Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 158

Thread: AC21-Discussion

  1. #101
    edisonguy,

    I'll give you an example. I am starting an Indian Restaurant with whatever I have in hand, I need atleast a cook and a server. I am an employer now. I have two employees. I must have the ability to pay them whether or not I have sales/profit, for that I must have some reserve in the bank. Do you agree with it?

    Let me try to sponsor GC to a cook who is working in my restaurant, I don't know the prevailing wage, lets assume 40k per year. The law and the DL expects me to have that 40k in reserve as bank cash or assets or in any form of valuable which is worth 40k . I should have the ability to pay wages.

    What if one of the cook from my opponent willing to join me on EAD, who has I-485 pending, asking me to provide an EVL? Don't I need the ability to pay my cook no.2?

    USCIS is scrutinizing or not, what does the law expect from me? The Original poster 'almost' wanted discussions on law point of view, not from an escapee point of view.

    Are you not 'almost'???????

  2. #102
    Quote Originally Posted by edisonguy View Post
    There are may people who got approved under AC21 with self employment. I know personally somebody. Now please explain how your rule on permanent/fulltime fits in self employment.

    After 180 days, it all matters only with Same or Similar occupation.
    Self employment is still an employment (usually full time, at that). When an RFE is issued asking for an EVL(Employment Verification Letter), you would have to have an EVL from your employer. The employer could be you yourself.

    Regardless of AC21, EB (Employment Based) Visa will NOT be issued without a valid job offer from a legitimate and financially stable/viable/sustainable employer !!

    Whether the IO (Immigration Officer) verifies the job offer (one more time ) or not is a matter of discretion. There is hardly anyone getting a GC in FY 2014 before replying to an EVL RFE (along with Medicals).
    Last edited by pdfeb09; 08-27-2014 at 10:55 AM.

  3. #103
    Let me make it simple to understand. Without getting paid, nobody can stay in a job and its illegal. (May be that can happen in country like In***, where no enforcement of law. LoL)

    Ability to pay is a criteria to check at I-140 stage. In 485, under AC21 after 180 days has passed, there is no requirement in the checklist to verify the ability to pay.

    The requirement is only check whether the applicant is in same or similar occupation, getting paid without becoming a public discharge.




    Quote Originally Posted by Kanmani View Post
    edisonguy,

    I'll give you an example. I am starting an Indian Restaurant with whatever I have in hand, I need atleast a cook and a server. I am an employer now. I have two employees. I must have the ability to pay them whether or not I have sales/profit, for that I must have some reserve in the bank. Do you agree with it?

    Let me try to sponsor GC to a cook who is working in my restaurant, I don't know the prevailing wage, lets assume 40k per year. The law and the DL expects me to have that 40k in reserve as bank cash or assets or in any form of valuable which is worth 40k . I should have the ability to pay wages.

    What if one of the cook from my opponent willing to join me on EAD, who has I-485 pending, asking me to provide an EVL? Don't I need the ability to pay my cook no.2?

    USCIS is scrutinizing or not, what does the law expect from me? The Original poster 'almost' wanted discussions on law point of view, not from an escapee point of view.

    Are you not 'almost'???????

  4. #104
    Guru Spectator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    A Galaxy Far far Away
    Posts
    3,337
    Ability to pay is not a consideration when the applicant has used the AC21 I-140 portability provisions. I always thought that was a bit strange.

    These extracts from the 2005 AC-21 Memo probably cover the main points:

    Question 5. Should service centers or district officers use a difference in the wage offered on the approved labor certification and initial I-140, and the new employment as basis for denial in adjustment portability cases?

    Answer: No. As noted above the relevant inquiry is if the new position is the same or similar occupational classification to the alien’s I-140 employment. A difference in the wage offered on the approved labor certification, initial I-140 and the new employment cannot be used as a basis of a denial. However, a substantial discrepancy between the previous and the new wage may be taken into consideration as a factor in determining if the new employment is “same or similar.”


    Question 7. Should service centers or district offices request proof of “ability to pay” from successor employers in I-140 portability cases, in other words, from the new company/employer to which someone has ported?

    Answer: No. The relevant inquiry is whether the new position is in the same or similar occupational classification as the alien’s I-140 employment. It may be appropriate to confirm the legitimacy of a new employer and the job offer through an RFE to the adjustment applicant for relevant information about these issues. In an adjustment setting, public charge is also a relevant inquiry.


    Question 8. Can an alien port to self-employment under INA §204(j)?

    Answer: Yes, as long as the requirements are met.

    First, the key is whether the employment is in a "same or similar" occupational classification as the job for which the original I-140 petition was filed.

    Second, it may be appropriate to confirm that the new employer and the job offer are legitimate through an RFE to the adjustment applicant for relevant information about these issues.

    Third, as with any portability case, USCIS will focus on whether the I-140 petition represented the truly intended employment at the time of the filing of both the I-140 and the I-485. This means that, as of the time of the filing of the I-140 and at the time of filing the I-485 if not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have had the intent to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to undertake the employment, upon adjustment. Adjudicators should not presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate.


    Question 14. Must the alien have a new offer of employment at the time the I-485 is being adjudicated under the I-140 portability provisions?

    Answer: Yes. The alien cannot still be looking for “same or similar” employment at the time the I-485 is being adjudicated under the adjustment portability provisions. The alien must be able to show there is a new valid offer of employment at the time the I-485 is adjudicated.
    Without an irritant, there can be no pearl.

  5. #105
    Thanks Spec. That clears the air. The condition on ability to pay comes with a caveat.

  6. #106
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectator View Post
    Ability to pay is not a consideration when the applicant has used the AC21 I-140 portability provisions. I always thought that was a bit strange.
    Question 7. Should service centers or district offices request proof of “ability to pay” from successor employers in I-140 portability cases, in other words, from the new company/employer to which someone has ported?

    Answer: No. The relevant inquiry is whether the new position is in the same or similar occupational classification as the alien’s I-140 employment. It may be appropriate to confirm the legitimacy of a new employer and the job offer through an RFE to the adjustment applicant for relevant information about these issues. In an adjustment setting, public charge is also a relevant inquiry.
    These extracts from the 2005 AC-21 Memo probably cover the main points:
    Spec,

    Thanks for pulling out the relevant sections of the Ayte's Memo 2005. I did read that in explicit terms about no requirement of "Ability to Pay", however, what evidence would an employer be required to submit to prove that the employee will not end up being a public charge?

    "Ability to pay" in the memo, in my opinion refers to the ability to pay the "prevailing wage" for the position. The new employer need not prove that, especially the prevailing wage part (read no requirement to poll the DOL for the relevant wage information).

    This is clarified by the previous part in the memo where it says "Wage difference" need not be considered in isolation for making the adjustment decision.

    When I/Kanmani argue about the "Ability to Pay", we are talking about the ability of the employer to pay the wages (close to prevailing wages) over a longer term. Needs to prove that the employer is financially stable and capable. That I believe is a must !!

    Interpretation of "Ability to pay" is what is causing all the ruckus ...

    Edit: I edited my previous post where I was screaming about the "prevailing wage" ... just thought I would own up to it here as well !
    Last edited by pdfeb09; 08-27-2014 at 12:03 PM.

  7. #107
    Quote Originally Posted by edisonguy View Post
    Let me make it simple to understand. Without getting paid, nobody can stay in a job and its illegal. (May be that can happen in country like In***, where no enforcement of law. LoL)

    Ability to pay is a criteria to check at I-140 stage. In 485, under AC21 after 180 days has passed, there is no requirement in the checklist to verify the ability to pay.

    The requirement is only check whether the applicant is in same or similar occupation, getting paid without becoming a public discharge.
    Arguments sake apart, Do you think it is legitimate to start a LLC genuinely for the purpose of avoiding to pay the share of wages in a corp-corp structure and extending its wings to immigration purpose ?

    On a different note, somebody was asking sportsfan if he would reject an offer on EB1C under all criteria tailored with a straightforward GC, If I am given an opportunity, I'll reject it.

  8. #108
    please educate yourself on 1099 (self employment) and see how the taxes are imposed. Self employment is not an option to evade tax. Its a individual's choice.
    This is a greatest nation in the earth & no one can easily evade tax here. It just eliminates paying hard earned money to the middle agent.

    Let us stick to the point. Yes it is legitimate to start self employment under AC21.

    Another thing, self employment and immigration are two different topic. Nobody is trying to customize it for immigration. It is allowed. Its is legal. Its is acceptable by USCIS and what is ethically wrong here ?

    On a different note, this topic is all about AC21 and we don't need a self explanation on your honesty level.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kanmani View Post
    Arguments sake apart, Do you think it is legitimate to start a LLC genuinely for the purpose of avoiding to pay the share of wages in a corp-corp structure and extending its wings to immigration purpose ?

    On a different note, somebody was asking sportsfan if he would reject an offer on EB1C under all criteria tailored with a straightforward GC, If I am given an opportunity, I'll reject it.
    Last edited by edisonguy; 08-27-2014 at 01:23 PM.

  9. #109
    Quote Originally Posted by edisonguy View Post
    please educate yourself on 1099 (self employment) and see how the taxes are imposed. Self employment is not an option to evade tax. Its a individual's choice.
    This is a greatest nation in the earth & no one can easily evade tax here. It just eliminates paying hard earned money to the middle agent.

    Let us stick to the point. Yes it is legitimate to start self employment under AC21.

    Another thing, self employment and immigration are two different topic. Nobody is trying to customize it for immigration. It is allowed. Its is legal. Its is acceptable by USCIS and what is ethically wrong here ?

    On a different note, this topic is all about AC21 and we don't need a self explanation on your honesty level.
    edisonguy .. you can disagree with anybody here .. but you don't have to be impolite .. !

    I grant you that you brought up a good point and I am glad we cleared it out with a reference to a document.

  10. #110
    To me thats the best way. There is no impolite word anywhere. One should start writing in a straight forward way instead of copy pasting some junk

    and give new interpretation to grey areas.

    Quote Originally Posted by pdfeb09 View Post
    edisonguy .. you can disagree with anybody here .. but you don't have to be impolite .. !

    I grant you that you brought up a good point and I am glad we cleared it out with a reference to a document.

  11. #111
    Guru Spectator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    A Galaxy Far far Away
    Posts
    3,337
    Quote Originally Posted by edisonguy View Post
    To me thats the best way. There is no impolite word anywhere. One should start writing in a straight forward way instead of copy pasting some junk

    and give new interpretation to grey areas.
    edisonguy,

    There is a difference between being direct and civil versus being impolite.

    I believe you have crossed the line into the latter.

    Please take some time to understand the difference.
    Last edited by Spectator; 08-27-2014 at 04:00 PM.
    Without an irritant, there can be no pearl.

  12. #112
    Edisonguy,

    Thanks for the recommendation on 1099. Yes, I'll sure do it, I have no knowledge on self-employment and was wondering how could the same law support a rocket scientist or neuro specialist to create a company and employ himself. I agree that I am inexperienced.

    Could you please point me out where those copy paste junks are?

    PS: Sorry Spec, I thought that 'junk' comment was shot at me.
    Last edited by Kanmani; 08-27-2014 at 04:01 PM.

  13. #113
    Quote Originally Posted by edisonguy View Post
    To me thats the best way. There is no impolite word anywhere. One should start writing in a straight forward way instead of copy pasting some junk

    and give new interpretation to grey areas.
    Guys,

    Thanks for all the responses and clarifications.

    Kanmani,

    It is correct that I was looking for information from immigration related legality of the option. Also, I think edisonguy has a valid point that the idea of having your corporation is not to evade taxes but it does have a lot of benefits with things that can be expensed as a genuine cost of doing business instead of paying for those from post tax income which can be very expensive if you are in a high tax bracket. I am all for paying taxes as they are neccessary but I also would like to get the same advantages as a big corporation gets. And whether we like it or not this country favors corporations when it comes to doing anything and rightly so as the small and medium enterprises are the real strength of this country.

    pdfeb09
    As far as the legitimacy of business, in a court of law it would be very difficult to argue against a firm, even if it is run from a basement and however small in size and headcount, as long as there is revenue coming in and if the business makes a decent profit after expenses however small the profit may be. However, in the eyes of the adjudicating officer it may matter a lot and that is what scares most including yours truly. Similarly, as far as the ability to pay is concerned, it is not difficult to comeup with justification for revenue projections if you can back it up with historical data and industry outlook that is available (for a steep price though) from reputed, and specialized, firms for almost all industry sectors. But there also the adjusdicating officer could make a discretionary choice which could as easily be influenced by the recent behavior of the mrs (or mr) as the tracffic condition of his/her commute.

    edisonguy,
    I have been following this forum for a while and besides the knowledge of people here, the greatest thing about this forum is that a lot of objectivity is maintained. Request that we maintain that and express our views without getting personal. Also, everyone doesn't have the same appetite for risk and there is nothing wrong with having limits on that...after all if everyone would start taking insane amount of risk then it would be a complete chaos out there and what would differentiate us from them

    Regards

  14. #114
    Agree w Spec and pdfed here. There are many people who are very intelligent on this forum. And I do think Edison brought good valuable points. It is always more useful when we keep an open mind and try to cut edges to our argument.

    Going back to the topic - let comment on legality vs ethics. Sometimes law allows it but ethics doesn't. I think the society should be ecstatic if all follow laws and very few follow ethics. Because the other way round is a slippery slope. To give an example - Buffett - who I admire a lot - pointed out that he pays less taxes than his secretary. Which he thought is wrong with America. Yet he does choose to use all the tax vehicles that allow him to save tax.

    Same with self-employment and what not. If the law allows you to avoid tax ... I wouldn't blame a person who takes advantage of that.

    As per the issue of self-employment ... that was the real issue here. I must say "same or similar" is the key condition. But same or similar also needs to be a credible job offer. Self employment can be quite incredulous. So while USCIS didn't object to X people ahead of me doesn't mean USCIS will NOT object to X+1 i.e. me!

    I do believe USCIS can and will issue RFEs to the employer ie. yourself if they wish too. I'd be curious what others think.
    Last edited by qesehmk; 08-27-2014 at 05:19 PM.
    I no longer provide calculations/predictions ever since whereismyGC.com was created.
    I do run this site only as an administrator. Our goal is to improve clarity of GC process to help people plan their lives better.
    Use the info at your risk. None of this is legal advice.

    Forum Glossary | Forum Rules and Guidelines | If your published post disappeared, check - Lies and Misinformation thread


  15. #115
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectator View Post
    Ability to pay is not a consideration when the applicant has used the AC21 I-140 portability provisions. I always thought that was a bit strange.

    These extracts from the 2005 AC-21 Memo probably cover the main points:
    Spec,
    Thanks for the reference. Now I have another question regarding {However, a substantial discrepancy between the previous and the new wage may be taken into consideration as a factor in determining if the new employment is “same or similar.”} What is considered as a "substantial discrepancy"? I am personally in a situation where my current salary in the new job is in multiples of what my labor was filed at and as I have mentioned previously this is purely circumstantial due to the supply and demand situation of the market and my job discription remains the same as the labor ceritification and the AC21 that was filed was almost identical.
    Views from others are appreciated as well.
    Thanks

  16. #116
    Q, Spec and pdfeb,

    I do have doubts on this self employment and AC21. I still think it couldn't be applicable to all job codes listed by DoL. Do you have anyinputs ?

    Q,

    My comments were based on an idea by the OP to start up a consultancy to issue a AC21 EVL to USCIS, the original job offer is at A, and the consultancy is B and the original poster is the C. B is C's own company on his spouse's name.

    The discussion didn't start the way it is now as self employment on AC21 at all.
    Last edited by Kanmani; 08-27-2014 at 05:03 PM.

  17. #117
    Guru Spectator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    A Galaxy Far far Away
    Posts
    3,337
    Quote Originally Posted by almost View Post
    Spec,
    Thanks for the reference. Now I have another question regarding {However, a substantial discrepancy between the previous and the new wage may be taken into consideration as a factor in determining if the new employment is “same or similar.”} What is considered as a "substantial discrepancy"? I am personally in a situation where my current salary in the new job is in multiples of what my labor was filed at and as I have mentioned previously this is purely circumstantial due to the supply and demand situation of the market and my job description remains the same as the labor certification and the AC21 that was filed was almost identical.
    Views from others are appreciated as well.
    Thanks
    almost,

    One of the problems is that USCIS has always remained rather vague on the subject. While that can be advantageous to give the widest possible latitude in making a determination, it leave everybody asking the question you have raised.

    In the Memo I referenced earlier, USCIS had this to say:

    Question 3. What is “same or similar” occupational classification for purposes of I-140 portability?

    Answer: When making a determination if the new employment is the “same or similar” occupational classification in comparison to the employment in the initial I-140, adjudicators should consider the following factors:

    A. Description of the job duties contained in the ETA 750A or the initial I-140 and the job duties of the new employment to determine if they are the “same or similar” occupational classification.

    B. The DOT code and/or SOC code assigned to the initial I-140 employment for petitions that have a certified ETA 750A or consider what DOT and/or SOC code is appropriate for the position for an initial I-140 that did not require a certified ETA 750A. Then consider the DOT code and/or SOC code, whichever is appropriate for the new position to make a determination of “same or similar” occupational classification.

    C. A substantial discrepancy between the previous and the new wage. (See Question 5 of this section for further clarification).
    I think generally people are more worried where the new wage would be substantially lower than the old one. USCIS are not totally unaware of long wait times and the fact that people do get promoted.

    Because of post size limits, the reply is continued in the next post.
    Last edited by Spectator; 08-27-2014 at 04:52 PM.
    Without an irritant, there can be no pearl.

  18. #118
    Guru Spectator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    A Galaxy Far far Away
    Posts
    3,337
    In a page that was last changed in 2011, USCIS published some Questions about Same or Similar Occupational Classifications Under the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000 (AC21) . Some address your question (Q2, Q4 & Q5 might be the most applicable), but not necessarily in the definitive way you ask.

    Questions about Same or Similar Occupational Classifications Under the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000 (AC21)

    Introduction

    Section 106(c) of AC21, commonly known as the job flexibility provision, was enacted as Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) section 204(j). This portion of the INA is provided below for convenience:

    A petition under subsection (a)(1)(D) [redesignated as (a)(1)(F)] for an individual whose application for adjustment of status pursuant to section 245 has been filed and remained unadjudicated for 180 days or more shall remain valid with respect to a new job if the individual changes jobs or employers if the new job is in the same or a similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.

    This section of law allows certain aliens to change or port the offer of employment on which their adjustment of status application is based from one job to another job as long as both jobs are in the same or similar occupational classification. Within these questions and answers, the term “port” or “porting” means to change the offer of employment from one job to another job in a way that allows an applicant to remain eligible to adjust status without having to file a new I-140 immigrant petition. For an alien to change the offer of employment, his or her adjustment of status application, Form I-485, must have been pending with USCIS for 180 days or more.

    Questions and Answers

    Q1. What is an “occupational classification”?

    A1. The Department of Labor (DOL) uses the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) system to group and classify jobs and occupations. The purpose of the SOC system is to classify workers into occupational categories to organize occupational data. The SOC system covers all occupations where work is performed for pay or for profit. Occupations are categorized based on the type of work performed. Additionally, certain occupations are also classified based on the skills, education and training required to perform the job.

    The SOC system is organized using codes, which generally consist of six numerical digits. For example, the SOC code for a stonemason is 47-2022.

    [47]-2022: The first two digits, “47” represent the major group, which includes all construction and extraction occupations.
    47-[2]022: The third digit, “2” represents the minor group, which includes all construction trade workers.
    47-2[02]2: The forth and fifth digits, “02” represent the broad occupation, which includes brickmasons, blockmasons, and stonemasons.
    47-202[2]: The sixth digit, “2” represents the detailed occupation, which only includes stonemasons.

    47-0000 Construction and Extraction Occupations
    47-2000 Construction Trades Workers
    47-2020 Brickmasons, Blockmasons, and Stonemasons
    47-2022 Stonemasons

    No occupation will be assigned to more than one category at the lowest level of the classification (sixth digit). A USCIS memo titled, Interim Guidance for Processing Form I-140 Employment-Based Immigrant Petitions and Form I-485 and H-1B Petitions Affected by the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) (Public Law 106-313) (December 27, 2005 AC21 Memo) instructed USCIS officers to consider the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) code as part of the same or similar occupational classification analysis. The DOT has been replaced by the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) under the sponsorship of DOL’s Employment and Training Administration (ETA). The O*NET system relies upon the SOC codes.

    Q2. How does USCIS determine what qualifies as a same or similar occupational classification?

    A2. USCIS generally makes a determination as to whether one job is in the “same or similar” occupational classification as another by referring to the DOL’s SOC system. USCIS officers also consider multiple factors to conclude if two jobs are considered to be in similar occupational classifications for porting purposes (see above question for definition of “porting”). USCIS officers may compare factors including, but not limited to:

    The job duties of both positions
    The SOC code from the Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Form I-140) and the appropriate SOC code for the new position
    The wages associated with each position

    USCIS officers will view the totality of the circumstances to determine if the two jobs are the same or similar for porting purposes.

    Q3. Does USCIS only use the first two or the first three numbers of the SOC code to determine if two occupational classifications are same or similar?

    A3. As noted above, USCIS does not use a simple numerical comparison of SOC codes to determine if two jobs are the same or similar. USCIS aims to determine in all cases whether a new position is in the same or similar occupational classification as the original job offer.

    When referring to the SOC system, USCIS will analyze the SOC codes of the two jobs it is comparing. However, there is no hard and fast rule for matching any particular order of digits in two SOC codes.

    In the example in Q.1, the “47” encompasses all construction and extraction occupations, which is a broad category and would not determine whether two jobs are similar. In this particular example, even matching additional digits of the SOC codes may not show whether or not two jobs are similar.

    For example, the SOC code for a stonemason is 47-2022. The job description for a stonemason is:

    Build stone structures, such as piers, walls, and abutments. Lay walks, curbstones, or special types of masonry for vats, tanks, and floors.

    The SOC code for a boilermaker is 47-2010, which contains the same first four numbers of the stonemason’s SOC code (47-20). However, the job description for a boilermaker is significantly different from that of stonemason:

    Construct, assemble, maintain, and repair stationary steam boilers and boiler house auxiliaries. Align structures or plate sections to assemble boiler frame tanks or vats, following blueprints. Work involves use of hand and power tools, plumb bobs, levels, wedges, dogs, or turnbuckles. Assist in testing assembled vessels. Direct cleaning of boilers and boiler furnaces. Inspect and repair boiler fittings, such as safety valves, regulators, automatic-control mechanisms, water columns, and auxiliary machines.

    Q4. The December 27, 2005 AC21 Memo states that a discrepancy between the wages of two jobs may be used to decide if the two positions are the same or similar, but the memo also states that a difference in the wages of the two jobs cannot be used as the sole basis for denial in adjustment of status portability cases. Can USCIS provide further explanation on how wages are used to determine whether two jobs are in the same or similar occupational classification?

    A4. Section I, Question 3 from the December 27, 2005 AC21 Memo provides USCIS officers with the flexibility to consider a “substantial discrepancy” in the wages offered in two positions to assist them in deciding if the two jobs are in the same or a similar occupational classification. A “substantial discrepancy” in the wages of the two jobs may be a contributing factor in a denial when the evidence is considered in its totality. However, a USCIS officer should not deny a case solely because a second position pays more or less than the original.

    Section 1, Question 5 from the December 27, 2005 AC21 Memo references a “difference” in the wages to inform both USCIS officers and the public that a difference in wages should not be used as the sole basis for a denial. This means there can be an allowance for normal raises that occur through the passage of time to account for inflation and other factors such as higher rates of pay in different metropolitan locations.

    Q5. Can I accept a different position or receive a promotion from my employer and remain eligible to adjust my status to permanent residence?

    A5. USCIS will evaluate these situations on a case-by-case basis. The job duties for each position, the SOC codes for each position, and any differences in the wages will be the determining factors as to whether you remain eligible. Regardless of whether the new job is considered a demotion, a lateral move or a promotion within the company for which the beneficiary is employed, the job duties must be sufficiently similar. USCIS officers will view the totality of the circumstances in light of the congressional intent, expressed in INA section 204(j), as enacted by 106(c) of AC21, to facilitate job mobility within the same or similar occupational classification for qualifying aliens with long-pending adjustment applications.
    Since you say:

    I am personally in a situation where my current salary in the new job is in multiples of what my labor was filed at and as I have mentioned previously this is purely circumstantial due to the supply and demand situation of the market and my job description remains the same as the labor certification and the AC21 that was filed was almost identical.
    that would appear to be less of a concern given the language above about "sufficiently similar". Only the adjudicator could answer your question.
    Last edited by Spectator; 08-27-2014 at 04:50 PM.
    Without an irritant, there can be no pearl.

  19. #119
    Quote Originally Posted by Kanmani View Post
    Q, Spec and pdfeb,

    I do have doubts on this self employment and AC21. I still think it could be applicable to all job codes listed by DoL. Do you have anyinputs ?
    Kanmani,

    I think AC21 is applicable to all the eligible(I485+180 days) EB cases . The applicability does not depend upon the job code, nor does it depend upon the EB category (except for EB5 may be - I don't know what it would mean in case of an EB5 application). AC21 also clearly supports self-employment !

  20. #120
    Kanmani

    I also have doubts about self employment and AC21. There is a self-sponsored H1 that USCIS came out last year I think. So I am sure about self-sponsored H1.

    I am not aware of any specific guidance on self-employment for AC21.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kanmani View Post
    Q, Spec and pdfeb,

    I do have doubts on this self employment and AC21. I still think it couldn't be applicable to all job codes listed by DoL. Do you have anyinputs ?

    Q,

    My comments were based on an idea by the OP to start up a consultancy to issue a AC21 EVL to USCIS, the original job offer is at A, and the consultancy is B and the original poster is the C. B is C's own company on his spouse's name.

    The discussion didn't start the way it is now as self employment on AC21 at all.
    Quote Originally Posted by pdfeb09 View Post
    AC21 also clearly supports self-employment !
    pdfeb - I probably missed that. What's the reference? Or is it just your opinion?
    I no longer provide calculations/predictions ever since whereismyGC.com was created.
    I do run this site only as an administrator. Our goal is to improve clarity of GC process to help people plan their lives better.
    Use the info at your risk. None of this is legal advice.

    Forum Glossary | Forum Rules and Guidelines | If your published post disappeared, check - Lies and Misinformation thread


  21. #121
    Guru Spectator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    A Galaxy Far far Away
    Posts
    3,337
    Quote Originally Posted by qesehmk View Post
    Kanmani

    I also have doubts about self employment and AC21. There is a self-sponsored H1 that USCIS came out last year I think. So I am sure about self-sponsored H1.

    I am not aware of any specific guidance on self-employment for AC21.

    pdfeb - I probably missed that. What's the reference? Or is it just your opinion?
    Q,

    See this post, where the Memo is quoted, or the Memo itself.

    I understand your concerns, but it is what USCIS appears to allow. I'm not convinced AC21 was entirely well thought out and the full ramifications considered.
    Without an irritant, there can be no pearl.

  22. #122
    Spec

    Thanks. I applaud USCIS for clarifying self employment in the manner they have done. And I hope many people read your POST.

    I agree with you in terms of its efficacy (or lack thereof) to maintain the integrity of system. However you can't expect backlogged GC applicant to maintain integrity over inordinate period of time. So I think AC21 unwittingly does the right thing!

    Having said this - I think USCIS still leaves a lot of discretion at its hands when it says

    Second, it may be appropriate to confirm that the new employer and the job offer are legitimate through an RFE to the adjustment applicant for relevant information about these issues.
    Finally I really don't like what they say here ... because filing of 140 itself is the intent on behalf of the employer. Whereas filing of 485 should be considered intent by the immigrant. Luckily it is not going to be easy for USCIS to find absense of intent.
    Third, as with any portability case, USCIS will focus on whether the I-140 petition represented the truly intended employment at the time of the filing of both the I-140 and the I-485. This means that, as of the time of the filing of the I-140 and at the time of filing the I-485 if not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have had the intent to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to undertake the employment, upon adjustment.

    Finally ..... a great great great discussion this has been. I mean I learnt something new today. Thanks to YOU and others!

    Quote Originally Posted by Spectator View Post
    Q,

    See this post, where the Memo is quoted, or the Memo itself.

    I understand your concerns, but it is what USCIS appears to allow. I'm not convinced AC21 was entirely well thought out and the full ramifications considered.
    I no longer provide calculations/predictions ever since whereismyGC.com was created.
    I do run this site only as an administrator. Our goal is to improve clarity of GC process to help people plan their lives better.
    Use the info at your risk. None of this is legal advice.

    Forum Glossary | Forum Rules and Guidelines | If your published post disappeared, check - Lies and Misinformation thread


  23. #123
    Guru Spectator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    A Galaxy Far far Away
    Posts
    3,337
    Quote Originally Posted by qesehmk View Post
    Finally ..... a great great great discussion this has been. I mean I learnt something new today. Thanks to YOU and others!
    Q,

    I agree it has been a good discussion. It's refreshing to see a different subject.

    Finally I really don't like what they say here ... because filing of 140 itself is the intent on behalf of the employer. Whereas filing of 485 should be considered intent by the immigrant. Luckily it is not going to be easy for USCIS to find absense of intent.

    Third, as with any portability case, USCIS will focus on whether the I-140 petition represented the truly intended employment at the time of the filing of both the I-140 and the I-485. This means that, as of the time of the filing of the I-140 and at the time of filing the I-485 if not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have had the intent to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to undertake the employment, upon adjustment.
    I didn't quite understand your point.

    In the case of a non-concurrent I-485 filing some time after the I-140, the intent to hire the person when they become an LPR still has to exist. Without that continuing intent from the employer, there is no basis for the beneficiary to file the I-485 application.

    There can be several years between the employer filing I-140 and and the beneficiary filing the I-485, so it seems reasonable to test the intent of the parties at both points of time.
    Without an irritant, there can be no pearl.

  24. #124
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectator View Post
    In the case of a non-concurrent I-485 filing some time after the I-140, the intent to hire the person when they become an LPR still has to exist. Without that continuing intent from the employer, there is no basis for the beneficiary to file the I-485 application.

    There can be several years between the employer filing I-140 and and the beneficiary filing the I-485, so it seems reasonable to test the intent of the parties at both points of time.
    Exactly because there can be several years between the two - I think it is unfair for backlogged countries to carry that burden for a longer duration than non-backlogged countries.

    As you can imagine - lots of things change over time. So it is unfair to expect the intent to remain the same over 3-5-10 years.
    I no longer provide calculations/predictions ever since whereismyGC.com was created.
    I do run this site only as an administrator. Our goal is to improve clarity of GC process to help people plan their lives better.
    Use the info at your risk. None of this is legal advice.

    Forum Glossary | Forum Rules and Guidelines | If your published post disappeared, check - Lies and Misinformation thread


  25. #125
    Guru Spectator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    A Galaxy Far far Away
    Posts
    3,337
    Quote Originally Posted by qesehmk View Post
    Exactly because there can be several years between the two - I think it is unfair for backlogged countries to carry that burden for a longer duration than non-backlogged countries.

    As you can imagine - lots of things change over time. So it is unfair to expect the intent to remain the same over 3-5-10 years.
    Q,

    Life is not always fair. It's one of the regrettable consequences of retrogression.

    You seem to be saying that in a case where the job offer no longer exists and the employer has no intention of employing the beneficiary of the I-140 petition when the I-485 is approved, that the person should still be entitled to file an I-485 based on that I-140 approval?

    That would be an absolute nonsense IMHO. Why bother to test the job requirement at all, if ultimately it doesn't have to exist. It would be granting I-140 portability before an I-485 was ever submitted (and on an I-140 that ultimately becomes rather questionable).

    Lots of things do change over time, but one thing that can't is the intent of both sides to honor the bargain surrounding the implied job offer. If that changes, then the beneficiary no longer has a basis to file an I-485 based on that I-140 approval.

    That is why it has to be restated after a passage of time (initially when the I-485 is submitted and possibly via an EVL prior to approval). The need to state it when the I-485 is submitted is common to all applicants - an EVL is required initial evidence.
    Without an irritant, there can be no pearl.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •