question about "Rajiv's opinion on 'changing job' after GC"

[bobyang3]

I just read "Rajiv's opinion on 'changing job' after GC." I thought once I get the greencard I can change the job right away or just quit and stay at home if I want. it doesn't sound like that in the posting. I just wonder if I quit or change job, what kind of problem I will run into? thank you!

eg, hard time to become a citizen? hard time to renew the greencard next time? or I will be in troubles if I don't have a job?


thank you!

 

[bobiber]

Courage to choose

This topic about changing jobs after GC is near and dear to me. I am a husband of a doctor who had to go through 3 year waiver with sponsoring employer, in order to apply for a green card. After 3 years of waiver she applied for green card and got it some 9 months later. Hooray!

The problem was, employer was abusive and manipulative, he really took advantage of indentured position my wife was in. It would take too much space here to describe all the ways and it really doesn't matter from the legal point of view. What matters is she prevailed and we have a green card now.

Of course, she wants to change a job. So, we hired a reputable immigration lawyer (not the one who got us a GC, as he stated that, since he technically represented both employer and employee, has a "conflict of interest") to advice us on this matter. The question was, how soon can my wife split from her employer after getting GC? Is it 30 days, is it 3 months, 6 months, a year? Mind you, we read countless threads dedicated to this question, no one has definitive answer as this is a grey area.

This is what our immigration attorney told us: The moment you get your GC you are free to split from your employer, either to get another job or to start working for yourself. You do not have any obligations to your sponsoring employer after you get GC. Green Card gives you unrestricted right to live and work in the USA. As to the pertinent question of intent, she has about 20+ years of experience and spoke many times with immigration officers. She told us that if USCIS wants to revoke your GC (let's say your vengeful ex-employer reports you to USCIS, and they decide to investigate) they would have to prove to the judge that you had prior intention to leave your job when you get GC. This is VERY difficult and USCIS knows that they would lose majority of these cases, therefore they do not want to waste their resources in order to win tiny majority of these cases, probably less then 10%. Therefore, they routinely ignore this matter.

Again, this is just an opinion, albeit educated one. Life is full of risks in general, and when it comes to the legal questions in particular, but, in this grey area, you really have to decide for yourself, there is no definitive answer. It helps to know different opinions (as this one differs from many others, especially from Rajiv's one). One has to have courage to to trust in oneself and do what is BEST, not necessarily what is least risky.

 

[nelsona]

Again, this is just an opinion,

You've got that right

 

[Jackolantern]

Someday some years from now there may be a situation where somebody's naturalization is denied and perhaps their GC is revoked for leaving the employer too soon. And it is quite likely the applicant would appeal it.

If the court upholds the denial, USCIS will start consistently denying naturalization for subsequent cases where the employee left at an equal or sooner time than the person in that court case, at least where the other cases are otherwise sufficiently similar. So for example, if the person worked for the employer for 5 months prior to GC approval and left 2 months after GC approval, and the court maintains that denial, USCIS will deny future applicants who worked 4 months pre-GC and left after 1 month post-GC, unless there is a differentiating reason (e.g. employer cut their wages, etc.).

On the other hand, if the court overturns the denial, anybody who worked for the sponsor for a longer time (both pre-GC and post-GC) than what was in that court case, is essentially safe as far as that issue is concerned.

So until there is such a court case, nobody really knows what is truly safe and what is dangerous regarding when to leave the employer, and lawyers who say that it is safe to leave on day 1 or that you will be in trouble if you don't work for six months are just speculating. Each person should take their own decision when to leave based on their risk tolerance and not be lulled into a false sense of security.

 

[nelsona]

So until there is such a court case, nobody really knows what is truly safe and what is dangerous regarding when to leave the employer, and lawyers who say that it is safe to leave on day 1 or that you will be in trouble if you don't work for six months are just speculating. Each person should take their own decision when to leave based on their risk tolerance and not be lulled into a false sense of security.

Well said, Jacko

 

[bobiber]

too much paranoia

The impression I got from talking with my imm. attorney was that question of leaving sponsoring employer after getting GC has absolutely nothing to do with timeframe. That's why you can leave next day or 6 months later, it is immaterial. There is a reason why there is no employment timeframe regarding GC as opposed to clear timeframe in case of I-485, AC 21. Any definitive timeframe would contradict unrestricted nature of GC.

There are many speculations as to hypothetical future court decision that might set some kind of a precedent that will define time spent with the employer after getting GC as a proof of a validity of intention. This is unlikely, as setting duration of time as a decisive factor of intention would seriously restrict otherwise unrestrictive nature of GC.

Lets say court decides to revoke GC or deny citizenship for a person who resigned 2 months after GC (it could be 2 days, 5 months, etc). You would then have a situation where law says that GC gives you UNRESTRICTED right to work ("To be employed in the United States at any legal work of your qualification and choosing"), but the court decision says this is bonkers, you have a restriction first two months (and why 2 months?, why not 2 days, 2 years). Is it possible? Maybe. Is it probable? Absolutely not. That is also the reason why there is no evidence so far (I read thousands of posts, opinions, laymen, lawyers, etc) that anyones GC was revoked or citizenship denied based on how fast they resigned from their sponsoring employer. Anecdotal evidence that person X was questioned about this in citizenship interview means nothing, except maybe questioning officer was mean or in a bad mood. In that same anecdote, questioning officer approved citizenship after consulting with supervisor. I just suspect that was because supervising officer knew that there is NO LAWFUL GROUND to deny citizenship based solely on how long you worked for sponsoring employer after you obtained GC.

The only ground that remains therefore is PRIOR INTENTION. And this is completely different from timeframe. You cannot infer my intention from the time I spent with my sponsoring employer after GC. If you do that and set a time limit, you are restricting otherwise clearly defined unrestricted nature of the green card. And without that, proving prior false intention is difficult, would probably have to comprise some kind of gross material proof, or multiple witness accounts and such. Of course it is possible to prove prior false intention, but this is entirely different matter from timeframe.

 

[TheRealCanadian]

You would then have a situation where law says that GC gives you UNRESTRICTED right to work ("To be employed in the United States at any legal work of your qualification and choosing"), but the court decision says this is bonkers, you have a restriction first two months (and why 2 months?, why not 2 days, 2 years). Is it possible?

Such a decision would not be restricting the nature of the GC at all. It still would be unrestricted. The precedent would be merely that a person leaving a GC sponsor within the time frame would be presumed to not have the prior intention to work for them, until proven otherwise. Very simple, and doesn't restrict the employment authorization at all.

The only ground that remains therefore is PRIOR INTENTION. And this is completely different from timeframe.

It's not "completely different". The federal courts have held that prior intent can be inferred based on subsequent actions.

 

[Dallas03096]

I just read "Rajiv's opinion on 'changing job' after GC." I thought once I get the greencard I can change the job right away or just quit and stay at home if I want. it doesn't sound like that in the posting. I just wonder if I quit or change job, what kind of problem I will run into? thank you!

eg, hard time to become a citizen? hard time to renew the greencard next time? or I will be in troubles if I don't have a job?


thank you!

AC21 interim memo of 12/27/05 defines the intent part in the following question in the context of portability

Question 10. Should service centers or district offices deny portability cases on the sole
basis that the alien has left his or her employment with the I-140 petitioner prior to the
I-485 application pending for 180 days?
Answer: No. The basis for adjustment is not actual (current) employment but prospective
employment. Since there is no requirement that the alien have ever been employed by the petitioner
while the I-140 and/or I-485 was pending, the fact that an alien left the I-140 petitioner before the I-
485 has been pending 180 days will not necessarily render the alien ineligible to port. However, in all
cases an offer of employment must have been bona fide. This means that, as of the time the I-140
was filed and at the time of filing the I-485 if not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have
had the intent to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to undertake the
employment, upon adjustment. Adjudicators should not presume absence of such intent and may
take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in
appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate.

In view of the above, I would say you are expected to be in a same or similar job after getting the GC in line with Rajiv Khanna's opinion.