why salary needs to be >= LC salary for AC21?

A

abhi123

Registered Users (C)
Hello,

I saw some postings here and on murthy.com that BCIS has recently expressed the view that in case of AC21 the pay for the new job needs to be >= salary mentioned on LC.

My view is LC is required to prove that there is no US citizens available for the job. If the LC salary is, say, 75K and we don't find any US citizens interested in the job, do you think we will find US citizens for the job if the pay is < LC salary? I guess 'NO'. I would guess that if a LC is valid for 75k, then it should be valid for <75k as long as it is above provery level.

Then why does BCIS want to make sure that if a person changes job using AC21, the salary needs to be >=LC salary?

Given the condition of economy, a lot of people might need to use AC21 and in this slow economy it is vey hard to find a job that is >=LC salary (which in most cases was filed almost 2/3 years ago during the boom period)

Your thoughts?
Thx,
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Using AC21 you can also change "Geographical" regions so the LC should not have meaning.?

The Ac21 only talks about 140 approval & pending 485 , so as long as these conditions ( also same job) are met you should be fine.

It is always good to keep your case as "clean" as possible , but sometimes it might become unavoidable.==> so if this new job is your lifeline take it !!
 
SALARY Change from LC

If lower salary than LC salary is an issue,higher is also an issue as it can also change job requirements.This means you are promoted and no longer doing same job as on LC.
 
Per Murthy.com recent chat, BCIS has verbally said that in case of AC21, the salary has to be >= salary on labor in addition to same or similar job.

If BCIS sticks to this view, then it will be very difficult for thousands of potential immigrants to get GC in this soft economy.

People who have been laid off or close to lay off, might not be able get a job which pays the salary on the labor since most of the cases the labor was filed around 1.5 yrs to 2 yrs ago when the economy was booming.
 
abhi123,

Infact recently I saw a RFE wherein it is implied that it is OK to be not employed at 485 adjudiciation time. BCIS only wanted a confirmation that you will not be a public discharge. A document mentioning your financial position was sought.
 
AC21 salary

AC21 regulation signed by clinton is far from a law. It does not state anything as mandatory that INS currently says is reqd

Per my understanding, there are two wages in your LC.
1) Prevailing wages
2) Actual wages

Prevailing wage is the avg salary your employer pays to the same/similar job title in your company. eg: 85K, 80K, 90K are paid to 3 employees with title "Software Engr", then the prevailing wage for "Software Engr" is 85K.

Actual wage is your actual wage.

From what my attorney as well as Mr. Rajeev Khanna advised me, the GC sponsoring employer has to pay atleast 95% of the prevailing wages for the job. (In the above case, 95% of 85K = 81K approx).

In AC21, this would mean the new employer has to pay atleast 95% of the prev wages. In addition the job description "should" be similar.

There are so many unanswered qns free to everyone's interpretations esp wrt geographical relocation etc

In short, if you have >= LC salary, similar job, almost same location, AC21 is a no brainer. If you dont have some or all of the above, you probably would need a good lawyer.
 
According to my attorney, as long as you are earning more than 30K (meaing not a burden to Govt.) and job duties are similar to LC, there is no problem. He also says Geographical location of new job does not matter.
 
petestone,

Here U go. The RFE (in VSC) is as under.

" Submit an original letter on company letterhead from your current employer. This letter should provide your date of hire, duties, remuneration, and your prospects for continued employment. If you have changed employers since your Form I-485 was submitted, you must also submit evidence to show the date you ended your employment with the previous employer(s).

If you are not currently employed, provide updated evidence to establish that you are not likely to become a public charge. Such evidence might include, but is not limited to:
a) a Form I-134 completed by a finacial sponsor (the sponsor must comply with the instructions of the form);
b) investment portfolio information, bank letters or statements, or similar material showing your current assets;
or,
c) other evidence you feel appropriate to the requirement. "

Look at the second paragraph of the RFE. This is what I meant in my earlier post.

The full details are available at
http://boards.immigration.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=84913

Not sure what finally happenned to the guy who had this RFE.
 
Thanks GCseeker

If this is true,this is a direction in right step by BCIS.After all AC21 was made to make our life simpler and not complicate it.
 
Financial Docs

Originally posted by GCSeekerInd
abhi123,

Infact recently I saw a RFE wherein it is implied that it is OK to be not employed at 485 adjudiciation time. BCIS only wanted a confirmation that you will not be a public discharge. A document mentioning your financial position was sought.
Click to expand...

GCSeekerInd:
Are financial docs required as part of I-485 application package? Folks, have people found that showing proof of funds has helped in cases where AC21 was used or no job offer was found?
 
Financial Docs

Someone mentioned about an RFE stating that the applicant does not become a liability on the state; so if strong financial documents are supplied with 485 EB application, can that positively impact an otherwise weak case?
 
usimmgr,

What do you mean by otherwise weak case? It depends on the reasons for its weakness, I guess.

Not sure whether anybody got approved with financial statements and no job offer.Infact it is a contradiction. Our GC is employment based and if U do not have job then GC processing is void. Isn' it so? This is one intrepretation other one is a liberal one considering the economy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top