my question for you guys
- Thread starter dimag_mari
- Start date
Participant
Registered Users (C)
This only shows how impatient you are or hasty in just commenting.chinabee said:
If you are not, you could have understood the info' posted is a 'quote' fRom the lawyer and is clearly evident from the link posted and not mine and quotes in my message is missing.
Normally I always refrain from reactive postings but this is because I ought to clarify.
to_be_lucky
Registered Users (C)
Participant said:
I was reading this thread and just wanted to peep in and say that pralay has been sharing the wealth of information with the forum members. If anyone is not convinced with any of the posts posted by the members then it is better to remain inactive than commenting on any ones behaviour. Let them share the wealth of knowledge atleast.
pralay said:
.....The USCIS officer conducting the interview would query the alien on his or her actions following receipt of permanent status. If at that time it came out that the alien changed employers of his/her own accord immediately following receipt of permanent resident status, he or she could be deemed ineligible for naturalization.
In order to determine whether the alien truthfully represented his or her intent to remain with his or her petitioning U.S. employer after receiving the green card, the USCIS uses the standard created by Seihoon v. Levy. That is, USCIS examines the “rapid course of events” following the alien’s receipt of his or her green card. The Department of State has reduced this rule to a 30-60-90 day formula which USCIS generally follows. If an alien ends employment with the petitioning employer within 30 days of receiving his/her green card, then it is highly likely that USCIS will decide that the alien’s intent at the Consulate interview was not, as he/she stated, to remain with the petitioning employer indefinitely. After 60 days have passed, it is less likely (but still risky) that USCIS will determine that the alien lied about his/her intent at the Consulate interview. And after 90 days, it is highly unlikely that USCIS will have a problem with the alien’s change of employment ..........
So, after 90 days are fine?
lohith said:So, after 90 days are fine?
It's just a rule pescribed by State Department and this article claims that USCIS follows this rule too. And, as we know different lawyers have different opinions about this timeframe. Keep in mind that even this rule has words like "highly likely" or "highly unlikely". That indicates that it's not an absolutely rule, but a rough guideline to determine intent.
dimag_mari
Registered Users (C)
what everybody is doing on my thread instead of answering my question,
get lost
just kidding
get lost
just kidding
qwertyisback
Registered Users (C)
dimag_mari said:what everybody is doing on my thread instead of answering my question,
get lost
just kidding
What was your q/s???
qwertyisback
Registered Users (C)
pralay said:
You are not only missing but skipping lot of implicit meanings of AC-21 law and just focusing on intent.
The AC21 provisions statute speaks in terms of allowing a person with an application for adjustment of status, pending for 180 days or more, to change jobs without affecting the validity of the underlying labor certification or I-140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker. The new job must be in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the labor certification and/or I-140 was filed. Some lawyers interpret this as a requirement that the applicant work for the sponsoring employer during the 180-day period prior to changing jobs. This inference is based upon the use of the words “change jobs” and “new job,” from which it can be argued that in order to change a job and obtain a “new job” there must be an “old job” with the sponsoring employer.
And your analogy with visitor visa is pointless, thats a different Visa category and nothing to do with 485 . period.
I still don't see any arguments why somebody concludes intent is applicable after GC?? (Show me the law...
), as a matter of fact INS allows to change job while GC processing and removed 2yrs criteria of old law. And there are no known cases that INS has bothered anybody with intent. That itself makes a very logical conclusion that INS don't care about it anymore.Period. I would think it got same probablity that you loose GC on plane/donkey riding/... etc. If something like that happen, then its just BAD LUCK for him/her. But otherwise this is a non-issue.
Last edited by a moderator:
TheRealCanadian
Volunteer Moderator
pralay said:
No it's not! It's a decision made by a US federal District Court.
That makes it a step up from a simple rule or regulation, since it's been handed down by a federal judge, and as such it is an interpretation of the law. The only way to get around Seihoon v. Levy is for Congress to explicitly override it via statute, or for another district court to override it, and then for that latter decision to survive on appeal.
That will be neither simple, nor cheap.
Look, the precedent is almost 30 years old. It's never (to my knowledge) ever been applied in an immigrant case, but that means nothing. We've had this discussion before - if USCIS challenges you and invokes Seihoon v. Levy you're not going to get very far claiming it's a non-immigrant case, or that it's used by DOS.
Judicial precedent is all about taking similar decisions and applying them in new situations. Focusing on the technical aspects of the case will be ignored by the judge - he or she will be very in the notion of intent and how actions taken immeditely after the grant of an immigration benefit can possibly allow us to determine true intent. As I've said before and will say again, if USCIS invokes Seihoon v. Levy, they will probably win.
Are you so confident and rich that you can afford to quit your job the day after the Green Card, then fight USCIS all the way into the federal courts, and win?
qwertyisback
Registered Users (C)
JoeF said:
OK, now you have no arguments left with your guesswork. I think that what chinabee asking ....."Show me the law" and you,pralay responded with your guesswork(which don't hold true anymore). So "Show the Law" which says "intent" is applicable after GC....
TheRealCanadian
Volunteer Moderator
JoeF said:
Joe, please read my post again. I've never said that USCIS is bound by the decision. However, should they choose to consider it controlling in immigrant cases, such a decision would probably be upheld.
TheRealCanadian
Volunteer Moderator
JoeF said:
According to that logic, one can happily switch jobs the day after the Green Card is approved because all of this talk about intent is merely conjecture until we have a specific case.
qwertyisback
Registered Users (C)
JoeF said:
Where is your "law" that says intent is required? NOwhere. And you are just making guesswork!!! huhhh... Isn't it??? Chinabee is right all along " Show the law or forever stop BSing on this forum..."
.I wish you start doing some paltry work for payment than posting like joker on these forums!!!!
qwertyisback said:
It's not pointless, because the concept of intent is similar in all types of immigration benefit - whether it's immigrant visa (e.g. GC) or non-immigrant visa (e.g tourist visa). GC is not very special thing where the intent would be very special (or no intent at all). The basic question: is the beneficiary keeping the very intent on which he/she has been given the immigration benefit? Making difference between GC or tourist visa is irrelevent in this issue.
qwertyisback said:
I guess this discussion came to a point where there could be two conclusions:
1. There no such thing like intent in GC.
2. There is a thing called intent in GC.
In my opinion "intent during I-485 pending, but NOT after I-485 approval" does not make sense and I already pointed out in one of the earlier posting. If I-485 approval was instant (getting denial/approval decision immediately after applying), logically that means intent is not required at all.
On the other hand, why "intent while filing" is not a valid concept I already explained above. Keep in mind that GC is not very special thing - it's like any other immigration benefits (whether it's AOS or CP). So the concept of intent apply same way across all category. For example, take the case of Seihoon v. Levy.
Assume there are two persons Seihoon1 and Seihoon2 entered into USA in same day in same intent in their heads (enrolling into University). Immediately after entering Seihoon1 enrolled into US university. Seihoon2 waited for three months and then enrolled into university. In this case even though both entered to USA with same intent in their heads, but Seihoon2 can get away with it because her "rapid course of action" may not be considered "wrong intent" (because apparently Seihoon2 kept the tourist intent for a while).
qwertyisback said:
qwertyisback said:
That's a valid argument. Atleast we are not aware of any case law. We need to wait for another famous case like Seihoon v. Levy. Probably it will never come up in our lifetime - it's quite possible. But I don't want be part of famous lawsuit (like pralay v. Chertoff) and I don't want it for people around me - espcially when we have choice. Many things life happens which is not in our control (for example, you mentioned loosing GC in plane/donkey riding). But atleast we should try to be careful on those stuffs/decisions which is in our control. Now, how much risk, or how much careful - that totally depends on individuals, and also depends on each individual circumstances. So it's better not make blanket statement like "USCIS does not care" or "no such thing as intent after getting GC".
On the other hand, your "logical conclusion" does not go far. Keep in mind, absense of enforcement makes law ineffective or useless. But absense of enforcement does not make the law invalid. If I am able to show a statistics that in 10 miles of freeway between my home to workplace nobody got speeding traffic ticket since the freeway was built, that does not take to "logical conclusion" that traffic rule does not apply to that part of 10 miles. But obviously I can say that traffic rule is very ineffective in that part of the freeway.
Last edited by a moderator:
qwertyisback
Registered Users (C)
Actually, there is NO case/law. Ask your lawyer...JoeF said:
qwertyisback said:
AC21 addresses the job on which I-140 is approved. It does not address "current job" (the job on which the person is working before I-485 approval). Any job before I-485 approval is temporary (either H1 or EAD). In fact a person can be absolutely unemployed in I-485 stage.
qwertyisback
Registered Users (C)
qwertyisback said:
pralay said:
My quote is related to requirement for invoking AC-21. It says many lawyers beleives to invoke AC-21 , you got to be working for sponsering employer. Thats it.
pralay said:
Which Law?? There is no such LAW. Show me the law...
.Its just assumption and its not supported by any known case.
Also that assumtion got lot of dents with introduction of AC-21 and removal of 2yrs employerment requirement after GC.
lohith said:
Difficult to comment without knowing the details. However, not working in I-485 stage cannot be considered as "holes in employment". There can be different kind of "holes in employment". For example, person was out of status in H1 period due to layoff (but before filing I-485). Or, working without H1 status or without EAD in I-485 stage. Staying without employment in AOS stage perfectly legal.