W2 for last 2 years

G

gcworthy

Registered Users (C)
For the last 2 years I have got very low pay due to economic downturn. If BCIS asks for W2 for last two years and if they find out my salary has been very less, then will that effect my GC?.

How can I resolv this issue ?
Can anyone suggest a good attorney in LA or Bay Area to deal with this kind of situation if it arises ?

Thanks in advance:confused:
 
Technically

GC is for future employment. The best for you would be if BCIS does not ask for W2s. But if this happens you can argue that your salary upon approval will be in the range specified in your application to the Labor department. To do so – you will need to show a current pay stub(s), or at least an employment verification letter that states salary equal to the one in LC.
You will need an attorney to prepare this RFE for you and/or appear on the interview with you if there is one conducted by BCIS.
For now - my advice is – Wait 180 day from the date you applied and then don't stop looking for a better job.
Good luck.
 
Georgi,

Do you mean to say I can tell BCIS that I will get that amount as per the LC on approval ?. My current salary does not match that figure.

Will producing a letter from my company which states that on approval they will so much is OK?
 
*SIGH* I have answered this question atleast 3 times in the past week alone! I think it is definitely time to FAQ this question as well.

gcworthy,

If you are not interested in searching the archives, here is the long story, short version:
1. Yes
2. Yes
To both your questions. Search up the archives for more detailed posts!
 
gcworthy,

140_takes_4ever answered your questions but just to elaborate one more time:
“Do you mean to say I can tell BCIS that I will get that amount as per the LC on approval?”
Yes – you can say whatever you want to BCIS – in this case technically you will be right and in the letter of the law.
“Will producing a letter from my company which states that on approval they will (pay) so much is OK?”
Yes – this should be good enough since GC is for future employment.

Now – will they buy your answer – nobody knows. That was the reason I said: Don’t stop looking for a better job. It’s much safer to have the right salary than to rely on the abilities of your attorney to convince BCIS and to relay on the mood of some immigration officer.

Good luck.
 
gcworthy,

if you do what the previous posters suggested and INS will not be satisfied, they most likely issue another RFE for your company's tax returns for all years since your LC was approved (or filed, don't exactly remember). They could ask for only three most recent years, though.

When they won't be satisfied with your company financial situation, then your AOS will be denied. Appealing won't do much good, too.

So, if you feel that your company is not doing well recently and continues to deteriorate, you should probably start looking for a new job. The sooner, the better.
 
Originally posted by BitterMan
When they won't be satisfied with your company financial situation, then your AOS will be denied. Appealing won't do much good, too.
Click to expand...
Get's worse. We already know from the Krishnamoorthy case in Chicago that if one tries a lawsuit, BCIS will try to pull the following argument:
"§ 242(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) divests this court of jurisdiction to review it because it constitutes a "judgment regarding the granting of relief."

In this case, since it can be argued that this IS a matter discreationary decision, § 242 DOES preclude a court from reviewing it.

ADDED LATER: Strikes me that one can possibly still counter that there is no basis in law to challenge an EVL, but somehow I don't really believe that...:(
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BitterMan

You brought very interesting point:
“They could ask for only three most recent years, though”
Could you elaborate on this, please?
Do you mean BCIS could ask for:
1. ONLY three most recent W2s?
2. ONLY three most recent company's tax returns?
3. Both?

What is your statement based on?

Thanks
 
Re: BitterMan

Originally posted by georgi
You brought very interesting point:
“They could ask for only three most recent years, though”
Could you elaborate on this, please?
Do you mean BCIS could ask for:
1. ONLY three most recent W2s?
2. ONLY three most recent company's tax returns?
3. Both?

What is your statement based on?

Thanks
Click to expand...

My statement is based on what I have seen reviewing Administrative Decisions. INS uses employer's tax returns to identify whether it can really offer a salary at the level stated in LC. Usually they require all returns beginning with the LC filing (or was it approval, again?). But I can speculate that considering current processing times, they may ask for only three most recent years.

Asking for W2's in the first place gives INS an opportunity to see whether the employer is able to pay the proffered salary the easy way, although they may pursue other goals with that.
 
Add to BitterMan, Niladri30 and georgi's comments:

Even if INS turns a blind eye to the company finances, they could still approve your GC and then flag it for later review, if you aren't pulling the kind of money you 'STATED' in the EVL, then your GC can still be revoked!

Thanks a lot guys, this repeat question is definitely throwing more light on the situation!
 
guys, you are very conservative

Originally posted by BitterMan
<...>
Asking for W2's in the first place gives INS an opportunity to see whether the employer is able to pay the proffered salary the easy way, although they may pursue other goals with that.
Click to expand...


Tax returns, W2 are asked to detect a fraud, non-existent company, created to pull someone into the country. Actually, this is happening now on the H1B stage. If the business is bona fide, company can be in the red for several reasons, and it is very unlikely INS will deny or revoke GC on these grounds. We are in restructuring, we are in the stage of aggresive growth, so we need such and such workforce! That's it.
You forget, this is the land of business, not ausweisscontrole, and I hope it will stay this way :).

Originally posted by 140_takes_4ever
<...>

Even if INS turns a blind eye to the company finances, they could still approve your GC and then flag it for later review, if you aren't pulling the kind of money you 'STATED' in the EVL, then your GC can still be revoked!

<...>
Click to expand...

140,
how about i'm a free man after GC+ 6 month? or they gonna chase me all my life?
 
Re: guys, you are very conservative

Originally posted by ND022202
Tax returns, W2 are asked to detect a fraud, non-existent company, created to pull someone into the country. Actually, this is happening now on the H1B stage. If the business is bona fide, company can be in the red for several reasons, and it is very unlikely INS will deny or revoke GC on these grounds. We are in restructuring, we are in the stage of aggresive growth, so we need such and such workforce! That's it.
Click to expand...

OK, I can easily agree with the "fraud" component of your statement.

But as far as the "growth" goes... well... INS usually requires a hard proof that hiring such and such individual is actually going to help to generate more profit, so the company will be able to pay the individual's salary. That's for H-1B. When on GC stage, if the company already employs the said individual, then talking about "growth" is irrelevant, because hiring this individual already proved that whatever profit increase it incurred, it was not enough to sustain the proffered salary.
 
Re: guys, you are very conservative

Originally posted by ND022202
140,
how about i'm a free man after GC+ 6 month? or they gonna chase me all my life?
Click to expand...

6 months is it! :) Atleast in my opinion. If they come after me beyond that, I will just go back home and say screw your freaking GC! If I hadn't invested so many years in this process, I would go back tomorrow!
 
Re: Re: guys, you are very conservative

Originally posted by BitterMan
<...>
When on GC stage, if the company already employs the said individual, then talking about "growth" is irrelevant, because hiring this individual already proved that whatever profit increase it incurred, it was not enough to sustain the proffered salary.
Click to expand...

BM, I disagree :(, hiring a single employee proves nothing about profitability; moreover, taxes always reflect past performance, so, if the question is still raised by INS guys, company just respond that we are about to double in size during the two next years, let us care about our business! (that is, piss off government fella :))

However, I can point out another reason for revoking GC ;)(courtesy my lawyer). Anytime well into stage of having GC, the company can be subject to INS audit on how fair they conducted LC process, and if any fraud or misrepresenting the facts is revealed, here you go... For instance, if company did not post a job opening poster in an unobstructed location on the premises.
 
ND022202,

doubling in size means nothing to the revenues. In fact, majority of companies which double, triple or grow even more within a year are doomed to go under very quickly. I've seen it happen. Wise ones realized their mistakes and cut the losses downsizing back to the original size. Without serious restructuring, it is simply impossible to double a company's size (say, from 200 to 400 employees) and remain stable.

To be reasonable about it, INS should require a clear business plan on how doubling the staff will make possible to sustain salaries for both present and hired employees (including the non-immigrant/future immigrant individual in question). And then deny the case as a matter of personal discretion :)
 
Originally posted by BitterMan
<...>
INS should require a clear business plan on how doubling the staff will make possible to sustain salaries for both present and hired employees (including the non-immigrant/future immigrant individual in question). And then deny the case as a matter of personal discretion :)
Click to expand...

and you fight back and win with a good lawyer, if the whole thing is not a fraud.
 
Hi all,

I want to share the fiollwing response I got from Sheels Murthy's site :


In general, one should respond truthfully to RFEs and submit all the information the CIS (former INS) is requesting.

In employment based cases, it is important that the applicant be employed by the sponsoring company in the job set forth in the labor certification at the time that the greencard is approved. Although there is no requirement that the applicant be employed in this job while the greencard is pending, the CIS may look to this as a factor in determining whether the sponsoring company is able to pay the applicant's salary. That is, the CIS considers present employment with the sponsoring company to be very good evidence of the company's intention and ability to employ the applicant upon approval of the greencard. However, this is not a legal requirement, and generally the more important thing is to be able to demonstrate that the applicant will be employed in that job at the time the adjustment application is approved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top