Need important info. urgent

L

lalaker

Registered Users (C)
I am calling on all the gurus as I am in a unique situation.

I work for company A based out of dallas, tx. Company A has been acquired by Company B which is headquarted in NY. Company A had filed for my GC. My case is stuck at the federal level for my labor.

What I want to know is, how does this acquisition affect my case ??? Will I have to start all over again as the new company has HQ in a different state ???

Please advise.
 
Nop.. Your original application is still very much valid. Only thing your attorney need to do is , when filing I-140, inform INS about the merger /takeover & new company is still interested in hiring you after GC.
 
gp111

Will it matter if they ask me to move to NY if they decide to move all the IS people from Dallas to the HO.
 
that might be a problem, Check with your attorney & file 140 in DALLAS as if they will still keep you in DALLAS, after 6 months of 485 inform INS using AC21 .. As i said earlier take your attorneys advice on this.
 
Thanks GP111, I am just trying to be proactive and get and idea of what I am going to be dealing with. I will check with my attorney though.

All this helps me if they want to keep the IS dept. and also if DOL dallas moves any faster. I have been stuck for over a year and half now.
 
Also check this....

http://www.oalj.dol.gov/public/ina/refrnc/dbch28.htm#IIA

II. Change in employers

A. When a new application is required

In general, a change in employers requires a new application for certification by the new employer unless the same job opportunity and the same area of intended employment are preserved. International Contractors, Inc., and Technical Programming Services, Inc., 89-INA-278 (June 13, 1990). A change in employers does not necessitate a reapplication for certification where the alien is working in the exact same position, performing the same duties, and in the same area of intended employment for the same salary or wage. Id.
Click to expand...

and more from the same page...

C. Successor company

Transferring the interest in labor certification to a successor company is not unlawful under § 656.30(c)(2). American Chick Sexing Association and Accu-Co., 89-INA-320 to 327 (Mar. 12, 1991), aff'd., May 12, 1992 (en banc).


The Board upheld the panel's decision in American Chick Sexing wherein it was determined that § 656.30(c)(2) is not violated where a company timely transfers its interests in labor certification applications to another company, and the successor company preserves the particular job opportunities and area of intended employment. The panel also noted that evidence establishing that an employer-employee relationship was created during the rebuttal period was a timely submission to counter the alleged lack of bona fide employer-employee relationship at the time of the NOF.

In addition, the Board held that a CO may require any necessary certifications by the successor company.
Click to expand...


And, if you can share, which Co. do you work for ? Eckerd's by any chance?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
PradK
Thanks that link helped a lot. It is no Eckerds. But it is in similar industry.


lalaker
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top