Self-employment on EAD

H

hanmanthr

Registered Users (C)
I have EAD and my I-140 has been approved. I also worked for 3 years on this EAD for the employer who sponsored the GC. With the retrogression, it seems like I need to wait a few more years. I know I can switch employer as per AC-21 but what if I want to be self-employed and work for my own clients directly? Can I take up contract opportunities in the similar job category? If so, do I apply for AC-21 myself? By the way, if I change the attorney at this stage, is there going to be any adverse impact?

Thanks...
 
hanmanthr said:
I have EAD and my I-140 has been approved. I also worked for 3 years on this EAD for the employer who sponsored the GC. With the retrogression, it seems like I need to wait a few more years. I know I can switch employer as per AC-21 but what if I want to be self-employed and work for my own clients directly? Can I take up contract opportunities in the similar job category? If so, do I apply for AC-21 myself? By the way, if I change the attorney at this stage, is there going to be any adverse impact?

Thanks...
Click to expand...

I wouldn't encourage for self employment. when you file AC21 with self employment, there is a high chance for your I-485 denial as self employment falls under investor category and your I-140 was approved in employment category. USCIS may ask to re-file your I-140 under investor category in that case you would have to start over whole process. I have heard of similar case before but better check with your attorney.
 
Self-Employment Allowed for AC21 Portability!

Foreign nationals can port their cases to a self-employed position! This is a very favorable stance, as many foreign nationals desire to establish their own companies and, in that way, control their own destinies. The entrepreneurial spirit is strong among many immigrants. The Memo reiterates the need to show that the new position or job is the same or similar. It also states that the new employer and job offer must be legitimate.

In these situations, the USCIS is to focus upon whether the original job offer was really the intended employment at the time the I-140 and I-485 were filed. That is, the petitioning company must have intended to employ the foreign national beneficiary and the foreign national beneficiary must have intended to accept the position at the time of filing the I-140 and the I-485.

Recent USCIS memo allows AC21 based on self-employment.

The above info is from http://www.murthy.com/print/n_yatmay_P.html Attorney Murthy's web site.
 
sick_of_waiting said:
Self-Employment Allowed for AC21 Portability!

Foreign nationals can port their cases to a self-employed position! This is a very favorable stance, as many foreign nationals desire to establish their own companies and, in that way, control their own destinies. The entrepreneurial spirit is strong among many immigrants. The Memo reiterates the need to show that the new position or job is the same or similar. It also states that the new employer and job offer must be legitimate.

In these situations, the USCIS is to focus upon whether the original job offer was really the intended employment at the time the I-140 and I-485 were filed. That is, the petitioning company must have intended to employ the foreign national beneficiary and the foreign national beneficiary must have intended to accept the position at the time of filing the I-140 and the I-485.

Recent USCIS memo allows AC21 based on self-employment.

The above info is from http://www.murthy.com/print/n_yatmay_P.html Attorney Murthy's web site.
Click to expand...

We all know about AC21 memo, which has provision for self employment. Going through USCIS book and seeing practical examples both are different things. Though self employment is valid based on AC21 memo, one of the cases was denied in past. Do you have any success story to share?
 
one of the key issues faced may be similar job

definitely you are the president of your company, whereas your 140 is say system analyst, so proving similarity becomes hurdle. working for spouse company and employed there as the position on your LC/140 may have a better chance
sick_of_waiting said:
Self-Employment Allowed for AC21 Portability!

Foreign nationals can port their cases to a self-employed position! This is a very favorable stance, as many foreign nationals desire to establish their own companies and, in that way, control their own destinies. The entrepreneurial spirit is strong among many immigrants. The Memo reiterates the need to show that the new position or job is the same or similar. It also states that the new employer and job offer must be legitimate.

In these situations, the USCIS is to focus upon whether the original job offer was really the intended employment at the time the I-140 and I-485 were filed. That is, the petitioning company must have intended to employ the foreign national beneficiary and the foreign national beneficiary must have intended to accept the position at the time of filing the I-140 and the I-485.

Recent USCIS memo allows AC21 based on self-employment.

The above info is from http://www.murthy.com/print/n_yatmay_P.html Attorney Murthy's web site.
Click to expand...
 
Here is from Murty's Chat

Chat User : Is self employment portability safe under the AC21 180-day portability by the Yates Memo?

Attorney Murthy : The Yates Memo seems to imply that working for a company set up by a person who is being employed by that company is possible, though one could argue that it is not that clear. Self employment by itself with no corporate shell is more of a problem since same or similar "employment" is required under AC21 law, implying that "employment" of some sort is required. It may be safer to be employed by a company owned by the person, though this issue has not been legally tested to date, to my knowledge, in any published opinion.
 
can_card said:
Chat User : Is self employment portability safe under the AC21 180-day portability by the Yates Memo?

Attorney Murthy : The Yates Memo seems to imply that working for a company set up by a person who is being employed by that company is possible, though one could argue that it is not that clear. Self employment by itself with no corporate shell is more of a problem since same or similar "employment" is required under AC21 law, implying that "employment" of some sort is required. It may be safer to be employed by a company owned by the person, though this issue has not been legally tested to date, to my knowledge, in any published opinion.
Click to expand...

See. this is what I was trying to infer. even murthy said "though this issue has not been legally tested to date, to my knowledge, in any published opinion". We are well aware of the theory about AC21 provision however it will be a huge risk if one opts for invoking AC21 under self employment as I said before.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top