Relocate for MBA & come back to original location with GC in process?

[skechers]

I work for my company in city A. My GC application is in process; my I-140 is approved in EB2 category with a priority date in Dec 2007. I have received admission to a top 10 business school in city B (in another state) for a part-time MBA program. I wish to relocate to city B to pursue the MBA and still be working remotely in the same position for the same department from our company office in city B. Once the GC is approved, in say 2-3 years, I would relocate back to city A and continue in the position that the GC was petitioned for.

My management is in on board with the plan but our immigration attorney is recommending against it claiming that there is a huge risk of GC denial. Her argument is “The GC application is premised on the fact that I intend to work for my company on a permanent full-time basis in the position and at the location described in the GC application. I must maintain that intention throughout the GC process. By relocating to pursue an MBA, it looks like I don’t have that intent and USCIS could use this as a basis to deny my GC.”

I desperately want to attend the business school in city B but not at the cost of risking GC. In order to make this decision I need to assess the risk involved. Please help me in estimating the risk!

To what extent are her fears valid? By going against her advice would I be putting my GC in grave danger? Do you know cases where people have relocated for pursuing MBAs during the GC process and yet received their GC?

 

[TheRealCanadian]

The fact that you remain employed is by USCIS memorandum prima facie evidence that you intend to work for the employer, and the employer intends to employ you post GC.

 

[namecheckvictim]

I would disagree with The Fake Canadian as your attorney is right. INA depends heavily on intent. With all the immigration laws getting stricter day by day if were you I would like to be safe than sorry. Remember The Fake Canadian and even I am are not attorneys.
You can always do this program later or try to get into one in City "A". It might not happen as quickly as you want but at least you will not be jeopardizing anything.

 

[TheRealCanadian]

I would disagree with The Fake Canadian as your attorney is right

You're completely incorrect. Go read the USCIS memoranda on AC21 and intent to employ at the I-140 stage.

With all the immigration laws getting stricter day by day if were you I would like to be safe than sorry. Remember The Fake Canadian and even I am are not attorneys.

The safest thing to do is not to immigrate at all. No risk whatsoever. Anything beyond that involves some risk.

You can always do this program later or try to get into one in City "A". It might not happen as quickly as you want but at least you will not be jeopardizing anything.

If you actually read through the BIA rulings and USCIS memoranda, you'll see that what I stated is true. You'll also see that the only time that intent was questioned was the case of an AC21 case where the intended employee NEVER worked for the company and never had intent to work in the stated location. If the original poster is working for the employer and intends to return to the LC location on the completion of studies, that's powerful evidence that the requisite intent exists.

And the immigration laws aren't getting stricter day by day. That's yet more hyperbole utterly unencumbered by fact.

 

[skechers]

You're completely incorrect. Go read the USCIS memoranda on AC21 and intent to employ at the I-140 stage.



The safest thing to do is not to immigrate at all. No risk whatsoever. Anything beyond that involves some risk.



If you actually read through the BIA rulings and USCIS memoranda, you'll see that what I stated is true. You'll also see that the only time that intent was questioned was the case of an AC21 case where the intended employee NEVER worked for the company and never had intent to work in the stated location. If the original poster is working for the employer and intends to return to the LC location on the completion of studies, that's powerful evidence that the requisite intent exists.

And the immigration laws aren't getting stricter day by day. That's yet more hyperbole utterly unencumbered by fact.

I tend to side with TheRealCanadian on this. I certainly intend to return to the work location "A" after completing my studies or even earlier if GC is approved. I have no intention of betraying my employer who has agreed to pay part of my tuition.

Even if we assume that I have no intention of returning to location 'A', USCIS has no evidence to prove it until it approves my GC and tracks my actions thereafter. Am I right?

 

[TheRealCanadian]

Even if we assume that I have no intention of returning to location 'A', USCIS has no evidence to prove it until it approves my GC and tracks my actions thereafter. Am I right?

USCIS can infer intent based on actions even before the GC is approved. However, your being employed by the I-140 petitioner is a very powerful action that by itself is sufficient to prove intent. Is there evidence of communication between your employer and you about returning? Is tuition reimbursement by your employer conditional on remaining with them? This too is evidence of intent to return.

Immigration actions are civil actions, which means that the criminal standard of proof is not required, only a "preponderance of evidence". This you appear to have on your side.

 

[Jackolantern]

Go ahead and relocate and study if you want. If USCIS questions your intent, all you need to do is provide an up-to-date letter from the employer stating that they plan to rehire you in the given position when your GC is approved. Or that your position in location B satisfies the "same or similar" criteria for AC21.