(Leaving the sponsor early) Why not visas ?

[pralay]

I asked you a very concrete question and you refer me to RealCan. and JoeF.

First of all, your question was answered many times. Neither you disagree (therefore you are unable to articulate how and where you disagree) nor can you accept those answers.

What authority do they represent?

They don't claim to have authority. But their points are more reasonable than yours. Again, for example, RealCanadian's post, if you don't agree with his argument, just articulate what you don't agree, without questioning his authority.

You guys have invented your own world and keep living in it.

No, we did not. In fact, same thing has been said many time by many good immigration lawyers and immigration experts, even before I get to know ABC of American immigration system and laws. If you are saying we are inventing, you are giving too much credit to us. If fact you are the person who is inventing new defintion of "intent" ("slavery", "super loyalty") and trying hard to redefine it.

 

[vitalsigns]

Again you are mixing GC with temp job position. Before GC approval the person is paid for temp job position. Threfore, your argument is irrelvent in this issue. Technically, person is not hired for GC job position unless USCIS granted GC. You whole arugument is like a catch-22. Are you mixing up these two totally different issues (future job position and temp job position in visa) for the sake of argument? Or you just don't see any difference at all?

What are you talking about? Just because somebody else said this it doesn't make it true! You are hired on the basis of your skills/profession and you go through the immigration process on the basis of those skills - it's one big process. Sure you can choose not to adjust your status, but please do not feed me up with this stuff that a green card is for a future job. You can tell it to some guy who stepped in here for a minute, but not to me. I told you, you guys have invented your own world. It's mixed up and confusing.

Nobody is said it's about loyalty. It's about getting GC in good faith. If you can show that you got GC is good faith (having intent to working for GC sponsor), you are not required to show any loyalty. Why are you keep repeating the same thing again and again? It's not about timeframe, therefore it's not about loyalty (or "super loyalty").

Well, if it is just about the good faith intent then the whole thing about proving the intent by sticking to the employer does not hold any water. First off, the green card IS NOT for the future job. It is the final step in the IMMIGRATION process. You do get it through employment, but employment was only the means for obtaining it and not the end in itself. You got the card - you are free to go - the first day, the second day - whatever.

Check out more often the USCIS site and listen less to the so called experts on here. Yeah, sure they give good advice, but it doesn't take a huge brain to go and look up the answer somewhere on the internet. I am not impressed. Anyone can do this.

So if you say, "I have intention to work for the company" and then don't work, how are going to prove that you had intent? Give me some example. "I had intent because I say so" - is this your logic?

Why does that bother you if it doesn't bother anyone else including the immigration authorities? Why PRALAY, why?

Read RealCanadian's post again, especially "what changed" question. Unless you understand his post, there is no point of going forward in discussion. Again, it's not about "loyalty", but about "intent". No matter how many ways you redefine "intent" (like "slavery", "super loyalty"), it does not change basic premise of EB GC. Intent is intent. It's not slavery, it's not loyalty.

Unless you clarify it for me I can't understand anything. Only you can help me. Please, help me.

To be frank, I failed to understand why are you brining this argument at the very same point again and again. Is it too hard to read older posts?

Because I sicerely believe you do not know what you are talking about when it comes to the immigration process. You listen to the wrong people too much and are influenced by them.

I never said otherwise. If you leave your GC sponsor anytime provided you can show that you obtained GC in good faith. Again, I would suggest you to read RealCanadian's post again.

That's precisely my point: I do not have to show/prove anything to anyone. Neither do you or anyone else.

 

[vitalsigns]

The simple and relevant explanation to everything is here:

http://uscis.gov/graphics/howdoi/ImmStatEmp.htm

But does any of you care???

 

[pralay]

What are you talking about? Just because somebody else said this it doesn't make it true! You are hired on the basis of your skills/profession and you go through the immigration process on the basis of those skills - it's one big process. Sure you can choose not to adjust your status, but please do not feed me up with this stuff that a green card is for a future job.

You are questioning about very basics of GC process. GC is always for future employment. It's amazing that you are still arguing about EB GC process without understanding the very basics. The "immigration process" determines the eligibility of beneficiary (and employer) for future employment. If you do not understand this very simple thing of EB GC, you do not understand anything of EB GC. It's astonishing that it is taking so long for you to understand it.

I told you, you guys have invented your own world. It's mixed up and confusing.

You are inventing whole EB GC process. I have to admit that you went to great length to defend your argument that lacks very basic knowledge of EB GC.

Well, if it is just about the good faith intent then the whole thing about proving the intent by sticking to the employer does not hold any water.

Explain why it does not hold water. Read RealCanadian's post again. Sometimes (not always) "intent" is determined by "actions". Action of working for company X can be assumed that the person "intended" to work for company X. You keep referring James Eiss's article in your signature but it seems you could not understand that article (and that includes the title of the article).

First off, the green card IS NOT for the future job.

It is. Ask any immigration lawyers, immigration expert and USCIS. I bet you won't get any answer that support your argument. EB GC is always for future or prospective employment.

Rest of your argument is based on the premise that GC is NOT for future employment. Therefore I am not replying rest of the post. Once you understand that GC is for future employment, rest of your argument will collapse automatically.

BTW, let us know if you find any law/article that say GC is for "something else" (not for future employment). I am referring it "something else" because you did not define what is it.

As you are the first person to claim that GC is not for future employment, do yourself a favor. Support your claim with some substance.

 

[pralay]

The simple and relevant explanation to everything is here:

http://uscis.gov/graphics/howdoi/ImmStatEmp.htm

But does any of you care???

As you referring USCIS site I wish you did more mouse-clicking on all the links and try to understand and therefore satisfy your "curious mind". Here, one more page from USCIS site (has link from the very page link you posted).

http://uscis.gov/graphics/services/residency/employment.htm

If you want to become an immigrant based on the fact that you have a permanent employment opportunity in the United States, or if you are an employer that wants to sponsor someone for lawful permanent residency based on permanent employment in the United States, you must go through a multi-step process.​

What does it say? You CANNOT make "permanent employment opportunity in the United States" available for you unless EB GC is granted for you (after multi-step immigration process). Note the word "opportunity". It did not say "you have a/an (current) employment" or "you are (currently) employed". That's where the word "future employment" comes to picture. Keep in mind, unless you are granted GC (after multi-step process), you are not an immigrant, but non-immigrant working on temporary working visa.

Also, don't forget to read AC21 memo (I provided this link to you before):
http://uscis.gov/graphics/lawsregs/handbook/AC21intrm051205.pdf

Question 10. Should service centers or district offices deny portability cases on the sole basis that the alien has left his or her employment with the I-140 petitioner prior to the I-485 application pending for 180 days?

Answer: No. The basis for adjustment is not actual (current) employment but prospective employment. Since there is no requirement that the alien have ever been employed by the petitioner while the I-140 and/or I-485 was pending, the fact that an alien left the I-140 petitioner before the I-485 has been pending 180 days will not necessarily render the alien ineligible to port. However, in all cases an offer of employment must have been bona fide. This means that, as of the time the I-140 was filed and at the time of filing the I-485 if not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have had the intent to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to undertake the employment, upon adjustment. Adjudicators should not presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate.
​

These just two piece of documents that immediately came to my mind (actually one, because you yourself provided link to first one). If you spend just 15 minute to do a google search, you will find ample documents that will contradict your argument (GC is NOT for future employment).

Sometimes law are like puzzles where you need to understand the totality (or the whole concept and purpose) and piece them together in your mind. I don't think you are doing it. Instead of giving some effort to understand EB GC process, you are trying hard to defend your pre-conceived idea (conceived before proper understanding). The link you provided to defend your argument is an good example. That link does not support your argument anyway. It's irrelevent.

 

[pralay]

Check out more often the USCIS site and listen less to the so called experts on here. Yeah, sure they give good advice, but it doesn't take a huge brain to go and look up the answer somewhere on the internet. I am not impressed. Anyone can do this.

In earlier post, I provided only two links - both from USCIS site. It seems you failed to read those documents or could not grasp the meaning. You yourself are not practicing what you preach. My advise to you - "check out more often USCIS site".

Seaching in internet? I am sure anyone can do it. But I am puzzled why you are not able to do it. It does not take huge brain, right?

 

[vitalsigns]

Let me throw it back at you:

Question 10. Should service centers or district offices deny portability cases on the sole basis that the alien has left his or her employment with the I-140 petitioner prior to the I-485 application pending for 180 days?

Answer: No. The basis for adjustment is not actual (current) employment but prospective employment. Since there is no requirement that the alien have ever been employed by the petitioner while the I-140 and/or I-485 was pending, the fact that an alien left the I-140 petitioner before the I-485 has been pending 180 days will not necessarily render the alien ineligible to port. However, in all cases an offer of employment must have been bona fide. This means that, as of the time the I-140 was filed and at the time of filing the I-485 if not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have had the intent to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to undertake the employment, upon adjustment. Adjudicators should not presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate.

Look carefully. First the intent to work is required/expected at the time of filing of I-140 and I-485. It doesn't say that intent sould be present after I-485 is approved. This is #1
#2 Even adjudicators should not presume there was no intent in legitimate cases. They should look at the evidence and documents and not use a notion "I feel you had no intent to work". Presume means: accept without verification or proof - which I have been telling you all along.

 

[vitalsigns]

Rest of your argument is based on the premise that GC is NOT for future employment. Therefore I am not replying rest of the post. Once you understand that GC is for future employment, rest of your argument will collapse automatically.

BTW, let us know if you find any law/article that say GC is for "something else" (not for future employment). I am referring it "something else" because you did not define what is it.

As you are the first person to claim that GC is not for future employment, do yourself a favor. Support your claim with some substance.

If referring to the USCIS is not enough proof to you - nothing else will suffice. The GC is for a future job - if it is ANY job. That's what the USCIS site says. You cannot move around and live anywhere in the US until you are free to get a job anywhere you want. You cannot have the same rights as a US citizen unless you are free. The USCIS cannot contradict itself.

Intent after I-485 approval has little/no value as I said before. Deep inside, I believe, even you Pralay, know this. And the RealCan. knows it.

 

[pralay]

Let me throw it back at you:

Question 10. Should service centers or district offices deny portability cases on the sole basis that the alien has left his or her employment with the I-140 petitioner prior to the I-485 application pending for 180 days?

Answer: No. The basis for adjustment is not actual (current) employment but prospective employment. Since there is no requirement that the alien have ever been employed by the petitioner while the I-140 and/or I-485 was pending, the fact that an alien left the I-140 petitioner before the I-485 has been pending 180 days will not necessarily render the alien ineligible to port. However, in all cases an offer of employment must have been bona fide. This means that, as of the time the I-140 was filed and at the time of filing the I-485 if not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have had the intent to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to undertake the employment, upon adjustment. Adjudicators should not presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate.

Look carefully. First the intent to work is required/expected at the time of filing of I-140 and I-485. It doesn't say that intent sould be present after I-485 is approved. This is #1

First you did not throw anything back.

1. You could not defend your argument that GC is NOT for future employment. (the very reason I quoted AC21 memo). The USCIS document clearly says "alien must have intended to undertake the employment, upon adjustment.". The keyword is "upon adjustment" (not before).

2. The document says that intent is required at the time of filing I-140/I-485. But it did not say that intent is required only at the time of filing (and not required after filing). The basic presumption is that if someone filed I-485, he had intent at the time of I-485 filing (and I-485 application is the prima facie evidence of his intent). However, it does not imply that the person does not need to have intent after I-485 filing. If I say I eat chicken that does not imply I don't eat beef. The beneficiary has to takeup the future employment "upon adjustment". In fact, if intent is required only at the time of filing I-140/I-485 and not required after that, it would defeat the very purpose of AC21 that requires atleast 180 days of waiting. People could invoke AC21 immediately after filing I-485. You forgot the fact that this memo is about AC21. AC21 does not contradict the basic premise of EB GC (that GC is for future employment), but your argument does.

#2 Even adjudicators should not presume there was no intent in legitimate cases. Presume means: accept without verification or proof - which I have been telling you all along.

You are so great! You are cherry-picking words and lines to make your point. Why did you ignore rest of the line that says "but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate"? "Additional evidence or investigation" - does it mean "accept without verification or proof" to you?

Secondly, do you know the meaning of "prima facie"? I-485 application is just a "prima facie evidence" (as the document says). But that does not mean it is not going to be verified.

So, "look carefully". Don't miss words and read the complete sentence.

Just let me describe you what is this Q&A all about. It says that just because the person X left his GC sponsor (or lost GC sponsor offer) before 180 days that does not automatically mean that peson did not have intent (or GC sponsor did not have intent to employ). But rather this memo advises adjucators that they should review I-485 with open-mind without prejudice (just because person X left before 180 days) by taking his I-485 application as "prima facie evidence of such intent". But this memo also says that in some cases "additional evidence or investigation" may be required. Therefore, just "prima facie" evidence is not enough.
There is a little history behind this memo. It dot com bust period, people lost their job even before 180 days. AC21 provided opportunity for them to get their I-485 adjucated.

 

[pralay]

If referring to the USCIS is not enough proof to you - nothing else will suffice.

And I quoted from USCIS site that precisely contradicts your argument. If that does not convince you, nothing will be suffice.

BTW, I am yet to get an USCIS website link from you that says GC is NOT for future employment (or any other article/guideline for that matter). Please help me with your "huge brain".

The GC is for a future job - if it is ANY job.

Wow! Just yesterday you said "first off, the green card IS NOT for the future job". Now, you are turning around 360 degrees and saying GC is for future job - but it's for "ANY job". What is the basis for your argument? "ANY" page/article/guideline in USCIS site?

That's what the USCIS site says.

USCIS does not say that. That specific link in USCIS site you provided does not address "intent". So, if you try to extract the meaning and validity of intent from that specific page, you are trying learn physics by reading peotry book. If you want to know what is physics, you have to read a book that addresses the concept of physics.

This is the main problem I see with you. You quote unrelated topic to support your argument.

You cannot move around and live anywhere in the US until you are free to get a job anywhere you want.

Nobody disputed that. Is it answered many time - in this very thread. A person can "move around" everyday and still can prove his intent (but that does not mean everybody can prove it).

Intent after I-485 approval has little/no value as I said before.

"Little value" or "no value", which one?

Secondly, your argument "intent after I-485 approval" an off-topic here. You are unable to understand a subtle difference. Intent is required at the time when GC is granted. You can leave your job very next day ("after I-485 approval") provided you can prove that you accepted GC in good faith when it was granted. Nobody said you need to have "intent after I-485 approval". But you do need to have "intent" when you obtained/accepted your GC.

But, off course, in that kind of scenario (when you left your job very next day after I-485 approval), you need to figure out how to prove your intent. But again, try to understand the difference. If you got to GC on January 1st and left your job on January 2nd. If you are asked, you have to prove that you had "intent" on January 1st (not January 2nd). That's why I said that your "intent after I-485 approval" is an off-topic.

Deep inside, I believe, even you Pralay, know this. And the RealCan. knows it.

The law says that intent is required (even if it has "little value" - for the sake of argument). That's what I believe - deep inside. Clear enough?

I also believe that you are not going to agree with anyone who contradicts you and shows what is wrong in your argument. You don't want to knock down your pre-conceived wrong idea about EB GC. Therefore, you will try to defend your position by any means - and that includes quoting irrelevent documents and cherry-picking words/lines. However, I also believe that believing something based on just emotion is absolutely fine (no matter how wrong it is). But trying defend it in a twisted fashion makes it objectionable (in a public forum).

 

[vitalsigns]

I also believe that you are not going to agree with anyone who contradicts you and shows what is wrong in your argument. You don't want to knock down your pre-conceived wrong idea about EB GC. Therefore, you will try to defend your position by any means - and that includes quoting irrelevent documents and cherry-picking words/lines. However, I also believe that believing something based on just emotion is absolutely fine (no matter how wrong it is). But trying defend it in a twisted fashion makes it objectionable (in a public forum).

I stand corrected... you have changed my life around.

 

[pralay]

you have changed my life around.

Not convinced! If USCIS webserver and WWW (aka "internet") could not do it, I have serious doubt that couple of amateur postings in a public forum did it. Even if so (for the sake of argument), probably it's not "changing life around", but a "circle of life". And that means - older posts will be deleted and very same questions will be resurfaced again and again. Being in IT industry it reminds me only one thing - reformatting hard-disk and then pushing "reboot" button.

 

[vitalsigns]

Not convinced! If USCIS webserver and WWW (aka "internet") could not do it, I have serious doubt that couple of amateur postings in a public forum did it. Even if so (for the sake of argument), probably it's not "changing life around", but a "circle of life". And that means - older posts will be deleted and very same questions will be resurfaced again and again. Being in IT industry it reminds me only one thing - reformatting hard-disk and then pushing "reboot" button.

Deleting old posts is not a crime. A clean slate is a beautiful thing. May be you should reformat your posts too... You do need a clean slate Pralay, don't you?

Pralay before reformatting:
Pralay after:

But imagine if JoeF will have to delete all his posts?? It will take just about a life-time to do that.

 

[pralay]

Deleting old posts is not a crime.

Nobody said so.

A clean slate is a beautiful thing.

It's a beautiful thing, provided the mind that helps to write slate is clean too. If mind is not clean, no matter how many time you clean slate, it will be dirty soon.

May be you should reformat your posts too... You do need a clean slate Pralay, don't you?

Unlike you, I am not embarassed by my older posts (even though many of them are dead wrong). Therefore, unlike you, I don't need to delete my posts. And off course I don't post dubious arguments/questions repeatatively by deleting older posts, pretending that it is being argued/questioned for first time (and never argued/questioned before).

Pralay before reformatting:
Pralay after:

'vitalsigns' before refomatting:
1. Immigration benefits are rights (see 4th quotation).
http://boards.immigration.com/showpost.php?p=1272107&postcount=15
2. There is no intent in EB GC.
http://boards.immigration.com/showpost.php?p=1277248&postcount=135
3. Paranoia
http://boards.immigration.com/showpost.php?p=1274694&postcount=116

'vitansigns' after reformatting:
1. EB GC is nothing but a slavery. And it is not for future employment.
http://boards.immigration.com/showpost.php?p=1304585&postcount=2