planned exodus

[bombay2]

Does anyone know the impact of quitting your job 1/2 months after getting GC? I was on an L1-A blanket visa sponsored by my company, but would like to leave them. Can they revoke GC once you have it in hand, or does the issue really only arise if you choose to apply for citizenship.

thoughts?

thanx

 

[fsa448]

This is a grey area in the immigration law

As per the law (Immigration and Nationality Act), if you accept an employment based green card, then you must have the intention of working for the sponsoring employer - otherwise you are committing immigration fraud. The law does not define what constitutes "intention" and it does not say anything about how long you need to work for that company. However, if you leave the company within a very short time, then it can be argued that you never had the intention to work for that company. Since the law is not clear about the timeframe, this is open to interpretation by INS and in immigration matters, the burden of proof is always on the immigrant to prove that INS is wrong.

In the past, people have mentioned 6 months as a reasonable amount of time to work for the sponsoring company. Again, the law does not say this; it is just a guideline based on common sense. If you worked for 6 months, then you can reasonably argue that you had an intention of working for the company when you took the green card.

All this usually matters only when you apply for citizenship since that's the only time INS will usually review your case after you get your green card. However there is no such rule which prevents INS from acting any time it wants. There is no statute of limitation on immigration fraud matters, so if INS reviews the case anytime (for whatever reason), they could act if they wanted.

Note that the above is just a discussion of the law. In reality many people do leave their jobs immediately after getting the GC and nothing happens. However, this is only because INS is too inefficient and short staffed to do anything about it.

 

[bakshi]

I think fsa488 has given an excellent explanation. I want to add just oen thing and that is if you leave your employer in good terms and if they don't ask INS to revoke your GC then you are absolutely safe however if you fear that they might do so then waiting for 6-8 months is a good idea

 

[july16]

bombay2

To add to what fsa448 and bakshi have said, If you are on good terms with the sponsoring company, and want to leave within a short time of getting the GC, make sure they terminate you and Hold on to the termination letter, till you apply for citizenship.

Another Very Important That I learned from friends, Apply for Citizenship just before Election time, That Overrides a lots of Checks, about employment etc.

 

[sujaksh]

This questions and AC-21

Hi Guys

I agree with your argument, but then how do you explain AC-21 in light of your argument?

AC-21 lets you change your employer for same job after 6 months, so as per your interpretation, there is no intention of working for sponsoring employer and still we see 99% of the AC-21 cases get approved.

With your logic, they should have been rejected in first place.

Just a thought.

-Sujaksh

 

[dma_va]

Guys,
I want to reiterate my thoughts on this topic (am too lazy to type it in again). Below is what I posted last month in response to another thread:



=============================================
Yes, employer cann't cancel ur GC at all on its own. But remember AC21 is still in a very amiguous stage of interpretation., until concretized. Therefore, I have following suggestions:

1)if u can afford to not leave ur employer after GC approval: Best thing to do

2)if u r laid off after GC except for misconduct etc.: still u r safe to join another company without getting ur GC status affected at all

3)if u leave ur present employer in good spirit (now that's a subjective matter): Still OK

4)if u leave employer with bad taste in latter's mouth: u fall under the fuzzy logic state wherein u won't know for sure what the implications could be unless u want to interpret AC21 in ur own way

5)leaving after 6-12 months (good or bad taste): fairly safe even considering AC21 ambiguities

============================================

 

[sam99]

question to july16

Recetly I received a termination letter from my company but this is just a formality for them to save from all legal aspects. Im still under their payroll but receiving pay check only when the clients pay them (once in 2 months). I am sick and tired of this company.

I am awaiting for my approval and expected very soon (RD 11/3/01) but not sure whether to change my job or not. ( my client is offering me a perm job).

I will appreciate if you comment on this.

Here is my details:
RD 11/3/01
ND 12/6/01
EB3/IND/MD

 

[ric2]

Nonsense. It does nothing for citizen application. By the time you are eligible for citizen application, the US government will urge you to be citizen. I remember that a couple of years ago, the application for citizenship declined significantly and Bill Clinton urged gc holders to apply citizenship, saying "when time is due, I urge you to consider citizenship'.

 

[fsa448]

Re: This questions and AC-21

Originally posted by sujaksh
Hi Guys

I agree with your argument, but then how do you explain AC-21 in light of your argument?

AC-21 lets you change your employer for same job after 6 months, so as per your interpretation, there is no intention of working for sponsoring employer and still we see 99% of the AC-21 cases get approved.

With your logic, they should have been rejected in first place.

Just a thought.

-Sujaksh

When the AC21 law was first introduced, a lot of people including lawyers pointed out that the "employment portability" part of of the law (which allows you to change the job after 6 months) seemed to contradict the earlier law which stated that the person must have an intention to work for the sponsoring company. It also contradicted the "GC is for a future job...." paradigm. In other words, the AC21 Act has several areas that are inconsistent with the earlier law.

Whenever there are legal inconsistencies, the Executive branch has to interpret it one way and go with that interpretation. If someone suffers due to that interpretation, they can then appeal to the Judiciary and ask them to resolve the inconsistency. The court can resolve it by giving it's opinion on how it should be interpreted or it can strike down the entire law which produced the inconsistency.

In this case, the interpreting agency is INS, which fact itself is a cause for concern. In addition, INS has yet to give it's formal interpretation of the AC21 act. So most people are being approved under AC21 because INS is operating under interim guidelines.

The question is, do you want to become a guinea pig and test how INS inteprets the law and then take it further and challenge it in the courts? If someone has waited several years for the GC, how does it make a difference if you wait few more months and make your position safe? I don't get it.

Remember - just because INS has so far never caused anyone grief during citizenship does not mean that they will not do so in the future (just because Clinton and the Democrats did something several years ago for political gains, that does not change the law). Times change. And as I pointed out, immigration fraud has no statute of limitation. Unless you are a US citizen by birthright, your citizenship/permanent residency can be revoked at any time for any immigration fraud regardless of how long ago it was committed.

NOTE: I am not trying to make things sound overly dramatic, just stating the facts as they are.

 

[sujaksh]

Re: Re: This questions and AC-21

Originally posted by fsa448


When the AC21 law was first introduced, a lot of people including lawyers pointed out that the "employment portability" part of of the law (which allows you to change the job after 6 months) seemed to contradict the earlier law which stated that the person must have an intention to work for the sponsoring company. It also contradicted the "GC is for a future job...." paradigm. In other words, the AC21 Act has several areas that are inconsistent with the earlier law.

Whenever there are legal inconsistencies, the Executive branch has to interpret it one way and go with that interpretation. If someone suffers due to that interpretation, they can then appeal to the Judiciary and ask them to resolve the inconsistency. The court can resolve it by giving it's opinion on how it should be interpreted or it can strike down the entire law which produced the inconsistency.

In this case, the interpreting agency is INS, which fact itself is a cause for concern. In addition, INS has yet to give it's formal interpretation of the AC21 act. So most people are being approved under AC21 because INS is operating under interim guidelines.

The question is, do you want to become a guinea pig and test how INS inteprets the law and then take it further and challenge it in the courts? If someone has waited several years for the GC, how does it make a difference if you wait few more months and make your position safe? I don't get it.

Remember - just because INS has so far never caused anyone grief during citizenship does not mean that they will not do so in the future (just because Clinton and the Democrats did something several years ago for political gains, that does not change the law). Times change. And as I pointed out, immigration fraud has no statute of limitation. Unless you are a US citizen by birthright, your citizenship/permanent residency can be revoked at any time for any immigration fraud regardless of how long ago it was committed.

NOTE: I am not trying to make things sound overly dramatic, just stating the facts as they are.

Nice and informative explanation. I am only worried about the fact that, If in future, Judiciary finds out that AC21 violates current law and therefore strikes it down, what happens to all our friends who got approved because of the provision?

I am not scaring anyone, but, just want to continue this lively discussion. I know,none of us are expert in law and even if we are expert, if judiciary decides we can not do anything.

Probably, this question should be forwarded to moderator to get an opinion from Mr. Rajiv Khanna.

-Sujaksh

 

[abhi_01201]

Here is what my interpretation of AC-21 is ( which may be entirely different than that of INS)

INS considers that normally AOS should not take more than 6 months(theoratically of couse, since it does practically for almost everyone). So that provision really benifits the applicant in a certain situation where INS has caused delays. So AC21 is more of an exception and levarage instead of a contradiction of the earlier law.

 

[DESI485]

its a known fact that you are free after 180 days of filing I-485.
just enjoy your freedom after 180 days of filing I-485.
People are getting GC even after changing employer. why???