Question on Leaving the employer....
- Thread starter kcv1
- Start date
DashDurai
Dear DashDurai:
Thank you for your reply. The reasons why I wanted to give ample notice to my employers are quite simple:
1- They have been fair with me and I want to leave in good terms. Never "burn your bridges"
2- My line of working is very specialized, and hence any potential replacement will be hard to come by ( I doubt they will be able to find somebody any time soon).
Given these facts, Do you think that still might pose a problem? Thanks in advance for the feeback.
Dear DashDurai:
Thank you for your reply. The reasons why I wanted to give ample notice to my employers are quite simple:
1- They have been fair with me and I want to leave in good terms. Never "burn your bridges"
2- My line of working is very specialized, and hence any potential replacement will be hard to come by ( I doubt they will be able to find somebody any time soon).
Given these facts, Do you think that still might pose a problem? Thanks in advance for the feeback.
Value of this board is going south day by day on this issue of changing job after GC approved. People visit this board to find out information - formal and informal and learn from others' experience. When people post questions related to job change after GC, they don't just expect some lines of laws thrown at them. They expect some analysis, some personal experieces etc.
Who can read between the lines and make us understand and help us ? We don't need just lines from Murthy. We need much beyond that. Everytime such a question is posed what we get is those lines and rules of thumb thrown at us. This information is useless and this leads to people loosing interest on this board.
Allowing one person to keep flooding this board with the same information over and over again, the moderator or administrator is taking a risk of loosing value of this board as people don't learn anything new. They need to do something about it to make this board more useable.
Who can read between the lines and make us understand and help us ? We don't need just lines from Murthy. We need much beyond that. Everytime such a question is posed what we get is those lines and rules of thumb thrown at us. This information is useless and this leads to people loosing interest on this board.
Allowing one person to keep flooding this board with the same information over and over again, the moderator or administrator is taking a risk of loosing value of this board as people don't learn anything new. They need to do something about it to make this board more useable.
JoeF said:
Hmmm, after all the countless hours of deliberation on this topic, you changed or added couple of words to your rule-of-thumb rule "(admittedly imperfect)". That's good. At least I was able to change you
JoeF said:
You keep saying all along that lawyers, in general, are recommending this rule. Your generalize the lawyer community as if the majority of them are in total agreement to this 6 month ROT (short form for "you know what"). Apart from Murthy, who else is broadcasting this message? Care to explain? I would like to see at least 5 lawyers (or even more as it should be easy for you to prove as you have all the info about how lawyers think/act/etc. to this 6 month ROT) who are in agreement to this made-up-6-month-number. If you can show that, I rest my case, once again
Last edited by a moderator:
When I checked with my lawers about 2-3 months back, they did not say anything about 6 months. They said it's ok to change the job and it won't imapct the GC. They said this in an email (not just verbally). That's why I don't understand this rule of thumb you mentioned.JoeF said:
Moreover, is there anybody out there who have experienced a problem after changing the job in less than 6 months ? I don't know anybody. Do you ?
JoeF said:
Hello?!? Who is arguing against the *intent* part? That is a well known fact and no one has to keep trumpeting it. See, now, you are slowly changing your stance that some lawyers may say 6 and some may say less or more or may not even say anything. Of course! Who is denying that?
You KEEP SAYING ALL THE TIME THAT LAWYERS (and that too, GOOD ONES - I don't know what metric you use to find that out; maybe the ones that side with you are good, I guess) ALL AGREE ON 6 MONTHS! That's the part I don't understand and if you say that all the good ones agree, then I have a very simple questoin: Where do you find that info? In your dreams or else, you would have posted it already, right? I know you will say that "I have to go and get that info...". If I can get it, would I posting/requesting proof from you?
If you don't have any concrete evidence, please stop scaring people!
JoeF said:
Okay, just go to my first reply on this thread and see what I said. And, please, please, please tell me where I said that it was NOT the *intent*!
FYI - This is what I said in my first reply:
There is no LAW which says that you have to be with the employer for one day or one year or for that matter, one hundred years. Previously, there was a restriction that you have to stay with the employer for two years and congress removed that restriction and they introducted the *intent* part - which is very vague and everyone can interpret in any way that suits them. That's why you see all kinds of numbers thrown at.
If someone is steadfast in staying 6 months - 1 year, why not stay for 2 years as, after all, that's what INS (now USCIS) had stipulated at one point in time.
My question is simple - have you seen/met anybody who changed the job right after GC and had problems ? is there any post on this board by such a person ? In the event of lack of such information, the rule of thumb has no meaning. You said some lawers are taking more conservative approach - but conservation from what ???JoeF said:
JoeF, What are you? A broken record?!? You just keep posting the same stuff over and over and over again - like the energizer bunny.
I talk about the *intent* part and you drivel on the attack. When we start talking about something, you deviate and get back to your original routine of intent/6 months... Man, O' Man! What to do?!?
Btw, what pleasure do you get by scaring people? Anyways, I can't compete with you on the number of posts as it looks like you just breathe on these boards all the time
On a separate note, who do you work for? Maybe, I can apply and get a similar job and have all the free time
I talk about the *intent* part and you drivel on the attack. When we start talking about something, you deviate and get back to your original routine of intent/6 months... Man, O' Man! What to do?!?
Btw, what pleasure do you get by scaring people? Anyways, I can't compete with you on the number of posts as it looks like you just breathe on these boards all the time
On a separate note, who do you work for? Maybe, I can apply and get a similar job and have all the free time
Last edited by a moderator:
Folks, this topic has been discussed and debated umpteen number of times.
Even though there is no rule stating that an applicant needs to work for the employer AFTER getting the GC, a common sense approach to the situation would be to work for a 6 month period. Having waited this long, is it that hard to wait 6 more months? Just enjoy life, make plans for the future and 6 months will pass in no time.
Even though there is no rule stating that an applicant needs to work for the employer AFTER getting the GC, a common sense approach to the situation would be to work for a 6 month period. Having waited this long, is it that hard to wait 6 more months? Just enjoy life, make plans for the future and 6 months will pass in no time.
temposerver
Registered Users (C)
"intent" is BS - AFAIK
Hey guys,
Intent to work and all is BS. I called 1-800# and also spoke to Immigration Officer at an INS office in CT asking these specific questions. He clearly told that the "intent to work" has been fullfileld the moment you got the GC. Also he mentioned the intent and all came into picture coz, some people sponsor for future employees. Yes they hould have intent to work. How come he can get GC without working for the sponsorer at all???
And for those guys who got screwed up for several years with the so called sponsoring employer... time to go and enjoy the freedom. You don't have to rely on my above comments you can check with your attorney, any immigration offcer or call 1-800#... and get it confirmed.
Ms. Murthy..PLEASE change your posting or come out with some real facts about things like uscis memo etc...
temposerver
Hey guys,
Intent to work and all is BS. I called 1-800# and also spoke to Immigration Officer at an INS office in CT asking these specific questions. He clearly told that the "intent to work" has been fullfileld the moment you got the GC. Also he mentioned the intent and all came into picture coz, some people sponsor for future employees. Yes they hould have intent to work. How come he can get GC without working for the sponsorer at all???
And for those guys who got screwed up for several years with the so called sponsoring employer... time to go and enjoy the freedom. You don't have to rely on my above comments you can check with your attorney, any immigration offcer or call 1-800#... and get it confirmed.
Ms. Murthy..PLEASE change your posting or come out with some real facts about things like uscis memo etc...
temposerver
JoeF:::
Don't ever mis-lead others. And it seems .. you posted same message for 20 times in this single discussion.
You better leave us alone.. we are all trying to get some answer.
it seems like .. you want to have fun with our questions.
please please please.. go away.
Don't ever mis-lead others. And it seems .. you posted same message for 20 times in this single discussion.
You better leave us alone.. we are all trying to get some answer.
it seems like .. you want to have fun with our questions.
please please please.. go away.
CIS is expected to provide correct information and that's by law. When you say CIC misinforms, are you saying that CIS is breaking the law ? That would be a pretty strong statement. When we get some information from CIS over phone I don't find any reason for not believing it. These people are trained enough to provide correct information.JoeF said:
I think you are really crossing all the limits of stubberness. And that's why I said earlier that the value of this board is greatly reduced by your posts like this. If you don't have any information to add, why do you reply at all ? There is nobody out here who wants you to reply on this issue anymore. People come to this board to get information on what laws say as well as which is beyond what laws or lawers say. You have already provided what's written in the CIS documents and your itnerpretation of that (on this issue). Do you have more information ? If yes, please provide. If no, your posts are not required.
Why don't you get this ? I don't understand why it's so difficult for you to understand this. Is it that tough ?
Moreover, I still don't understand how come administrator or moderator allow such posts and thus allow the usefulness of this board be reduced. I have received some very good information from this site in the past and that's why I keep writing about it. I don't want the usefulness of this board to decline just because of one person's stubberness or stupidity. I am doing my part in informing moderator/admin about it, final decision is theirs. If this guy is allowed to continue with his stupidity or stubbernness, I am outta here. I hope they understand that this is not just one person's opinion but a representative one.
I did not give out any information. When I checked with my lawers what you mentioned about intent, 6 months etc. they said "it's not correct". There are several people on this board who also checked with their attorneys and got the same answer. So it's not me who is giving mis-information but it's you who is misleading the board and providing mis-information. You just need to stop doing it. Is it difficult to understand ? You claim to be an intelligent person then why it's tough for you to understand what everybody else on this board is asking you to do ? So either you are stubbern or your claim of being intelligent is false.JoeF said:
Did you ever check with you attorneys and what did they say ?
If you remember my last posts 2-3 months back, intent can not be proved. even with more than 12 months of working with the GC sponser employer after GC may not prove the intent part. On the other hand even with 1 month of job with the same employer after GC may prove the intent. That's why giving 6 months to 12 months rule of thumb is totally incorrect.JoeF said:
Intent generally comes in the cases where the employee is not working for the GC sponsered employer at the time of 485 approval and GC is based on future employment. In this case an employee is expected to join the GC employer as soon as the GC is approved. If this employee does not join the GC employer then your argument of intent holds some ground. But the questions that were asked on this forum were not related to this situation. If a person has been working for the GC employer already and upon GC approval if he leaves the company, the intent part will be tough to prove. In this case if an employee leaves in less than 6 months, doesn't mean he did not have an intent to work for the GC employer. You have been providing strong but incorrect information pertaining to this situation. I have been saying that each case is different and so rule of thumb is useless.
Can you counter-aurgue now ? Also you didn't mention if you checked with your lawers on this issue and what did they say.
Last edited by a moderator:
Not sure if my answers are helpful for this discussion. I checked with my lawyer about leaving the company after getting my GC and the lawyer said it would not be a problem. She is a main lawyer of a large company and handles a lot of GC cases regularly.
I have some questions about possible scenarios. What happens when an employee leaves his company after his I140 approval and 6 months after 485. He has not informed INS ( no AC21) thinking he would do so if required for a RFE. Just a month after he left, his 485 got approved. Since GC is for future employment, does it mean the employee has to go work for his GC- employer to prove his intent. If he does not do so, will it affect when he applies for citizenship?
We have many people leaving their companies after their 140 approvals without submitting AC21. How many of these people are returning to their GC employer after getting their 485 approval? There are some who change jobs even before their 140 approval.
IMO there is no correct answer for this question. We can't go and quote murthy.com if we have a problem in future after we change job after 6 months. No lawyer will provide the right answer as it is not written in black and white about what to do in this circumstances. It is better to do what we feel is right to do.
just my $.02
I have some questions about possible scenarios. What happens when an employee leaves his company after his I140 approval and 6 months after 485. He has not informed INS ( no AC21) thinking he would do so if required for a RFE. Just a month after he left, his 485 got approved. Since GC is for future employment, does it mean the employee has to go work for his GC- employer to prove his intent. If he does not do so, will it affect when he applies for citizenship?
We have many people leaving their companies after their 140 approvals without submitting AC21. How many of these people are returning to their GC employer after getting their 485 approval? There are some who change jobs even before their 140 approval.
IMO there is no correct answer for this question. We can't go and quote murthy.com if we have a problem in future after we change job after 6 months. No lawyer will provide the right answer as it is not written in black and white about what to do in this circumstances. It is better to do what we feel is right to do.
just my $.02