Pessimistic view about GC -- Every GC is a fraud

[hipka]

Wonder how 'pessimistic readers of the law' would react to this:
All GC's are frauds because:
1) There was never any future job that your sponsor recruited for. -- Most people work in the same job with higher pay/ promotion after GC. Change in duties after approval is rare.

2) Your sponsor would not hire a local applicant instead of you:Give me a case where a labor cert. was denied because of the presence of a local applicant AND your sponsor hired that applicant instead of you.

3) The only reason your sponsor is agreeing to GC is because he wants YOU to work in the job. -- Read the labor. cert. rules, this is clear fraud.

Hence reading a law pessimistically will put everyone in a soup as the whole basis for the GC is fraudulent. Any comments Joef????

 

[hipka]

That is no problem and allowed.

Who told you? read the law pesimistically, the employer should change the job conditions from temporary(during H1) to permanent at will. Did your employer do this? Shouldn't you complain to USCIS and get your GC scrapped?

That is BS. In particular, if there were other applicants, the employer would have had to justify to DOL why the applicant is not suitable. Weak excuses don't work. And there have been lots of people who's LCs got denied, in particular after the dot-com bubble burst. I've been around long enough to know that (and lucky enough that my LC was done in 1999...)

What you are talking is BS. Read my quote correctly, has any sponsor ever HIRED a local candidate instead of you. The max. that DOL does cancel the LC which only harms the immigrant. Check with your employer to see if he hired any local candidate, if not your employer has committed fraud as there is no open position and he is CREATING the opportunity ONLY for your GC. This is clear fraud.

Well, yeah, otherwise he wouldn't offer you the job. But it won't work if there are other applicants.

You are validating my claim. The basic idea of the GC is to fill an open position for which no local candidate is available(ask any lawyer about this). It is NOT, I repeat NOT to be used as a benefit for an employee on H-1.

Complete BS.
You can argue this way for the H1. In particular #2 is true for that. The LCA rules for H1 don't require a test of the local labor market, just the prevailing wage test. For the GC, this whole thing is completely wrong.

H1 is different, you don't need to prove that local candidates are not available for the job, thats not the case with GC. With GC the ideal scenario is as follows -- Offer a job to any local candidate -- If someone shows up hire him(Nobody does this)-- Show DOL your recruitment efforts and tell them that an immigrant is qualified and willing to take the job -- DOL approves LC and the GC proceeds. So stop your pessimistic assessments. If you read the law literally, I can make up an argument to scrap your GC!

 

[pralay]

With GC the ideal scenario is as follows -- Offer a job to any local candidate -- If someone shows up hire him(Nobody does this)-- Show DOL your recruitment efforts and tell them that an immigrant is qualified and willing to take the job -- DOL approves LC and the GC proceeds.

As far I personally know, most of the cases companies follow that "ideal" procedure. However the trick companies do is that the job requirement is made very specific. Secondly, company need not to hire anyone who "shows up". The company has to determine that person meets the requirement. There was a time when many companies struggled to get people with generic requirements, forget about very specific requirement. But over the years things have changed. That's why LC rejections and I-140 rejections are happening more often (check LC and I-140 forums) nowadays. Recently USCIS have become very strict about pre-approved labors too. If your I-140 is based on pre-approved LC, expect delays.

To add more salt to it, there are many anti-immigrant organizations who regularly search GC job advertisements from job sites (many of the ads are easily recognizable) and send fake resume (exactly matching the requirements) to the companies. If they don't get any reply, they report to local lawmakers, DOL and USCIS to make case against immigrant workers (don't know how much true, but atleast that's they claim). I personally subscribe newsletters from one of such organizations to know what's going on in their minds.

 

[rpranesh]

hipka,
I do not agree with you, in a tight labor market (meaning large openings, few applicants), it is very tough to prove that LC was fraud. But in Vice-Versa, it is very tough to get LC approved. Recently, one of my collegues (very brilliant buy) applied for LC. SOme 50 applicants applied for his post, so the company decided to withdrew the opening and told him to go back to India (since his H1 is going to get over). Trust me the employer would have done everything to hold him, but could not.

 

[hipka]

And, while the GC is technically for a job in the future, the job has to be available throughout the process. If you don't fill the job while the application is pending, you need to have a pretty good explanation.

The job has to be available throughout the process and CANNOT be filled while the application is pending by the immigrant(unless he has an EAD). This means that your sponsor is keeping a position vacant for approx. 2 years till you get your EAD. No company can realistically afford this, but this what they are telling USCIS.

Employers have done that. Now if your employer hasn't, that is his problem.

Thats total BS. ALL LC applications end in of the two ways
1) The LC is approved and the immigrant applies for the 485
2) The LC is denied due to presence of local candidates or weak application.

No company has ever HIRED a local candidate who shows up. They offer reasons like
1) Candidate not qualified
2) Requirements are very strict etc. etc.
3) The law gives us the right not to hire a person we don't want to.

This demonstrates that the job opportunity is NOT available for local candidates and companies are pretending that they are. Why is this not fraud??

Nobody at your employer does this??? Then why don't you report the fraud and stop whining here???
If it would work this way, the employer could be accused of fraud. The employee can't, unless he was in on such a scheme.
But, your basic premise is wrong. It does not work this way. Of course, as with any human endeavor, there are unscrupulous people/companies who are breaking the law. My employer wasn't one of them, and I hope yours wasn't, either...

Doesn't matter who committed the fraud, the GC is always scrapped
I am only giving you a pessimistic interpretation of the law.
If USCIS really wants to they can pursue just about ANY case with the arguments above and drag a person to court, right?
Why don't they do that? -- Because not all judges are pessimistic like you and usually use the principle 'innocent until proven guilty'. So don't go about scaring people with pessimistic interpretations!

 

[neocor]

Why am i getting a feeling that these two guys (hipka and JoeF) know each other persoanlly (and are friends) and just doing some timepass on this forum.

 

[KhoonPasina]

Why am i getting a feeling that these two guys (hipka and JoeF) know each other persoanlly (and are friends) and just doing some timepass on this forum.

Welcome back neocor. Long time no see. I don't know about hipka but joef is not only doing timepass but wasting resources of this invaluable website's disk space. I hope administrator take some action and delete all of his blabbering. He fights everybody on this/other forums and flood this site with misleading,foolish postings.

 

[hipka]

Why am i getting a feeling that these two guys (hipka and JoeF) know each other persoanlly (and are friends) and just doing some timepass on this forum.

No neocor, I don't know this JoeF, of course I am doing time pass on this forum, but I also want to show JoeF that this whole GC process is in bad shape and needs reform. Looking at the way he is beginning to rant out rather than offer logical arguments proves to me that I have succeeded.In fact most of Immigration law is pretty outdated. Its giving too much power to the employer. Govt. recognizes this and wants to change the law completely, but you know how slowly things change around here!

 

[pralay]

No company has ever HIRED a local candidate who shows up. They offer reasons like

I guess you are not convinced with "rpranesh" postings. In this current hi-tech labor market, many hi-tech companies are not doing GC stuffs anymore. In fact my ex-employer had the same situation in 2002 when they scrapped two pending LCs for two of its employees (even though they were still employed on H1 that time). I guess you are drawing your assumptions from the perspective of certain type of companies what USCIS termed as "H1 dependent companies" - as their very survivals are dependent on H1 and GC workers. Nowadays, many of these companies having tough time to get LC, I-140 approved.

 

[pralay]

I don't know this JoeF, of course I am doing time pass on this forum, but I also want to show JoeF that this whole GC process is in bad shape and needs reform.

In my opinion GC is process is pretty strict. Over the years due to very tight labor market in late 90s, GC process got kind of relaxed - but that's not because the law/rules are relaxed/inadequate, but the way DOL and USCIS handled the cases. It's basically enforcement problem. Keep in mind in 80s or early 90s it was not so easy to get GC in EB category. Small consulting companies did not have chances to get their GC approved - like the way got in late 90s or early 2000s. I am afraid to say that in future also it won't be so easy. Already there are signs of that trend.

On the other hand, many not-so-immigrant friendly lawmakers in Washington believe that H1 law is broken and needs some extensive reforms - probably similar to GC with job market tests.