Revoke GC?

[pralay]

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!

In his logic, as beneficiary's intent is irrelevent, AC-21 nullify/replaces the whole I-485 process. So, a beneficiary as well can withdraw I-485 after 180 days, invoke AC-21 and still he/she is going to get GC based on employer's intent.

 

[pralay]

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'

You are contradicting with your own logic. In your logic, a person does not need any intent to get GC, but he needs to show his intent to CIS.

 

[lohith]

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.

485 beneficiary NEVER presented in writing to USCIS about his intents/motive while filing 485 petition with employer' EVL. Not beneficiary's INTENT.

Again, Beneficiary's INTENT is unsolicted/unrequired by USCIS to file 485.

 

[TheRealCanadian]

Again, Beneficiary's INTENT is unsolicted/unrequired by USCIS to file 485.

If intent is not required, then what difference does it make if I tell USCIS that it does not exist? Why is it "suicidal" for me to explicitly state that although the job offer is bona fide, I do not intend to take it up? Unless.... intent is required!

How can I be harmed by not posessing something that is not required?

 

[lohith]

In his logic, as beneficiary's intent is irrelevent, AC-21 nullify/replaces the whole I-485 process. So, a beneficiary as well can withdraw I-485 after 180 days, invoke AC-21 and still he/she is going to get GC based on employer's intent.

'Withdrawing one's own 485 and making AOS is baseless intentionally' is again, sucidal mission.

 

[pralay]

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.

Yes, you need to "find out bona fide/willing employer" where you intend to work. If you don't intent work with "willing employer", your I-485 is dead. In that case you will be stranded with dead I-485 and "willing employer". Just "willing employer" is not sufficient for EB GC. If just and only "willing employer" was sufficient, then there would not any step called I-485 after LC and I-140 in EB GC process.

 

[lohith]

Yes, you need to "find out bona fide/willing employer" where you intend to work. If you don't intent work with "willing employer", your I-485 is dead. In that case you will be stranded with dead I-485 and "willing employer". Just "willing employer" is not sufficient for EB GC. If just and only "willing employer" was sufficient, then there would not any step called I-485 after LC and I-140 in EB GC process.

Here willing employer is AC-21 employer who comes into show only and after LC/140 approved by orignal GC sponsor. AC-21 employer does not come into field with any prior baggage of LC/140.

see the differense, Ac-21 employer just closes the show 'already started by original GC sponsor long time ago.'

 

[pralay]

Again, Beneficiary's INTENT is unsolicted/unrequired by USCIS to file 485.

Filing I-485 indicates that beneficiary has intent to work for the position in underlying I-140.

In GC process every step has a reason. Employer filing I-140 indicates that employer intent to employ beneficiary.

Basically we are going into the very basics of immigration (from the technicality of AC-21). When my parents entered into USA with tourst visa, my parent never give "something written" to BCBP that they intent to be non-immigrant.

 

[pralay]

Here willing employer is AC-21 employer who comes into show only and after LC/140 approved by orignal GC sponsor. AC-21 employer does not come into field with any prior baggage of LC/140.

So what?
You are talking about employer side. It still does not prove that employee intent is not required. I-485 is employee's intent. You are saying intent is not required, and at the same breath you are uttering "suicidal".

 

[pralay]

see the differense, Ac-21 employer just closes the show 'already started by original GC sponsor long time ago.'

No, AC-21 employer does not close the show. It only replaces original sponsorer. Eventually the beneficiary has to be eligible for GC by virtue of filing I-485. AC-21 is just and only a component of I-485 process (if applicable). Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[lohith]

So what?
You are talking about employer side. It still does not prove that employee intent is not required. I-485 is employee's intent. You are saying intent is not required, and at the same breath you are uttering "suicidal".

Again, here is the stmt from lawyer that Beneficiary's Intent should be on same/similar profession of LC; No Ac-21 law or 485 related law argues on beneficiary's intent for specific employer.


Your Green Card application is based on a specific job title and job description as stated in your labor certification application. Failure to hold employment in this occupation after you obtain your permanent residency could jeopardize your green card. In most instances it is safest if you remain with the sponsorship employer for at least six months after you receive your green card (exceptions may apply).

 

[pralay]

Again, here is the stmt from lawyer that Beneficiary's Intent should be on same/similar profession of LC; No Ac-21 law or 485 related law argues on beneficiary's intent for specific employer.

That's amazing! Eventually we come down to this!

If I-485 does not address "beneficiary's intent for specific employer", then why there is an underlying I-140 from "specific employer"?

Did you ever heard EB2/EB3 GC getting approved without any underlying I-140 from "specific employer"???? (Except self-petitioned I-140 for EB1)


Ac-21 only replaces that "specific employer". It does not do anything more.

 

[lohith]

No, AC-21 employer does not close the show. It only replaces original sponsorer. Eventually the beneficiary has to be eligible for GC by virtue of filing I-485. AC-21 is just and only a component of I-485 process (if applicable). Nothing more, nothing less.

Ac-21 employer NEVER replaces the orginal GC sponsor.
Ac-21 never gets the previliges of orig GC sponsor. period.
Since AC-21 never initiated/started GC process at all , never took pain for filing/supporting LC/140. AC -21 employer is a just a placeholder in providing employment in simialr profession.

 

[qwertyisback]

No, AC-21 employer does not close the show. It only replaces original sponsorer. .

WRONG. AC-21 is just change of job of similar field(not change of original sponsorer). Period. It has been debated and everybody concluded that AC-21 don't replaces sponsor. As long as applicant is in same/similar field(using AC-21), GC process remains valid, no strings attached.

 

[pralay]

Ac-21 employer NEVER replaces the orginal GC sponsor.

It does.

Ac-21 never gets the previliges of orig GC sponsor. period.

What previliges? Something new???

Since AC-21 never initiated/started GC process at all , never took pain for filing/supporting LC/140. AC -21 employer is a just a placeholder in providing employment in simialr profession.

It has nothing to do with employee's intent. Again, calling it "placeholder" is overstreatching. There are similar examples. For example, if I transfer my H1 from company A to company B, that does not mean that I can work for company C.

 

[pralay]

It has been debated and everybody concluded that AC-21 don't replaces sponsor.

"Everybody"? Including USCIS?

 

[lohith]

If I-485 does not address "beneficiary's intent for specific employer", then why there is an underlying I-140 from "specific employer"?

I-140 is filed by orgi GC sponsor/Employer. Orig sponsor (Not Ac-21 employer) takes all the PAIN to prove his intent by approved LC, employer finances, beneficiary's exp/edu.

It's GC sponsor's's intent to hire you by proving no american is availble or not repacing american.

Show me any law/instruction on LC/140/485/AC-21 about beneficiary's intent required(no CP). Then I'll buy, till then period.

 

[qwertyisback]

It does.
.

TRC, where is your lawyer 101, hand it over to our lemon, he can learn some basic things like "AC-21 is change of job not change of sponsor".

Learn basics first and then argue on this issue.

 

[pralay]

I-140 is filed by orgi GC sponsor/Employer. Orig sponsor (Not Ac-21 employer) takes all the PAIN to prove his intent by approved LC, employer finances, beneficiary's exp/edu.

"PAIN" or NO "PAIN" does not discount beneficiary's intent.

In your logic, "pain" equates to "intent" (what a logic!). No "pain" no intent, right? Is that part of Yates memo too? FYI, LC is not even employee specific. So where is the "intent" to hire specific employee?

Show me any law/instruction on LC/140/485/AC-21 about beneficiary's intent required(no CP). Then I'll buy, till then period.

I-485 is beneficiary's intent. AC-21 is intent change. Period.

If you want draw your "pain" logic here, you can apply that too, to prove employee intent.

 

[qwertyisback]

I-485 is beneficiary's intent. AC-21 is intent change. Period.

You still stuck been there??? Huhh.Learn basics and move forward, otherwise you will end up like someone whose ass got whipped like anything on this forum on same issue. Though you are not as bulleying as that resident bully but sounds as irritating as him for sure.