The June 2001 INS Guidance summarizes that Section 106(c) of AC21 provides that both the labor certification and the approved Form I-140 to continue to remain valid where the person changes jobs, if the following two conditions are met:
(a) Form I-485 or the application to adjust status, on the basis of the employment-based (EB) immigrant petition has been filed and remains unadjudicated for over 180 days or longer; and
(b) The new job offer is in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the certification or approval was initially made.
The June 2001 INS Guidance requires that the I-485 applicant notify the INS when s/he no longer intends to enter into employment with the sponsoring employer. The June 2001 INS Guidance explains that if the INS has reason to believe that the applicant\'s intent has changed, a Request for Evidence (RFE) may be issued to clarify the applicant\'s intent with regard to employment.
The June 2001 INS Guidance explains that the I-485 applicant requires a letter from the new employer verifying the new job offer and providing the following details: the new job title, job description, and salary. Although AC21 does not contain any restrictions on salary, the INS clarifies that this information on salary is necessary in order to determine whether the I-485 applicant is admissible under the public charge provisions. A person who fails to meet the public charge provisions could be inadmissible under law. The June 2001 INS Guidance also refers to the U.S. Department of Labor\'s Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) or on-line O*NET Classification System or similar publications. Again, AILA recommended that the INS broaden its definition of same or similar job title and not make it very narrow and restrictive by requiring that the new employer\'s job match the DOT or similar publications, since AC21 does not appear to require such a narrow interpretation.
Since the June 2001 INS Guidance explains that the INS is currently formulating proposed regulations with respect to the issue of the same or similar job, INS adjudicators, in order to establish a policy framework in which they adjudicate Section 106(c) benefits, are required to consult with INS Headquarters on a case by case basis before denying any case on the basis that the new job is not in the same or similar classification. We at the Law Office of Sheela Murthy believe that this is a good starting place for the INS, since INS adjudicators cannot deny the adjustment application for a person without consulting with the INS Headquarters.
The full text can be found at http://www.murthy.com/UDac21up.html
(a) Form I-485 or the application to adjust status, on the basis of the employment-based (EB) immigrant petition has been filed and remains unadjudicated for over 180 days or longer; and
(b) The new job offer is in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the certification or approval was initially made.
The June 2001 INS Guidance requires that the I-485 applicant notify the INS when s/he no longer intends to enter into employment with the sponsoring employer. The June 2001 INS Guidance explains that if the INS has reason to believe that the applicant\'s intent has changed, a Request for Evidence (RFE) may be issued to clarify the applicant\'s intent with regard to employment.
The June 2001 INS Guidance explains that the I-485 applicant requires a letter from the new employer verifying the new job offer and providing the following details: the new job title, job description, and salary. Although AC21 does not contain any restrictions on salary, the INS clarifies that this information on salary is necessary in order to determine whether the I-485 applicant is admissible under the public charge provisions. A person who fails to meet the public charge provisions could be inadmissible under law. The June 2001 INS Guidance also refers to the U.S. Department of Labor\'s Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) or on-line O*NET Classification System or similar publications. Again, AILA recommended that the INS broaden its definition of same or similar job title and not make it very narrow and restrictive by requiring that the new employer\'s job match the DOT or similar publications, since AC21 does not appear to require such a narrow interpretation.
Since the June 2001 INS Guidance explains that the INS is currently formulating proposed regulations with respect to the issue of the same or similar job, INS adjudicators, in order to establish a policy framework in which they adjudicate Section 106(c) benefits, are required to consult with INS Headquarters on a case by case basis before denying any case on the basis that the new job is not in the same or similar classification. We at the Law Office of Sheela Murthy believe that this is a good starting place for the INS, since INS adjudicators cannot deny the adjustment application for a person without consulting with the INS Headquarters.
The full text can be found at http://www.murthy.com/UDac21up.html