"your type of work" matters NOT the company u stay

[wurzbach]

, people who went through CP would be treated differently. That would mean such people would have a different class of GCs. Since that's obviously not the case, your argumentation is clearly wrong.

That is the other point I want to say last night.

Yes, there is defference between CP and APS. To get GC through CP, the burden on both employers and employees is much lighter than to get GC through APS becasue you have no long time waiting for the approval of I-485.

Technically, CP is more like the application for nonimmigrant visas. For nonimmigrant visas, the officers issuing those visas are required to evaluate the intention of the applicants to stay with those nonimmigrant status. And those nonimmigrants bear the burden to maintain their continuing eligibility of their nonimmigrant status after they enter US. If CP officers use the same or similar standard to process GC, it is possible that they do evaluate the intention of CP applicants and it is possible for the so called "rapid course of events" theory to be used against CP GC holders because CP applicants have never worked for the employers before they get the LPS.

this is not to say that the GCs are different for APS and CP applicants. GCs are the same. But the same card does not guarantte that you would be safe to the same extent. The obvious example is marriage-based GC. No one denies that your fiancee receives a different GC. But she does receive different treatment after she gets the card. right?

hope eveyone here got GC through APS, not from CP.

 

[wurzbach]

an amateur and dilettante like you.

?????

so funny? you do not know me, you do not know what I am doing, how can you make these determination????

Is this an example of your argument phylosophy of making determinations or conclusions without any supporting evidences?

 

[pralay]

just try to infer what you wrote:

it means that the competetiveness part comes in the way that you dont have to lock urself/ur type of work to a single company (and redo the same procedure- jsut because u changed ur company) but rather change the company as long as u have the same/similar job detail.
- so USCIS is interested in your type of work not the shell/company you are in.
the whole discussion is - do we have to stick witha company. ur portability law says different- thats were the competetiveness in 21st century comes- not some lame procedure to expedite giving ur GC.
with losing this advantage after getting GC- it technically goes into uncompetetiveness.

Well, it's not a question if "USCIS is interested", but what congress was interested. And congress never spelled out that "we don't care about company, but what matters is the type of work". As I said earlier, if they were really interested for that kind of immigration reform, they would make EB2, EB2 just like self-petitioned EB1 - where only "type of work" matters.
But the reality is that, congress did not do that. Now, it's was upto USCIS to interpret that law what congress enacted. And as usual, USCIS did not step beyond pending I-485. Lots of conditions were relaxed over time with various discussion with AILA and USCIS provided morememo with relaxed guideline over time in last three years. But USCIS's interpretation is still narrow and applies to only pending I-485.

Regarding your comment "losing this advantage after getting GC". What advantage you are talking about? Do you consider "changing job is an advantage" and congress is glad that you are doing it everyday? When it comes to employment GC, working for certain employer "parmanently" is a advantage - because you were working in "temporary position" until you got yopur GC (H1 or L1). AC21 law allows beneficiary to find an alternate "permanent position" without jeopardizing pending GC process.

 

[pralay]

do not stay evil and belittle westlaw and lexisnexis just becasue you do not know about them or do not have accounts to access them. Even the respectful attorney of this website is relying on westlaw and lexisnexis.

No offense.

A tool is only as good as the mechanic. I don't think you have shown any sign that you are a good mechanic. You just happened to have a good tool.

 

[pralay]

That's one point I want to say last night. Everyone agrees that AC21 was intended by Congress to relieve the burden on both employers and employees due to the long time waiting of thGC processing

That's why I said earlier that people who got affected by "long time waiting" probably can have a valid argument for changing job immediately after getting GC. But every case is not same. I know there are people who got approved within 90 days after applying I-485 (in pilot program). Over and over I said, every case is different. You cannot give a blanket statement that AC21 allows you to change job immediately after getting GC - without looking into all the facts in those specific cases.

Secondly, your previous position was that people don't need any intent after applying I-485. So why are you arguing in favor of AC21 anyway (which needs atleast 180 days of waiting after applying I-485)? AC21 does not fit into your argument. If I go by your argument, people would be able to invoke AC21 next day after applying for I-485. As usual you are unable keep your position in one single place.

 

[pralay]

Yes, there is defference between CP and APS. To get GC through CP, the burden on both employers and employees is much lighter than to get GC through APS becasue you have no long time waiting for the approval of I-485.

As usual you have no idea what you are talking about. In fact, after visa number retrogression people in CP have to wait for as long time as AOS applicants.

Technically, CP is more like the application for nonimmigrant visas. For nonimmigrant visas, the officers issuing those visas are required to evaluate the intention of the applicants to stay with those nonimmigrant status. And those nonimmigrants bear the burden to maintain their continuing eligibility of their nonimmigrant status after they enter US. If CP officers use the same or similar standard to process GC, it is possible that they do evaluate the intention of CP applicants and it is possible for the so called "rapid course of events" theory to be used against CP GC holders because CP applicants have never worked for the employers before they get the LPS.

You are creative enough to prove your point (just like your constitutional argument, Ghaly's case, Singh's asylum case or deportation of citizen's spouse case). Now you are comparing with non-immigrant visa. In fact most of people who go for CP happen to be already employed by their GC sponsors. So when it comes to "intent", I don't see any difference between someone who chose the path of CP and some one chose the path of AOS.

BTW, you are also talking about "intention" now

The obvious example is marriage-based GC. No one denies that your fiancee receives a different GC. But she does receive different treatment after she gets the card. right?

And according your argument, someone who got marriage based GC through AOS is different from someone who got marriage based GC through CP, right? And probably, GC through AOS does not have 2 year condition Am I right?

 

[TheEnquirer]

its very debatable - ur point about changing jobs - and congress position on it.
frankly i dont think congress gives a hoot. all they want is to make sure the cmpanies are doing good - and economy is growing. now u can debate that one company would want to keep the employer"permanently". but if u take it collectively - the companies always ask for more available employees (ex:like more h1B workers from outside).more dynamic workers here in US to suit their dynamic needs. likewise congress knows that the competetive spirit of companies and hence economy grows - if its an open market situation.
so arguing that congress will be happy if u just stay put ina company doesnt hold much water.
now while making laws for work based GC- they obviously have to be careful that nobody misuses the law. the reason they ask for intent ( i do agree when they started this law - they equated intent with company- but they later got rid of that) is to make sure they dont bring in immigrants who claim to do one thing and after getting GC - become a competetion for americans in other field.
for ex: if there is a nursing shortage and congress says ok lets bring in more nurses form outside. they have to very careful not to go in a situation in which 1000 people claim to be nurses getting a GC- only a day later legally go and work in construction - where there is unemplyment in US)
so they have this whole intent - which is true- how can they go about enforcing it - well the companies are their only means- so they make sure companies are responsible for this.
now comes the real point. what if the nurse wants to change the hospital she is working. from congress point of view its fine - its good to have such flexibility so that not each and every company have to go thru the reigorous process of immigration. is it good for that oen hospital - no. is it good for the economy - in one word absolutely.

Regarding your comment "losing this advantage after getting GC". What advantage you are talking about? Do you consider "changing job is an advantage" and congress is glad that you are doing it everyday? When it comes to employment GC, working for certain employer "parmanently" is a advantage - because you were working in "temporary position" until you got yopur GC (H1 or L1). AC21 law allows beneficiary to find an alternate "permanent position" without jeopardizing pending GC process.

 

[sg1973]

Guys,
Can somebody answer this question? If it is a problem to leave the employer soon after GC or say 6-months after GC, I am not sure how it would apply to labor substitution cases using AC 21? I wonder why USCIS/Congress did not exclude AC21 for the labor substitution cases as (part of) their intention to bring AC21 was to ease the burden on employees who stayed with the employer too long. Don't you think they would have, if they wanted to, impose a restriction indicating AC21 is only for original labor alien?
Whats confusing me is there is a direct indication of a possibility of misuse with AC21 & subsctitution, where it is obvious that the employee can leave them 6 months into 485 without spending much time and thus showing lack of intent and we are here spending so much time discussing what is possibly right or wrong with already approved GC cases?

 

[mitroloz03]

What my lawyer said ....

I had a casual meeting with my lawyer who is local, low key and pretty straight forward when asked for advice. Part of our quick and 'free' conversation was this intent and after GC hassle. When asked about these issues her is his exact words:

"Manage to work for whoever sponsored you for at least 6 months. Then its your life ..."

So, in my opinion, what JoeF and Pralay are proactively defending in this forum is true; just work for half a year for the sponsor and then sleep tight!

 

[TheEnquirer]

wrong. congress did not make arule that says if u leave ur company too soon then u havent shown intent.

what ur saying here is exactly what u have been saying all along. intent should be there when applying for GC. people got that long time ago.
and the arguement has moved further in how to show the intent.

basically.....
i can prove to an immidgration judge and convince him that i had a right intent when i applied for GC - even if i change the company the first day and keep my GC
and also even if u work in a company for 1 year/2 year (since again congress hasnt passed a lwa) still its possible to prove u did not have the right intent at the time of applying and take away the GC

absence of clear law in this case is acknowledged by all. but that does not mean that the only way u can prove intent is to blindly stay with a company for so and so months. one of the ways may be - not the only way.

Frankly, Congress has written the law in a specific way, and that's the way that matters.
It doesn't matter a bit what you think. It doesn't matter if you think Congress doesn't "give a hoot." Fact is, Congress has written the law in a particular way, and that's how it is.
Not just in another field. For example, Google is not going to be very happy if they sponsor your GC and as soon as you have it, you go across town to Yahoo...
The employees are responsible for this. If the job at the company doesn't exist anymore, the GC process is over. If the employee doesn't have the intent to work for the company, the GC process is also over. If the employee hides his change of intent, the employee can lose his GC.
From the law's view, which is the only view that matters, it would only be ok if the nurse didn't have the intent to change the employer when he or she got the GC.
It is of course not good for the original hospital, so your argument doesn't make sense. It is a null-sum game economy-wise. It is a clear violation of law if the nurse intended to change to another hospital when he or she got the GC.

 

[pralay]

frankly i dont think congress gives a hoot.

That's right. They don't give a hoot and that's why they did not change the law and keep most of the part as it is - without chaning the basic framework of EB GC. It only provided a relief for employers and employees. And technically it only applies for pending I-485. As I said, it's nothing but a short-circuit to change GC sponsor (to find another "perm position").

all they want is to make sure the cmpanies are doing good - and economy is growing. now u can debate that one company would want to keep the employer"permanently".

That's only your speculation. Congress did not say that.

so arguing that congress will be happy if u just stay put ina company doesnt hold much water.

I did not say that. You were equating "change of employemnt" with "advantage". I said that, congress made AC21 such a way that you will be able to find another "perm position" without jeopardizing your pending application. That itself is an "advantage". And congress provided exactly that. They are glad that you don't have to trash your pending GC process (which is probably pending for long time) to find another GC sponsor.

the reason they ask for intent ( i do agree when they started this law - they equated intent with company- but they later got rid of that) is to make sure they dont bring in immigrants who claim to do one thing and after getting GC - become a competetion for americans in other field.

Congress never got rid of "intent with specific employer". As I said before, that's why EB2, EB3 is not like a self-petitioned EB1 case. AC21 allows "port I-140" from specific company A to specific company B. In fact, if your argument is true, it becomes like wurzbach's argument that you only need intent to work for original GC sponsor at the time of filing I-485 (provided you stick with same type of work). If working in same type of field is the only factor, then why there is a 180 days waiting in AC21? That's the big falacy of your argument.

now comes the real point. what if the nurse wants to change the hospital she is working. from congress point of view its fine - its good to have such flexibility so that not each and every company have to go thru the reigorous process of immigration. is it good for that oen hospital - no. is it good for the economy - in one word absolutely.

Again, AC21 explicitly does not address this kind of changes. Again, you have to know the background how AC21 law was enacted. It only addreses pending I-485 issues. Neither USCIS's interpretations (memos) address changing job "anytime", but only address for pending I-485s. Anything beyond is plain speculation. My speculation is that, people whose I-485 are delayed for awhile (more than 6 months or 1 year), probabbly covered by AC21 (even if they change job after getting GC). But it does not cover every case.

 

[TheEnquirer]

thats exactly what i wanted you to answer.
so instead of going into a word mumbo jumbo
lets reiterate the point

nobody in this forum says that - staying with the company for 6 or so months is the only way for you to prove your intent. it may be one of the ways not the only way.
so folks who have left early - when it comes to the point that ur GC is taken away ( ver rare for this to happen)- in ur day of court - u can always show intent by more than one means. one of the way is my arguement that eventhough u changed ur company u did not change the line of work.

Do not try to twist my words.
The law says that you have to have the good faith intent to work for the employer.
There are several ways to show evidence that you had that intent. Working for the employer for some time is just the easiest one.
Hmm, your post shows quite well that a lot of people, including you, still don't get it. You need to have the good faith intent to work for the employer when you apply for the I-485, continuing through the process (the only part that got relaxed with AC21), and when the GC is approved.
Since when has that argument moved? I have stated a long time ago, and maintained in all these threads, that working for the employer for some time is one way to show that you had the intent. There are others. So, what's your argument exactly???
No. You need to have the intent not only when you applied for the I-485, you need to have that intent when you become a PR.
There is never absolute security. It all depends on the individual circumstances, and was mentioned over and over.
Yeah, I have said that for ages. So what's your problem then?
You still have to have the good faith intent to work for the employer when the GC is approved.

 

[TheEnquirer]

nobody argues that AC21 holds good for after GC. (as per the law).
what i was saying is the pretext in which AC21 is written.
so yes its speculation ( i have been telling this form day one)
but how dou speculate - one of the ways is my arguement
again folks here can understand better when i say that - go beyond the written law into the actual reasoning for AC21(other than just a procedureal expedite) and you have a good reason to speculate.
again iam saying speculate - not giving a green light.
(that is clear :- when i say that if ur GC is taken away - u can say this to the judge and try to convince him)

ofcourse - as my headnote previously says - if u havent moved already - one of the best weapons you have to show intent is to stick with the company as long as u can. BUT there are other cases just FYI ................

That's right. They don't give a hoot and that's why they did not change the law and keep most of the part as it is - without chaning the basic framework of EB GC. It only provided a relief for employers and employees. And technically it only applies for pending I-485. As I said, it's nothing but a short-circuit to change GC sponsor (to find another "perm position").




That's only your speculation. Congress did not say that.




I did not say that. You were equating "change of employemnt" with "advantage". I said that, congress made AC21 such a way that you will be able to find another "perm position" without jeopardizing your pending application. That itself is an "advantage". And congress provided exactly that. They are glad that you don't have to trash your pending GC process (which is probably pending for long time) to find another GC sponsor.



Congress never got rid of "intent with specific employer". As I said before, that's why EB2, EB3 is not like a self-petitioned EB1 case. AC21 allows "port I-140" from specific company A to specific company B. In fact, if your argument is true, it becomes like wurzbach's argument that you only need intent to work for original GC sponsor at the time of filing I-485 (provided you stick with same type of work). If working in same type of field is the only factor, then why there is a 180 days waiting in AC21? That's the big falacy of your argument.





Again, AC21 explicitly does not address this kind of changes. Again, you have to know the background how AC21 law was enacted. It only addreses pending I-485 issues. Neither USCIS's interpretations (memos) address changing job "anytime", but only address for pending I-485s. Anything beyond is plain speculation. My speculation is that, people whose I-485 are delayed for awhile (more than 6 months or 1 year), probabbly covered by AC21 (even if they change job after getting GC). But it does not cover every case.

 

[TheEnquirer]

no its not default that it "would be the confirmation that you didn't have the intent to work for the employer"

honestly one could have all the intent of working with an employer when gettign the GC -only later a few days to find a newer company.
my point is while its true that staying with a company for so and so months may be a good proof of ur intention the converse of it doesnt mean u did not have an intent.
u r actually giving the folks in the forum a wrong advice - by saying that they should not argue wtih this point if their case comes into court.
(again the folks that iam refering to -are already out of the company - keep that in mind)
looks like the only advice these people get after reading ur posts - is NOTHING. (other than to giveaway their GC)

I have posted that over and over. No need to reiterate that...
And that argument won't fly, unless your category is EB1, where only the field matters.
The GC is for a specific job in a specific company. Your good faith intent is to work in that specific job in that specific company.
Your argument would be the confirmation that you didn't have the intent to work for the employer...

 

[pralay]

what i was saying is the pretext in which AC21 is written.

And that's where we mainly differ - why AC21 was passed.

From the background history - the economic condition when it was passed, the post 9/11 condition of INS/BCIS/USCIS (going through transitions and sitting with huge backlogs), my understanding is that, it was nothing but a relief for workers and employers - who were waiting GC for long time (employees). If you want to call it as "21st century uncompetitiveness" probably it is, because that's how we started our 21st century and that's the situation the AC21 law was passed.

You understanding is that AC21 law is actually abolish the employer-specific concept from GC process. And that is the basic spirit of the law.

The irony is that after visa number retrogression, many people won't be able to file I-485 immediately after their I-140 approvals. Therefore, AC21 law will be unreachable to people for a longer duration (21st centuary competitiveness indeed!). So, what USCIS backlog did for people in 2001,2002, 2003, visa number unavailablity do the same thing now. Again, AILA, lawmakers are talking about providing "relielf" for people who are already working in USA (so that they can atleast able to file I-485 without waiting for visa number). If that law passes someday, I guess you will call it another "uncompetitiveness"! Unfortunately, that's how AC21 was enacted and that how people will be able to file I-485 without waiting for visa number (hopefully in future).

 

[arizonian]

JoeF is a respectable member of this forum and he has offered nothing but cautious and well researched advise on the questions posed on this very interesting forum. We appreciate him being here.

 

[TheEnquirer]

Headnote/Disclaimer: If u have a choice to stay with a company for a few months after getting ur GC, pls do so. because the regulations are not explicit in this case- in case if it turns out to be aproblem later that u quit too soon - u have erred in side of caution.
if u r a risk taker - know ur risk before taking them. - iam sure after reading the posts you can evaluate THIS risk urself.

how i feel: zero/low risk if you have a straight forward case. risk level increases if u have some other complications in ur case

hi all - this is excerpts from my previous thread.

for the folks who are in a dilemma to quit ur job too soon or not - i think ur case has been "discussed"(to death) in this forum.
if u can get some tips other than the tunnel vision of one/two persons - i would be happy. ( so that u can decide for urselves ) again good luck

GroupB: group who already quit their sponsorer "soon". (or people who dont mind taking the risk to quit)

-this timeframe of "soon" could be from 1 day - 6 mo - 1year
and some cases in which they did not even join their sponserer/ AC21 company for one reason or other

Options for group B ONLY:


some valid points to look at:

- since u already quit "sooner" these things may happen

1. there may be some random checks where USCIS could ask the company if u r employed. (very rare- recently i heard of a case - search this forum)

2. dont jump into applying for ur citizenship immediately after u r eligible (5 yrs) - leave a year or two - in 99% of cases the last 5 years before apllying for citizenhip is what matters - so dont take risk -if u can afford

3. if u apply for something - that invloves going and checking ur history(how u got ur GC) - try to avoid.
- I dont know if u apply for ReentryPermit- whether they will check ur history - (REP is something that GC holders commonly apply among others)

4. depending on when u quit ur sponserer - there is a good chance that the year u got GC - u still can provide W2/ tax receipt from the sponsoring company - save that.

5. dont overstay ur REP - if u already got one

6.make sure u always travel (internationally) with proof - such as tax returns- bank statements - copy of any property you own- driving license- car regn...- utility bills if any- ...etc

7. make sure ur "employer at time of getting GC" is NOT going to create problems by putting a case against you. - or informing USCIS.

If you take all these precautions - the chances of even USCIS knowing that you quit too soon is very small.

Remember eventhough GreenCard is a privelege NOT a right - USCIS still needs a good reason to take away ur privelege - and have to explain that in the court. ( this is where ur "other" complications come if at all u have any)
lets say if for some reason u r unlucky . and USCIS revoked ur GC - then what u do.

first you get a hearing in the court (if they dont mention- u have the right to ask for it).(at this point u would hire an attorney)

when u and ur attoreny discuss - if he is not aware of this- mention the follwing to him - and see what he says. ( the attorney that i talked to said its a valid argument given the circumstances)

- that eventhough you changed the company you still are in the same/similar job category-

is it really a good argument point- its really up to the judge to decide it- but its better than just giving up ur GC.

- first never accept in front of a judge that you did not intent to stay with the employer when u applied/got ur GC.
-second tell them after u got ur GC - u saw this good oppurtunity - with the same/similar field in other company - and decided to pursue it in good faith.
and did not mean to commit any FRAUD (AC21 as everybody knows allows people to change the company - in same/similar job - and can only be used before I485 approval- and most judges are NOT zombies to just say - oops u didnt do it one day before I485 approval - so u r screwed - eventhough all of us know if the judge want to- he can very well say it - because thats how the LAW is written - nobody is arguing that. - the judges have a human side also - )

- At this point of time - its not a bad arguement at all.

 

[TheEnquirer]

good to see that moderator actually deleted useless (ego driven) fighting posts - and keeps only arguements
p.s: i also edited my previous post if u want to read it.

 

[TheEnquirer]

thats even better !!!!

People get scared amazingly fast. Are you intimidated that your posts could be deleted too? Relax, I deleted my own posts, no mod touched them. I am here not to bring confusion or anything like that. I deleted my posts because they became too personal and had nothing to do with the argument. But even then mods had enough respect not to delete them.

V.S.

 

[pralay]

6.make sure u always travel (internationally) with proof - such as tax returns- bank statements - copy of any property you own- driving license- car regn...- utility bills if any- ...etc

Just be careful about identity theft (tax return contains SSN, name, address, phone). If you travel with tax returns, the best options is blacking out SSN and then take photocopy (do not carry the blacked out copy because that still can have the impression of all the numbers). One of my friends tax return was stolen from a hotel in USA. Needless to mention, he is not having a good time to check his credit record regularly.

7. make sure ur "employer at time of getting GC" is NOT going to create problems by putting a case against you. - or informing USCIS.

Also keep a good relation so that they co-operate, if required.

- first never accept in front of a judge that you did not intent to stay with the employer when u applied/got ur GC.

This is very important. There are people who are arguing against the very existence of "intent". Arguing the same in front of immigration officer or immigration judge could be suicidal.

-second tell them after u got ur GC - u saw this good oppurtunity - with the same/similar field in other company - and decided to pursue it in good faith.

This is also important. It's better to keep circumstantial evidence of some events that caused you to leave your job after getting GC (and I think everybody is smart enough to figure out what are those things could be).