The draft memo entitled Determining Whether a New Job is in “the Same or a Similar Occupational Classification” for Purposes of Section 204(j) Job Portability can be found here.
The draft memo entitled Determining Whether a New Job is in “the Same or a Similar Occupational Classification” for Purposes of Section 204(j) Job Portability can be found here.
Question is what does this memo serves to achieve ? After all it is just a memo. USCIS already has a memo for this purpose which is similar to this.
Well USCIS is an India-hater (and generally speaking world-hater) organization. I would be mighty surprised if there is anything positive in it. If anything I would expect them to set the clock back.Quote:
Originally Posted by gcq
If you contrast it to the previous FAQ document, the draft memo has significantly more discussion and examples than previously seen. Even the earlier document is well over 4 years old and is not even a Memo. All previous Memos are 10-12 years old and not all dealt with this subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by gcq
In particular, the discussion on career progression and changes of SOC code is far more extensive.
It's a no-win situation for both sides, since it can never be comprehensive (even if it were a 500 page memo). I do think it fails to discuss certain areas where guidance is necessary for both sides.
I think it also has to be seen in the context of the upcoming rule making, which will deal with the same subject. That's much more than a Memo.
After all the reading and discussions seems to me that 'nothing is better than non sense' is the better option for USCIS.
I-485 is filed because a visa number is available; before the case is worked, if the date retrogresses, it is absolutely absurd that the USCIS continues to hound people over this matter. If the GC had indeed been granted, would the GC-holder still have to stay in the same job/classification for years on end? NO.
When the application is pre-adjudicated but not adjudicated owing to lack of visa numbers, the burden of maintaining employment in the same field must end.
Here is an analogy: If I am standing in line to be served at McDonalds, and when my turn comes up and if my food is not ready, do I get back to the end of the line and be served only when I move up again to the front?
I read through the document and found it to be quite reasonable. It did seem like it was trying to see the applicant's point of view within the boundaries of what is allowed under the law. The discussion of SOC codes is very relevant as it provides a very concrete and quantifiable aspect of providing evidence to USCIS. If your new job falls under the same SOC code then you are good. If it is close enough on the same tree branch then you are likely good as well. That's hard enough evidence for most cases.
I specifically looked at my case and turns out that my old job and new job have the SOC number. So that is at least something that has not gone horribly wrong.
I agree but its not USCIS who is to blame here. They are following the law in this case - its how AC21 was written. Fault lies with Congress here and not USCIS.
Have there been many cases of USCIS denying approval based on AC21's similar-job clause? My feeling was that USCIS has generally been quite permissive in this area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nbk1976