my question for you guys

[pralay]

Please don't put words in my mouth.

I do agree that during the I485 process, you need to have your intent to work for the sponsoring employer; however, once GC is granted, no such intent is necessary.

Is there a law or case stating this is incorrect? Nada.

What is this "during I485 process"? It's like saying a person has to follow all the driving rules "during the process of obtaining driver license", and then after getting license the person does not need to follow any driving rule.
A person applies for I485 for the goal of obtaining GC to work with GC sponsorer. Think about a hypothetical situation when USCIS is so fast and efficient that it can approve I485 in a minute (within a minute after person applies for I-485). That makes "during I485 process" stage to almost zero. Logically that means the person does not need "intent" at all, right (according to your argument)?

 

[LaborApproved]

Guys as per USCIS and my lawyer once you get your GC you are free to live and work anywhere in US. You have the same rights as a US citizen but you can't vote.

 

[TheRealCanadian]

Also TRC can shade more light(if he choose) bout how he convince his "intent" to INS officer.

The latest Yates memorandum explictly states that for AC21, there needs to be intent to hire (by the I-140 sponsor) and work (by the alien beneficiary) at the time of the I-140 approval. That's explicit. What's implicit is that the alien needs the intent to work for an employer - either the sponsor, or another employer if AC21 is invoked.

Now, for my situation. The officer did not explicitly ask. However, my I-140 was approved in July 2001. With my I-485 in August 2001, I submitted an employment offer letter dated June 30th, 2001 which clearly established the employer's intent to hire me once the I-485 was approved. My request for adjustment of status based on that letter was indication of my intent, and that is what I would have told the officer.

At the interview, I invoked AC21 by providing a new EVL from my current employer. This was accepted.

 

[chinabee]

I am not saying you are 100% wrong. All I am saying is give us the law or case to support your opinion or stop making up the law yourself.

 

[pralay]

I am not saying you are 100% wrong. All I am saying is give us the law or case to support your opinion or stop making up the law yourself.

This is not the first time you are whinning "show me the law". It's like traffic cop is stopping me and asking "do you know vehicle code for driving right hand side of the road? If you don't know the vehicle code, why are you driving in right hand side of the road?"

I am not making any law and I don't think you are "making up" any law too. It's about interpretation of laws/rules which is already there. To your utmost disappointment, there is no "100% right" or "100% wrong" in this issue. Yes, many thing are vague, and that why tons of threads and posting regarding this issue. There are ample of laws, memos in internet. Find it yourself and read. Then you can explain your stand in this forum.
You didn't even explain your "during I485 process" concept.

 

[maple_cartier]

So..here is a related question and one where I definitely need your input...

What if after the GC, I desire to seek another position in the same company with a job profile that is not 100% match (perhaps 80% match) to the employment-based labor petition for which the LPR was approved?

What are the implications and possible consequences if any?

 

[pralay]

What are the implications and possible consequences if any?

Probably none. I never heard USCIS had problem with natural career growth (that is also in same company).

 

[maple_cartier]

I agree..but in my case, the only difference being, I got my GC almost a month back..I am looking at a potential career growth opportunity (within the same company). I want to apply and I know I will get the position.

When is it too soon (after GC approval) to switch jobs or get a postion within the same company when the employment-based I-485 approvals was for a position I held at the time of the approval?

 

[pralay]

When is it too soon (after GC approval) to switch jobs or get a postion within the same company when the employment-based I-485 approvals was for a position I held at the time of the approval?

If I was you I would take this opportunity immediately. Getting GC just one months back - that's a non-issue.

 

[qwertyisback]

First, don't just write off chinabee's opinion just because it don't follows your interpretation of the law. As far as Rajiv's posting goes, I respect his opinion. But that doesn't mean that nobody should contradict it. If I am lawyer, I will also suggest same way to be safer side, most lawyers will try to be on safer side and there is nothing wrong in it. And few lawyer will give different opinion , individuals has to decide on their own what to beleive or not. Its discussion forum, Let just have discussion. Moderator, correct me if I am wrong... Can't members have discussion on this issue though Rajiv's has posted his views?? I beleive we should and Rajiv won't mind having this debate.

I don't see why adjucator would put red flag if I-485 is pending for more than 180 days and the beneficiary has an "alternate sponsorer".

This is incorrect statement, it has been discussed at long and everybody concluded that with AC-21, new employer does not become sponsor or even alternate sponsor. Its change of change of job in similar field and salary.
Read this thread http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=159623.

It's like saying a person has to follow all the driving rules "during the process of obtaining driver license", and then after getting license the person does not need to follow any driving rule.
A person applies for I485 for the goal of obtaining GC to work with GC sponsorer. Think about a hypothetical situation when USCIS is so fast and efficient that it can approve I485 in a minute (within a minute after person applies for I-485). That makes "during I485 process" stage to almost zero. Logically that means the person does not need "intent" at all, right (according to your argument)?

AC-21 is introduced bacause in past I-485 used to take more than 2 years due to backlog. It's unfair to think that a person has to keep his intent for that long duration.

Now if you are trying to read sprit of law above here, Then tell me, how AC-21 applies to candidate who never worked for sponsor??? AC-21 is meant to be releif for pending 485 (or 485 taking 2+yrs), so that applicant don't have to stick/suffer with his sponsor for so long. Then with spirit of law, applicant who never worked with sponsor should not able to use AC-21 at all. They never worked for sponsor so no excuse (with AC-21)for them . Period.

The point is, INS is expecting intent while filing GC and throught process to hire applicant but they don't mean to carry over that intent after GC.(implicit meaning.. TRC ) Thats it.
And considerinng there is no known case about intent issue, it supports this theory.There is no point in hitting in dark assuming its thief, it might be yourself and you end up hurting yourself.

Many years back, I beleive there was some law that GC holders has to work for 2yrs after GC . And few yrs back above clause has been removed completely without putting any new timeframe. What does that tell everybody?? It means INS don't care about how long GC holder work with sponser after GC... Thats it.

 

[pralay]

Now if you are trying to read sprit of law above here, Then tell me, how AC-21 applies to candidate who never worked for sponsor??? AC-21 is meant to be releif for pending 485 (or 485 taking 2+yrs), so that applicant don't have to stick/suffer with his sponsor for so long. Then with spirit of law, applicant who never worked with sponsor should not able to use AC-21 at all. They never worked for sponsor so no excuse (with AC-21)for them . Period.

You are missing the point. GC is for future employment. AC-21 provides relief for intent to work for GC sponsorer. However, it does NOT provide relief for working or not working with GC sponsorer before I-485 approval. Basically it really does not matter whether the person worked with sponsorer before GC approval or not. It's an non-issue. Take a example, company A is sponsoring me for GC. I never worked for company A and I am not working for company A. I applied I-485 on January 1, 2005. Now, on July 2005 I can invoke AC-21 with company B. So, after July 2005 I changed only my intent. Basically I can say that, if my I-485 was approved on February 2005 or March 2005 or April 2005 I could join company A and work with them in perm basis. However, after 6 months I changed my intent to work for company B in perm basis.
It's all about intent.

However, someone who worked for 10 years before GC approval, but left that company in I-485 stage using AC-21, obviously he has added advatange to prove his intent, where someone never worked may not have that to prove his intent. It should be determined case by case basis - because people invoke AC-21 in different circumstances. It's diffcult to put "one size fits all" statement or conclusion regarding this issue.

 

[pralay]

Many years back, I beleive there was some law that GC holders has to work for 2yrs after GC . And few yrs back above clause has been removed completely without putting any new timeframe. What does that tell everybody?? It means INS don't care about how long GC holder work with sponser after GC... Thats it.

Removing 2 year rule does not automatically implies USCIS does not care - as I mentioned above there should not be any "one size fits all" statement or conclusion regarding this issue. So there should not be "one size fits all" rule too. People change job different circumstances - so it should be judged accordingly. The nature and character of labor market/employment changed rapidly in last 25 years. 20 years back I person working for a company 10 or 20 years was very common. Job market is more dynamic now. Hence employment based immigration should refect that too.

 

[pralay]

First, don't just write off chinabee's opinion just because it don't follows your interpretation of the law.

To be frank, I am not writting off his statement. However, I can clearly see his shifting positions (or sometimes lack of explanation of his position). Eventually when there is no argument left for him his last weapon comes out "show me the law". That pretty much explain that he is not interested to engage in debate or discussion, but rather wants to throw a few one liner postings (sometime two liners ) and then watch.

 

[pralay]

The point is, INS is expecting intent while filing GC and throught process to hire applicant but they don't mean to carry over that intent after GC.(implicit meaning.. TRC ) Thats it.

Just "intent while filing GC" is not enough. The beneficiary has to keep that intent for awhile. I think the real question is how long is this "awhile". As you mentioned in past it was 2 years fixed. Currently it's not.
If "intent while filing" is the time and only time when the applicant needs to show his intent, that breaks most of the immigration laws. For example, if I apply for tourist visa, is applying for tourst visa in consulate is the time and only time when I need to have the "intent of tourst"? Can I land in USA and start working (because once I got my toursit visa I don't need to keep that intent anymore)? The famous Seihoon v. Levy case proves that's not the case.

Lawyer Eiss has a nice article about this intent.
Issues of Intent: How Does USCIS Determine What’s In Your Head?

 

[chinabee]

pralay, you can argue all you want; however, without support from either acutal law, regulation or case, your arguement does not deviate much from blahblahblah.

So, please stick to the facts. If there's no such law, don't say 'oh, you have to'.

 

[Participant]

Another lawyer--reasonable period not defined.

The CIS may decide to review the PR's original basis for becoming an PR at the PR's citizen interview; they may want to know whether the PR remained with the spouse or employer who petitioned for the PR for a "reasonable" period of time (there is no definition of what is reasonable – it depends on the facts and circumstances in each individual case). In addition to meeting the above requirements, the PR must prove that the PR are a person of good moral character. Because the CIS officer could challenge the PR's original basis for becoming a PR, it is wise to have an experienced lawyer assist the PR with this.
http://www.ingber-aronson.com/immigration/lpr/prshouldknow.htm#gov.
It depends on individual strength of the case,when not served the employer
for 'reasonable period'(again?Huh!)

 

[pralay]

One more two liner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

pralay, you can argue all you want; however, without support from either acutal law, regulation or case, your arguement does not deviate much from blahblahblah.

So, please stick to the facts. If there's no such law, don't say 'oh, you have to'.

Do you have something else to say???????

 

[chinabee]

What about you? do you have anything else to say besides blahblahblah?

Do you have something else to say???????

 

[chinabee]

That's pure speculation. Firstly, you speculate what CIS may do; then speculate how they do it.

Sounds like you become the CIS director or something.

The CIS may decide to review the PR's original basis for becoming an PR at the PR's citizen interview; they may want to know whether the PR remained with the spouse or employer who petitioned for the PR for a "reasonable" period of time (there is no definition of what is reasonable – it depends on the facts and circumstances in each individual case). In addition to meeting the above requirements, the PR must prove that the PR are a person of good moral character. Because the CIS officer could challenge the PR's original basis for becoming a PR, it is wise to have an experienced lawyer assist the PR with this.
http://www.ingber-aronson.com/immigration/lpr/prshouldknow.htm#gov.
It depends on individual strength of the case,when not served the employer
for 'reasonable period'(again?Huh!)

 

[pralay]

That's pure speculation. Firstly, you speculate what CIS may do; then speculate how they do it.

I think you don't understand the meaning and purpose of "forum". If you really want to know "the law", as someone else mentioned already - contact to a lawyer (instead of sniffing around, looking for the information that fits your own purpose or requirement or makes you happy). Here, nobody gets paid to show you law. However, I can still try to "show you the law" for $100000.00 per hour of consultation. Make sense???

Sounds like you become the CIS director or something.

Not sure about "Participant", but it's apparent that you are unfit to become CIS director.