligible for citizenship, contact lawyer and discuss your concerns with him. I am sure he will tell you right things and not such out of sky advices on this rubbish "intent". Leave that "intent" for these disgusting members for killing their time. And last, most important thing, don't forget to enjoy freedom given by GC and stop worrying about anything else.

 

[a.bhai]

Thanks.

Don't fall for any of this "very deep" discussions. These "deep disgusting" members are just prime example of "empty mind ,devil's house". Start filtering out 90% crap posted on these forums by few, that will benefit you alot

Now, first of all, don't worry too much, when you become eligible for citizenship, contact lawyer and discuss your concerns with him. I am sure he will tell you right things and not such out of sky advices on this rubbish "intent". Leave that "intent" for these disgusting members for killing their time. And last, most important thing, don't forget to enjoy freedom given by GC and stop worrying about anything else.

==========================================================

Thanks a lot, buddy.

 

[msstl]

Don't fall for any of this "very deep" discussions. These "deep disgusting" members are just prime example of "empty mind ,devil's house". Start filtering out 90% crap posted on these forums by few, that will benefit you alot

Now, first of all, don't worry too much, when you become eligible for citizenship, contact lawyer and discuss your concerns with him. I am sure he will tell you right things and not such out of sky advices on this rubbish "intent". Leave that "intent" for these disgusting members for killing their time. And last, most important thing, don't forget to enjoy freedom given by GC and stop worrying about anything else.

These "deep disgusting" members are taking their time to help. You should be thankful to them. They are not forcing anything on you but just giving their opinion so that you can make informed decision.
Moreover, it does not hurt to stay for 6 more months to be on safe side, if your employer is not abusing you (It is always better than to repent at some later time). if your employer is abusing you, then you always have the option to change.
Like someone said earlier, if the employer was abusing you, why did you wait till you get the GC. Is GC more important than your self-esteem.

Guys just my opinion.

 

[pralay]

Now, first of all, don't worry too much, when you become eligible for citizenship, contact lawyer and discuss your concerns with him. I am sure he will tell you right things and not such out of sky advices on this rubbish "intent". Leave that "intent" for these disgusting members for killing their time.

Always be suspecious of people who have only one solution of an issue - be ignorant and "don't worry".

And last, most important thing, don't forget to enjoy freedom given by GC and stop worrying about anything else.

It seems you did not achieve that "freedom" yet and still sniffing around in this forum - quietly looking for information, quietly looking for answers.

 

[pralay]

....who cares .

That's the point - "who cares". You will be surprised to see that most of the adult visitors/members in this forum don't care. It seems you are the only person who keeps stumbling on "craps" again and again. Now, move on and get some "freedom".

 

[SENTHIL MURUGESAN]

Very Nice Discussion

Joef , Dr_gc ,real candians all have valid points , one thing is sure there is no proven case in court of employment intent so for . But dont know what happend to NOIR issued by INS quoted by murthy.com . I am also planning to change job. we will see

senthil

 

[Oberton]

I asked the same question to my lawyer about how soon I can change my work after obtaining employer based GC.

He answered me very clearly that there is no specific law, which requres to staty with the company for a reasonable period of time and I can change employer any time.

 

[qwertyisback]

I asked the same question to my lawyer about how soon I can change my work after obtaining employer based GC.

He answered me very clearly that there is no specific law, which requres to staty with the company for a reasonable period of time and I can change employer any time.

Very well, and you are not alone here, there are many members who has been advised same thing by their lawyers. There are few cartoons on this forum pretend to know all , don't understand simple English line "There is no such Law". . Let them live in fear, May God help such pity souls. And everybody else enjoy enjoy and more enjoy freedom given by GC.

 

[pralay]

Very well, and you are not alone here, there are many members who has been advised same thing by their lawyers. There are few cartoons on this forum pretend to know all , don't understand simple English line "There is no such Law". . Let them live in fear, May God help such pity souls. And everybody else enjoy enjoy and more enjoy freedom given by GC.

Nobody claimed that there is such law. Why don't you contact Rajiv Khanna and ask him why he is providing "misinformation"? http://boards.immigration.com/showthread.php?t=154533

 

[qwertyisback]

....

Learn basics, give respect to (all) lawyers opinion.

No arguments left??? huh?? So who were those , suggesting left and right to check law to others( without posting any law) and pretend that they don't have time to provide law!!!!(But spend eternity posting on forum) Seems to be suffering from severe memory loss !!! .
But anyway, atlast everybody knows that "There is no such law". Preserve this in your leftover memory , that will help to start with.