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,
 
Abhi123,

The reason why the BCIS would prefer one having the salary >= LC Salary while changing jobs is very straightforward ...

The whole purpose of the LC is to try and locate a US citizen who has :-

1> The necessary skills the job

2> Can work for that pay ...

Most LC's get cleared because it really is in the hands of the employer to decide whether a person is qualified for the job or not ....no one can question that ....and on top of that ...most companies post ads in papers and "select" the candidate they want ...thus proving to the labor dept. that they couldn;t find a person with that skill set and that salary ....so it usually never comes down to the condition 2>

In case of a AC-21, the process is slightly different ..the problem comes when the officer handling a case notices the change of job and the salary difference .....

In this case ....if the salary is below LC salary ....then that gives the officer an upper hand to deny /challenge the application.

Everyone knows the market situation and there are scores of people willing to take huge pay cuts to be in jobs ....and now there are many more skilled people than there are jobs ..hence you might have noticed that getting labor clearance these days is not easy at all .....hence it is not hard for an officer to prove that there are people ( Citizens ) willing to work for that salary with the required skill sets and the applicant may not have a strong case ...whereas in the case of LC ....the proof is much more convincing as this involves paper ads and "selection" process ...


Hope this answers Ur. concern ....


Maxx.
 
light lo (take it light).
Nobody is ever denied GC because of current salary < LC salary,
even though most of the people getting RFE have used AC21 and their current salaries are less than LC salary.
Some BCIS officials always look for excuses to frighten us, but they don't have guts to act on their threats.
 
Maxx,
The way I read AC21 is it's to free the applicant in case BCIS take longer than 180 days to decide on I-485. AC21 is on the side of applicant not on the side of BCIS.

If BCIS take 5 years to finalize on I-485, does that mean the applicant have to wait with his/her hand tight all that 5 years? It's BCIS's fault not to be able to speed up and hence AC21 was introduced to give some relief to the applicant.

It is assumed that once the applicant get GC, he is supposed to work for the sponsoring company for 180 days. Hence AC21 has 180 days with the view that the applicant has worked for 180 days for sponsoring co after applying for I-485.

This is my view.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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,

I agree with Ur. view ....I understand that the AC-21 was introduced to give some relief to the applicant. If BCIS takes say 5 years ...of course no one expects the applicant to sit tight ....move on to other jobs ...


You mentioned that AC-21 is on the side of the applicant...agreed ...but the decision making is in the hands of BCIS ....the whole purpose of a GC is very simple ...if there is an American citizen willing to work for a pay x and has the neccessary qualifications and experience ....then there is no need to get an immigrant to fill the job ....that's the bottomline ...

Now if a candidate leaves after 6 months and joins another co. and draws a salary way below the LC salary ...then from the point of view of BCIS ...don;t you think they could raise an objection ? because ..when the applicant leaves ( it's usually because the co. that hired him/her no longer can provide them with the job ) ....then here we are in a situation where an immigrant is not in a job and if the next job he/she takes can easily be filled by an American ...then don;t U think BCIS has a point here ?

U mentioned that because of this ...thousands of potential immigrants may be not get their GC's ...

The logic behind this is very simple ....If the supply does not meet the demand ..get people from outside to work ...but if it does .... U know the rest of the answer ....

Back in the 70 's ...there was a tremendous demand for doctors ...you know what the situation is right now ....

Hope this makes my point of view clearer ...


Maxx
 
abhi123

Abhi,
My case is AC21 and I was making 20% less than my LC salary in the month of March... actually when RFE was issued (april 17)same pay period my company reduced my salary by another 15% so final figure 33% less than LC salary (i am making 33% less than LC right now but will be back by end of the month).

Replied RFE stating that I company wants to keep me at the salary (before the 15% reduction) and send 6 pay stubs out which 5 were at salary 20% less and one was 33% less than LC salary.

Case approved 14 May... I don't know if this latest is june or May...

I would say nothing to worry...

Good Luck

Almost_there :)
 
Infact there was a RFE I saw recently in this forum where it was implied that being not employed is OK !! BCIS only wanted a confirmation that the applicant will not be public discharge. They wanted a document confirming the same.

So BCIS does know the prevalent market/job situation and I think is sympathetic to the applicants.
 
not_there_yet,
Good to see your case. It gives some hope to a lot of people in this down economy and hope BCIS keeps doing it the same way.

maxx,
I knid of agree and disagree with you.

I guess AC21 emphasizes more on job description than salary. Salary is a fluctuating factor..goes up and down with economy.

If company, now in this down economy, can't pay the salary that it mentioned on the LC 2 years ago and still wants to employ the applicant since company can't find suitable candidate, what would company do?

Plus it's neither the fault of company nor the fault of applicant that the economy has gone down.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top