Re: Re: Re: Re: What if you did get a change in responsibilities as well?
Originally posted by 140_takes_4ever
Actually that is absolutely mistaken! GC is very job/skill specific, and promotions do have an effect on GC processing, due to labor qualifications.
The whole question will ONLY come up if there is an RFE, if no RFE, then nothing matters. Doesn't matter if you work in Timbaktu as a Janitor or CEO. If you get a RFE/interview, then you might/will be asked for an EVL. If your EVL does not match up to the LC without logical progression in growth, then expect a big fat rejection, (offcourse based upon the IIO's mood). Take a look at the DOT specifications for various jobs, from engineer to Sr. engineer to Manager.
Engineer to Sr. Engineer are logical progressions, comensurate with growth in skills, but management requires a completely different skill set! Which calls for re-testing of the labor market!
Just in the spirit of open discussion on the topic, as well as the eagerness to clear my own understanding:
1. I beg to disagree with you partially when you say that whole GC is skill/specific. Partially because there is a skill factor involved, no denial there. But, looking at a bigger picture, US wants to give GC to those people to immigrate who have good standing and 'behavior', not a criminal charge-sheet case, bring in and contribute additional skills that are found in demand in the country, besides contributing for the progress of the country in any which way possible. And I interpret that only with these things in mind the entire GC process is divided into 3 stages. First stage and partially second stage is to determine the skill set factor mainly. In-demand skills, gainful employment, etc. But the final stage is a little more widespread, where a person's history, and 'suitability' to immigrate into this country is checked along side making sure that the person is in no way a liability on the state exchequer. Hence the request for finger-print, photo ids, work authorization etc.
2. So as long as the person is contributing (for example, in software whether developing or designing or even getting the work done by technically managing such development on-site or off-shore) in the field where there is a demand in this country, his title should not matter. Yes, if his LC says Software Engineer and now he is 'promoted' and asked to manage the janitors in Timbaktu then, since it is a different line of business, it is illegal. But if he is asked to manage a bunch of software programmers to write some software to improve the efficiency of those janitors, then that should not be a problem.
3. In my opinion, a company is recommending to the US gov to grant permanent residency to a person, if the company feels confident that this person will contribute for the wider development and improvement of the country, at least in his area of specialization which is in demand, if not in other spheres of life.
4. Because if that is not the case, then a person on EAD should not be able to start his own company since entreprenuership (sic) is definitely so different from most of the skills that is in demand.