Revoke GC?

[pralay]

Again more lemon guesswork?? huhh. No more lemons please

Do you have anything left in the bag of your argument? Other than the word "guesswork" and "guesswork"?

 

[TheRealCanadian]

Do you have anything left in the bag of your argument? Other than the word "guesswork" and "guesswork"?

I'd pay good money to see qwerty try his schtick in front of a Federal Court Judge ranting on about "lemon guesswork". My guesswork involves a week or two in "pound me in the ass Federal prison" for contempt of court.

 

[qwertyisback]

It seems you had hard time to understand that GC is future employment.

Why its hard for you to understand something which has written in law in SIMPLE english?? Give a break to your lemons, that will help you to understand.

Read it again in Sec. 246. [8 U.S.C. 1256]

case http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1996/96a1453p.txt, validates it,judge rules that explicitly...

" V. Conclusion
We hold that the running of the limitation period contained in § 246(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1256(a), prohibits the INS from initiating deportation proceedings based exclusively on fraud in obtaining the adjustment of status."

 

[qwertyisback]

blabbering ...blah blah

Get out of day dreaming with your lemons. That might help you to understand and follow law.

I will post law again....Read it again (Don't make me post again, else I will put you guys in my killfile and keep posting this message endlessly )

Forget it, read my previous post

 

[pralay]

Why its hard for you to understand something which has written in law in SIMPLE english?? Give a break to your lemons, that will help you to understand.

Read it again in Sec. 246. [8 U.S.C. 1256]

case http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1996/96a1453p.txt, validates it,judge rules that explicitly...

" V. Conclusion
We hold that the running of the limitation period contained in § 246(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1256(a), prohibits the INS from initiating deportation proceedings based exclusively on fraud in obtaining the adjustment of status."

Do you understand the concept of time, date, month, year? In most of the countries they are taught in junior high school.

 

[qwertyisback]

Do you understand the concept of time, date, month, year? In most of the countries they are taught in junior high school.

I am very busy,I can't help you to understand these concepts?? Maybe someone's 3 yr old might give you some clue. Give a try but not very hard , might break lemons in your brain.

 

[pralay]

I am very busy,I can't help you to understand these concepts?? Maybe someone's 3 yr old might give you some clue. Give a try but not very hard , might break lemons in your brain.

Someone who does not understand those concepts got to be busy (bacause he/she has no idea about how to measure those parameters).

 

[pralay]

I'd pay good money to see qwerty try his schtick in front of a Federal Court Judge ranting on about "lemon guesswork". My guesswork involves a week or two in "pound me in the ass Federal prison" for contempt of court.

If he was car, DMV would definitely label him "lemon".

 

[qwertyisback]

more rantling....

I told you, I am BUSY!!!!, Someone , help this lemon to get out of his eggshell please.

 

[lohith]

AC-21 allows to change job in similar field. Thats it. Everything else is your lemon guesswork

That's right, even Yates Memo explicitly argues on having a Job in similar filed on perm basis. Means, employer has to have intent to keep you on the perm basis.

In AC-21, USCIS doesnt care about beneficiary's intents. You can substitue ANY employer having a intent to employ you on perm basis in similar profession. USCIS focusses on 'having the bona fide Job in similar field' and employer has intending to employ you on perm basis on/upon 485 approval. That's it.

Again, Unsolicited AC-21 filings are not welcome by USCIS.

 

[pralay]

In AC-21, USCIS doesnt care about beneficiary's intents.

How did you draw this conclusion? As I-485 is pending, intent has to be there (whether its for conpany X the original sponsorer or company Y or company Z). The person must have an intent working with company Y and company Y must have intent of employing I-485 beneficiary. Both intents must exist to grant GC. If any of them missing, USCIS may not grant GC. AC-21 put stress/focus on employer side because as the new employer did not file any document with USCIS before that (like I-140 or LC), this is very first occasion for employer Y to demonstrate that they have intent. But that does not mean beneficiary's intent is not required. Pending I-485 and invoking AC-21 clearly indicates beneficiary has intent (and he/she did not abandon the intent).
Accordingly to your logic, if I invoke AC-21 with company Y and go to interview I still can say to adjucator that "I really don't want to work for company Y, but still give me GC because I have some other plan in mind". Do you think USCIS will give me GC?

Again, Unsolicited AC-21 filings are not welcome by USCIS.

What do you mean? Optional does not mean "not welcome".

 

[qwertyisback]

That's right, even Yates Memo explicitly argues on having a Job in similar filed on perm basis. Means, employer has to have intent to keep you on the perm basis.

In AC-21, USCIS doesnt care about beneficiary's intents. You can substitue ANY employer having a intent to employ you on perm basis in similar profession. USCIS focusses on 'having the bona fide Job in similar field' and employer has intending to employ you on perm basis on/upon 485 approval. That's it.

Again, Unsolicited AC-21 filings are not welcome by USCIS.

I agree.

 

[lohith]

As I-485 is pending, intent has to be there (whether its for conpany X the original sponsorer or company Y or company Z). The person must have an intent working with company Y and

Never mentioned in the law. Check Yates guidelines. Tell me is there any wording of 'Intent' required by beneficiary ?

company Y must have intent of employing I-485 beneficiary.

That's what USCIS digs on it. Only employer intent makes or breaks the 485 case.

Both intents must exist to grant GC.

NO. As per AC-21

Again, USCIS doesnot care what about your intent or motives. You have to just keep having/substituting Ac-21 employers in similar field.

Accordingly to your logic, if I invoke AC-21 with company Y and go to interview I still can say to adjucator that "I really don't want to work for company Y, but still give me GC because I have some other plan in mind". Do you think USCIS will give me GC?

USCIS cares about your presented EVL which is changed&current, or future(shoud be bonafide).


Again, unsolicited/concurrently diclosing of conflicting facts will nullify whole of your case like any other/legal hearing. what ever you are saying should be backed/supported by written evidence.

Cases of self-conflicting witenesses, most of the times judge disqulaify for 'witness' or orders the person for 'professional counseling' for further hearing/trial.

What do you mean? Optional does not mean "not welcome".

It's not even optional. check Ac-21 law.

 

[pralay]

Never mentioned in the law. Check Yates guidelines. Tell me is there any wording of 'Intent' required by beneficiary ?

Because AC-21 does not replace I-485 or makes I-485 invalid. But it rather adds some adidtional document on the top of already filed I-485. If the beneficiary did not abandon I-485 that indicates his intent is still there. Then by invoking AC-21 indicates that beneficiary changed his intent. I-485 is employee's application (not employers). So when I giving EVL and job description from another employer to CIS, that automatically indicates that I intent to work with that "another employer". If I don't intent to work with "another employer", then why would I obtain EVL from "another employer" and show it to CIS? As I mention earlier, when I invoking AC-21 I am not invoking it "just for joking" (because I don't have intent, but pretending that I do have).

 

[pralay]

That's what USCIS digs on it. Only employer intent makes or breaks the 485 case.

Because employee's intent is already there, by pending I-485 and invoking Ac-21. It's the employee who is invoking AC-21, NOT employer. I-485 is not employer's application.

 

[pralay]

Again, USCIS doesnot care what about your intent or motives. You have to just keep having/substituting Ac-21 employers in similar field.

AC-21 does not talk about "keep having/substituting". That's overstreatching.

 

[pralay]

USCIS cares about your presented EVL which is changed&current, or future(shoud be bonafide).

My question is if person A does not intent to work for company Y, then why would he obtain EVL/offer letter from company Y and then show it to CIS?

 

[TheRealCanadian]

Again, unsolicited/concurrently diclosing of conflicting facts will nullify whole of your case like any other/legal hearing. what ever you are saying should be backed/supported by written evidence.

What on Earth do you mean? My lack of intent to work for my AC21 employer does not in any way nullify the offer of employment.

According to your logic, an offer of employment under AC21 should be enough to get a GC, no matter if I have no intentions to work for said employer. Therefore, I should be able to invoke AC21 with a new job offer, but tell USCIS "I do not intend to work for this employer".

Since my intent (according to you) is irrelevant, USCIS could not deny me my GC, even if I refuse to accept the proferred offer of employment!

 

[lohith]

Therefore, I should be able to invoke AC21 with a new job offer, but tell USCIS "I do not intend to work for this employer".

No sane GC wanting person, conflict with his own words that presented Ac-21 EVL is just BS/sham offer unless that person is on a 'sucidal mission'

 

[lohith]

My question is if person A does not intent to work for company Y, then why would he obtain EVL/offer letter from company Y and then show it to CIS?

Because, USCIS requires you to find out bona fide/willing employer's offer in similar field to substantiate your ac-21 claim as a written/verifiable evidence.

And sane 485 beneficiary intending to obtain GC.