My current salary and the salary I will have after the green card is issued is approximately 4K less than the LC and the I-140 state. I have stock options and bonuses that take me above that amount. I started questioning the lawyer on this point after the LC certification and he said it was due to prevailing wages, something I have since found out is not true since the prevailing wage is actually less than my salary. HR is willing to sign papers stating my total income (salary + bonus + stock options) is greater than the LC and I-140 amount. I know that CP requires recent pay stubs during the interview and although it shows the bonus and salary amount is greater than LC, I am concerned that the salary is actualy less than the LC. Is anyone aware of the CP process and how much concern this matter might be?
Montreal CP and salary issue
- Thread starter dundas
- Start date
Re: Shouldn\'t be a problem.
First, the consular officer is only concerned about your *future* salary, i.e., salary that the sponsoring company will pay you after you immigrate. If your HR can provide you with an employment letter that indicates their willingness to pay you the LC salary after you immigrate, then you don’t have a problem at all. Even if they provide a letter that includes total compensation (i.e., items over and above base salary) that exceeds your LC salary, you should be safe.
In principle, since the offer is for future employment, your current employment status should be of no consequence at all. In fact, you are not even required to be employed by the company that is sponsoring your immigration. However, if you are, a consular officer may choose to evaluate the likelihood of your getting the job and salary as per your offer of employment. By reviewing your recent pay-stubs, the officer can ascertain if you are still gainfully employed at the firm (i.e., you were not impacted by layoffs, etc., something that can undermine a future offer), and your current salary is close to what was stated in LC (i.e., the company won’t have to give you an unrealistic raise to meet the LC requirement).
How low can your current salary be? Unfortunately, there is no universally accepted differential. Although no one has reported a CP rejection on account of lower current salary, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Purists claim that as long as your salary is over the “prevailing wages”, you should not have a problem. Others claim a difference less than 5% is inconsequential. Some have even reported success with differences of about 20%. I successfully consular processed in Montreal with a salary difference of 3%. You may dig up old posts to get more data points.
Good luck.
First, the consular officer is only concerned about your *future* salary, i.e., salary that the sponsoring company will pay you after you immigrate. If your HR can provide you with an employment letter that indicates their willingness to pay you the LC salary after you immigrate, then you don’t have a problem at all. Even if they provide a letter that includes total compensation (i.e., items over and above base salary) that exceeds your LC salary, you should be safe.
In principle, since the offer is for future employment, your current employment status should be of no consequence at all. In fact, you are not even required to be employed by the company that is sponsoring your immigration. However, if you are, a consular officer may choose to evaluate the likelihood of your getting the job and salary as per your offer of employment. By reviewing your recent pay-stubs, the officer can ascertain if you are still gainfully employed at the firm (i.e., you were not impacted by layoffs, etc., something that can undermine a future offer), and your current salary is close to what was stated in LC (i.e., the company won’t have to give you an unrealistic raise to meet the LC requirement).
How low can your current salary be? Unfortunately, there is no universally accepted differential. Although no one has reported a CP rejection on account of lower current salary, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Purists claim that as long as your salary is over the “prevailing wages”, you should not have a problem. Others claim a difference less than 5% is inconsequential. Some have even reported success with differences of about 20%. I successfully consular processed in Montreal with a salary difference of 3%. You may dig up old posts to get more data points.
Good luck.
Salary 30% higher than LC & I-140
Wage Increased Substantially
My current salary is at least 25% higher than that is shown inLC and in the petition for I-140 (EB2/TSC) .
I am awaiting my I-140 Approval and planning to do CP in Montreal.
Does any of you guys know, if it could be a problem during CP / Packet 3 ?.
Would it be required to show/submit the Pay-stubbs anytime during the process ?.
I know my employer has shown the prevailing wages for both LC and I-140 petitions. LC got through succesfully (with one RFE requesting to show a little bit of more wages and re-posting because the prevailing wages had increased between the time of submission and approval.).
Does any one of you know if there is a problem for EB2 I-140, just because the petition shows only the prevailing wages.
Your openions are very much counted on guys !, as we all are/were in the same boat.
Wage Increased Substantially
My current salary is at least 25% higher than that is shown inLC and in the petition for I-140 (EB2/TSC) .
I am awaiting my I-140 Approval and planning to do CP in Montreal.
Does any of you guys know, if it could be a problem during CP / Packet 3 ?.
Would it be required to show/submit the Pay-stubbs anytime during the process ?.
I know my employer has shown the prevailing wages for both LC and I-140 petitions. LC got through succesfully (with one RFE requesting to show a little bit of more wages and re-posting because the prevailing wages had increased between the time of submission and approval.).
Does any one of you know if there is a problem for EB2 I-140, just because the petition shows only the prevailing wages.
Your openions are very much counted on guys !, as we all are/were in the same boat.