You are thinking only about Eb1 -- Eb3, requiring a degree. I hope you know that there is an other workers category in Eb3 where less than two years training and no formal degree is also available. Only requirement is that you have an employer ready to sponsor and no local applicant is ready to take the job. Also EB4 requires no education, only a religious institute must be ready to take up your case. My first point is perfectly valid they are not giving that GC because you have a degree.Fort_User said:
scary discussion with an attorney. what should i do to start my GC again?
- Thread starter Fort_User
- Start date
Hi Hipca,
In this forum, i guess more than 90% people fall in the eb1-eb3 category. Any way i am not going to argue much about that.
My request to you as well as Joef is, please show the link, whose Citizenship is denied because of Employer change.
I have gone through almost most of the pages in "Citzenship" forum too. I yet to get a link.
In this forum, i guess more than 90% people fall in the eb1-eb3 category. Any way i am not going to argue much about that.
My request to you as well as Joef is, please show the link, whose Citizenship is denied because of Employer change.
I have gone through almost most of the pages in "Citzenship" forum too. I yet to get a link.
True, there is nobody in this forum. Now, if someone were to get deported would he be writing in this forum or running to an attorney. In the past decade USCIS never worried too much about not working for sponsor as jobs were plenty. In fact they passed AC21 law, only because too many job were there. Not any longer, my guess is that USCIS will start cracking down on the job changers soon!Fort_User said:
When i asked the Attorney for links/proofs (the Attorney who informed me working with sponsor Employer is mandatory), she become wild and said it is not my business.
However, i had discussions with two more Attorneys recently (one among them is host). Their opinion is just opposite to the first Attorney's opinion.
So, the uncertainity continues....
However, Joef statement has a blow...
People who are deported may be having pressing needs for couple of months. Atleast after reaching their country, they would definitely post. Becuase, this site can be accessible from anywhere.
Certainly i will do......
However, i had discussions with two more Attorneys recently (one among them is host). Their opinion is just opposite to the first Attorney's opinion.
So, the uncertainity continues....
However, Joef statement has a blow...
People who are deported may be having pressing needs for couple of months. Atleast after reaching their country, they would definitely post. Becuase, this site can be accessible from anywhere.
Certainly i will do......
JoeF said:
People post on this forum who has some issues. Many people I know, never heard of this site as they never had any immigration issues. Its whole another story that members like you post here to just misguide others on simple immigration matters.
Last edited by a moderator:
TheEnquirer
Registered Users (C)
no man is an island
at least by simmering up the fire - on this issue - i hope somebody who got deported would post.
besides - even if one who is ordered deported doesnt give a hoot to post in this forum or dont know about this forum - people always know soemone who knows someone who knows some/this site.
I am not saying it never could have happened but not in any rate close enough -for anybody in this forum to rake up this issue - and throw hapless people in turmoil
for those with sofware engineering background - this will make sense
the sunny day scenario - accounts to just less than 10% of things that happen in life.
and Iam tired of hearing on and on again of people lecturing of that just one "rule"
if everything goes by book - this forum can be replaced by a collection of immigration laws.
one good example of going by the written statement of a law/rule rather than the spirit of law/rule - look at the muslim fanatics/extremists - who want to go by the word of quran -
yeah thats right all non-muslims are infidels and should be killed.
at least by simmering up the fire - on this issue - i hope somebody who got deported would post.
besides - even if one who is ordered deported doesnt give a hoot to post in this forum or dont know about this forum - people always know soemone who knows someone who knows some/this site.
I am not saying it never could have happened but not in any rate close enough -for anybody in this forum to rake up this issue - and throw hapless people in turmoil
for those with sofware engineering background - this will make sense
the sunny day scenario - accounts to just less than 10% of things that happen in life.
and Iam tired of hearing on and on again of people lecturing of that just one "rule"
if everything goes by book - this forum can be replaced by a collection of immigration laws.
one good example of going by the written statement of a law/rule rather than the spirit of law/rule - look at the muslim fanatics/extremists - who want to go by the word of quran -
yeah thats right all non-muslims are infidels and should be killed.
In fact they passed AC21 law, only because too many job were there. Not any longer, my guess is that USCIS will start cracking down on the job changers soon!
Hi Hipca,
Your above statement shows that, you have lot of aversion on people those who did not work for the sponsor.
You must be knowing that, this is a sensitive issue and thousands of people are interested to hear some guide lines from USCIS.
How can you force your fantacies on others?
Hi Hipca,
Your above statement shows that, you have lot of aversion on people those who did not work for the sponsor.
You must be knowing that, this is a sensitive issue and thousands of people are interested to hear some guide lines from USCIS.
How can you force your fantacies on others?
I have no aversion for people who leave their sponsor. As an immigrant who was exploited fully by employers I understand their plight and symphathize with them. However I did not write the law, and the law has been made exclusively for employers, thats about it. I am just quoting from history. Have you heard senators speak about employment based immigration? Their prime concern is to provide workers for US companies.Fort_User said:
If I had written the law, I would make a point based system taking into account education, work exp., english language skills etc. similar to the canadian system. The present system makes it look like the employer is primarily responsible for admitting you into the country and the govt. is just a stamping agency whose job is create problems.
As long as things stand this way, its best to keep your employer in good humor and try to stick with him for a reasonable period. If this is not possible because the sponsor did not give you a job, then you must understand that your case is always shaky.
Does this mean that those who left their employers quickly should panic? Absolutely not! There is some understanding in the justice system about the way sponsors abuse their employees. Also the chance that USCIS will make a fuss is 1 in 100 (so far at least). What is needed is planning, prepare for the worst case of deportation. Several opportunities are coming up in India and China. So rest easy as the chance is pretty small and the worst case is not that bad!!
TheEnquirer
Registered Users (C)
Well you cannot be adamant that the reason that NOT a single note on people getting deported for "this reason" - is because that people are shy/embarrassed to talk about it. thats extending the probabilities to its limits.
anyways thats my take- its below me to go into a word war on that.
the reason iam posting is to have alternate views for people who are already in a situation wherein its too late to follow the "be with the sponsorer"
what is the use in ranting over and over again to someone who is not with the sponsorer anymore - to say that ur screwed if u dont stay with the sponsorer.
what u say is good for people who have an option to stay with the sponsorer
but "ranting" to others who cant.
and its good to always have different real opinions.
and what is my "risky beaviuour" iam not sure. you and I may not be in a bad position - but always remember this forum is to help people who are looking for guidance.
And if the guidance is going to be ONLY the strict intrepretation of the law- its good to be told once, twice, thrice - but should not be used again and again to mask other peoples opinion. people are not idiots- even if they see a posting that says its fine to quit the sponsorer immediately they will always go back and check ur original posting to get an alternate view.
and nobody told a good arguement should not be had on this issue. (but the arguement should not be one-sided)
so the difference is ur opinion on this is right and so does others opinion- but if u keep on posting ur opinion on each and every thread - a person reading the whole forum would be bombarded with ur opinion 100 to 1.
the point is not to take anything personal - so dont make it personal.
in fact i have been telling all my friends who have a choice to stay with the employer to stay as long as possible. but id o have people who cannot stay with their employers and i dont want to tell them - go and give back ur green card to UCSIS and go back to ur country.
anyways thats my take- its below me to go into a word war on that.
the reason iam posting is to have alternate views for people who are already in a situation wherein its too late to follow the "be with the sponsorer"
what is the use in ranting over and over again to someone who is not with the sponsorer anymore - to say that ur screwed if u dont stay with the sponsorer.
what u say is good for people who have an option to stay with the sponsorer
but "ranting" to others who cant.
and its good to always have different real opinions.
and what is my "risky beaviuour" iam not sure. you and I may not be in a bad position - but always remember this forum is to help people who are looking for guidance.
And if the guidance is going to be ONLY the strict intrepretation of the law- its good to be told once, twice, thrice - but should not be used again and again to mask other peoples opinion. people are not idiots- even if they see a posting that says its fine to quit the sponsorer immediately they will always go back and check ur original posting to get an alternate view.
and nobody told a good arguement should not be had on this issue. (but the arguement should not be one-sided)
so the difference is ur opinion on this is right and so does others opinion- but if u keep on posting ur opinion on each and every thread - a person reading the whole forum would be bombarded with ur opinion 100 to 1.
the point is not to take anything personal - so dont make it personal.
in fact i have been telling all my friends who have a choice to stay with the employer to stay as long as possible. but id o have people who cannot stay with their employers and i dont want to tell them - go and give back ur green card to UCSIS and go back to ur country.
JoeF said:
Last edited by a moderator:
TheEnquirer
Registered Users (C)
oblivious
oblivious to the drama thats unfolding
just to reaffirm the fact - that everybody will be given a chance to represent themselves if UCSIS is arguing that u got ur GC fraudulently.
and u have a very good chance to fight it out with the judge if u have a real case.
just have as much proof as u can of why u have to leave the sponserer.
The judge who is listening to ur case - most likely would have seen a lot of illegal immigrant cases. so unless u meant to really defraud and get GC - u have a great chance.
but u have to go thru the proceedings - which i assume nobody likes
but its not automatic that u will be thrown into deportation cells.
here is an egomaniac test if anybody is interested
http://www.queendom.com/tests/minitests/fx/egomania.html
oblivious to the drama thats unfolding
just to reaffirm the fact - that everybody will be given a chance to represent themselves if UCSIS is arguing that u got ur GC fraudulently.
and u have a very good chance to fight it out with the judge if u have a real case.
just have as much proof as u can of why u have to leave the sponserer.
The judge who is listening to ur case - most likely would have seen a lot of illegal immigrant cases. so unless u meant to really defraud and get GC - u have a great chance.
but u have to go thru the proceedings - which i assume nobody likes
but its not automatic that u will be thrown into deportation cells.
here is an egomaniac test if anybody is interested
http://www.queendom.com/tests/minitests/fx/egomania.html
Last edited by a moderator:
JoeF
I always find JoeF posts analytical and helping. Many a time no one will bother to reply and it is JoeF who replied to those posts.
One need to hear all teh point of views. As no one is attorney here and everyone is trying to interperet the law by his/her own capacity.
Thanks Joef, I am with you.
warm regards to all and let us not insult others if we dont agree with their point of view.
this is great place to han.....
thanks
I always find JoeF posts analytical and helping. Many a time no one will bother to reply and it is JoeF who replied to those posts.
One need to hear all teh point of views. As no one is attorney here and everyone is trying to interperet the law by his/her own capacity.
Thanks Joef, I am with you.
warm regards to all and let us not insult others if we dont agree with their point of view.
this is great place to han.....
thanks
vitalsigns said:
OK, let me give you a different example. Let us imagine a hypothetical situation. An organization signs a contract with an individual, for the individual to work for the organization permanently for $100 million. The organization deposits the money in the individual's account on day 1 of the job. The individual leaves the job in 2 weeks due to "unavoidable circumstances". When pressed for a more definite reason, the individual states that he just does not like the organization any more, and that he would like to make his future somewhere else. Of course, the individual wants to keep all the money for himself.
Most people would consider this situation as a breach of contract and fraud on the part of the individual.
Do you see the analogy here?
HI qwertyisback
I like JoeF posts. As I earlier said, his approach is very analytical. If someone dont like to read his post, its ok. But he has helped many persioon like me.
So if you feel his posts are as per your point of view, you dont have to read them.
Joef is one of the most respectable members of the forum.
Regards
I like JoeF posts. As I earlier said, his approach is very analytical. If someone dont like to read his post, its ok. But he has helped many persioon like me.
So if you feel his posts are as per your point of view, you dont have to read them.
Joef is one of the most respectable members of the forum.
Regards
qwertyisback
Registered Users (C)
p_card, Good for you and good Luck . I am not going to preach you about what you read and what not. Go ahead, its your life, do whatever you want. .
Check your dictionary for meaning of "most respectable" person. If thats what he is then again more good luck to you.
. Check your dictionary for meaning of "most respectable" person. If thats what he is then again more good luck to you.
My Take.
Guys,
I know you all are discussing the technical points on this issue but is that really the deal here? Like so many things in life is it not a matter of making a judgement call based on your appetite for Risk ? One always wants to bring the risks down to a reasonable level based on common sense like staying with the same employer for a while in this case and then live on with life and the luck that comes along with it.
In the end it is quite clear that a vast majority of people who get their GC through employment change jobs and never get in trouble with that while a few unfortunate ones do.
It is the same philosophy that you apply in driving at 75 on a 65 road. You all know that it is breaking the law but then common sense tells you that you will be fine most of the times. Now 90 on a 65 mile would be an unwise judgement but that's again based on my risk profile....
Thanks.
Guys,
I know you all are discussing the technical points on this issue but is that really the deal here? Like so many things in life is it not a matter of making a judgement call based on your appetite for Risk ? One always wants to bring the risks down to a reasonable level based on common sense like staying with the same employer for a while in this case and then live on with life and the luck that comes along with it.
In the end it is quite clear that a vast majority of people who get their GC through employment change jobs and never get in trouble with that while a few unfortunate ones do.
It is the same philosophy that you apply in driving at 75 on a 65 road. You all know that it is breaking the law but then common sense tells you that you will be fine most of the times. Now 90 on a 65 mile would be an unwise judgement but that's again based on my risk profile....
Thanks.