PDA

View Full Version : Used AP, not working for sponsoring employer only POST HERE..


eb3retro
02-06-2008, 02:02 PM
Please post here if you have used your AP, and you are not working for the sponsoring employer and you travelled and entered into US. Please mentioned the POE name too and how u handled your case. thanks. this will benefit a lot.

amslonewolf
02-06-2008, 03:00 PM
I changed jobs in Jan, and returned back using AP in Boston POE.. No questions asked at all

when
02-25-2008, 03:11 PM
^^^^

absaarkhan
02-25-2008, 03:15 PM
I have read here that the IO at the POE Does ask if you are still working for the
Sponsoring Employer.

I would like to know how to handle this situation if anybody has Travelled on AP
after Invoking AC21 and changing the GC Sponsoring Employer.

Any 1 in this Situation Please Post your Experience

when
02-25-2008, 03:17 PM
Any Body.........Gurus.........Please

when
02-25-2008, 03:30 PM
^^^^^^

japs19
02-25-2008, 03:50 PM
My POE was LA and CBP officer did ask me that question.

My situation was I did not work for the original petitioner at that time.

If they don't ask, you don't tell. If they do then be honest. I told them that I do not work for original petitioner and the officer said that is fraud. You must be working for them. I politely told them that Employment Based GC is for future employment and I don't have to be working for them.

I was held hostage for 6 hours and was told to go to downtown office where they stamped AP.

The thing is there is no such laws which restricts you to be working for any employers as long as in good faith you can say that your intentions are to go and work for the petitioner employer. Although things can change along the way and anyone can utilize AC-21 rule and change jobs. It is just that it would serve as a faithful relationship if an employee is working for original petitioner so there is no ifs and buts about the employer-employee relationship after several years as it may take them forever to process I-485.

I have read here that the IO at the POE Does ask if you are still working for the
Sponsoring Employer.

I would like to know how to handle this situation if anybody has Travelled on AP
after Invoking AC21 and changing the GC Sponsoring Employer.

Any 1 in this Situation Please Post your Experience

when
02-25-2008, 04:27 PM
Dear japs19,

If one were to port using AC21 and inform USCIS about the change, why would they still harass?

Did you change employers under AC21 (485) and/or did notify USCIS?

I very much appreciate your insight

Thank you & Regards
when

when
02-26-2008, 10:36 AM
^^^^

absaarkhan
02-26-2008, 10:45 AM
All,
I have asked this Question to Sheela Murthy in her Chat Session Yesterday
that is on Feb 25th, 2008.
According to her "The CBP Officer at the POE should allow the Applicant to
enter US on Advance Parole even after the Applicant uses AC21 and
Changes the GC Sponsoring Employer."
Since this was a Chat Session she DID NOT go into all the details, she just
mentioned that there should NOT be any Issue.

Reference Click on the Link below:

http://www.murthy.com/chatlogs/chattran.html

and then go to Week 4 : 02.25.2008
under Month 02.2008

Note: Right now, the Transcripts for yesterday are NOT there yet, i think they will Post this in a day or 2.



Dear japs19,

If one were to port using AC21 and inform USCIS about the change, why would they still harass?

Did you change employers under AC21 (485) and/or did notify USCIS?

I very much appreciate your insight

Thank you & Regards
when

^^^^

when
02-26-2008, 12:18 PM
absaarkhan
THANKS FOR YOUR INPUT

japs19
02-26-2008, 12:53 PM
Regardless of one using AC21 or not, CBP officer can ask the same question and harass if they want. There is no law to begin with that defines that you have to be working for the petitioner when one is filing for AOS or any stage of GC process. GC based on employment is for "future" employment.

Ethically it makes sense to work for the employer who you will be working on a "long" term project and who wants you to get permanent residency. There is no agreement or obligation that restricts employee to reject the employment in the future or employee to not return and that in eyes of CBP officers is a FRAUD.

I have read blogs where people write that they were told to sit for 2-3 hours before they returned the stamped document and same question was asked them and it took them 2-3 hours to figure out whether to let those guys in or deport them.

On the positive note, they can not deport you because you are not working for the original petitioner.
Good luck.
Dear japs19,

If one were to port using AC21 and inform USCIS about the change, why would they still harass?

Did you change employers under AC21 (485) and/or did notify USCIS?

I very much appreciate your insight

Thank you & Regards
when

lotsofspace
02-26-2008, 01:59 PM
Regardless of one using AC21 or not, CBP officer can ask the same question and harass if they want. There is no law to begin with that defines that you have to be working for the petitioner when one is filing for AOS or any stage of GC process. GC based on employment is for "future" employment.

Ethically it makes sense to work for the employer who you will be working on a "long" term project and who wants you to get permanent residency. There is no agreement or obligation that restricts employee to reject the employment in the future or employee to not return and that in eyes of CBP officers is a FRAUD.

I have read blogs where people write that they were told to sit for 2-3 hours before they returned the stamped document and same question was asked them and it took them 2-3 hours to figure out whether to let those guys in or deport them.

On the positive note, they can not deport you because you are not working for the original petitioner.
Good luck.


This is such a painful process. Why do we have to go through 3 to 6 hours process when the law allows us to change employers after 180 days ? I see although law allows us to change the employers after 180 days, there is no process around it. It would have been nice , if there was a provision where you inform about the usage of AC21 and USCIS sends an acknowledgment of that, which you will be able to use at POE.

Is this some thing IV can add to their objectives ?

EndlessWait
02-26-2008, 03:15 PM
i'm curious. isn't the new employer after using AC21 the new sponsorer..so why not say yes to when they ask , if one is working for the sponsored employer.

nonimmi
02-26-2008, 03:21 PM
i'm curious. isn't the new employer after using AC21 the new sponsorer..so why not say yes to when they ask , if one is working for the sponsored employer.

That is interesting! I guess it is "legal" to say that.

absaarkhan
02-26-2008, 03:42 PM
Not Sure if We can Answer "yes" if they ask if you or still working for
the GC Sponsoring Employer.
My Understanding is that your GC Sponsoring Employer is the One who
has filed your "I-140"
When we Use AC21 we move to the New Employer.

I Could be wrong here.

EndlessWait has brougt up an Interesting Point.
I have posted this question for Attorney Prashanti Reddy.

If She Answers my quesetion on March 1st we can Ask her, if we can answer
"Yes" if the CBP Officer @ the POE asks the above question.


i'm curious. isn't the new employer after using AC21 the new sponsorer..so why not say yes to when they ask , if one is working for the sponsored employer.

japs19
02-26-2008, 04:13 PM
If an employer A filed for LC and I-140/I-485 for an employee X is working for employer A on H-1 or any temporary work visa, and if employee X changes a job and goes to work for employer B than employee X is NOT working for original petitioner or say GC Sponsoring Employer...period.

Once can explain laws of AC-21 to CBP officer and try that luck if one senses any trouble but keep the honesty folks...the last thing you want to do is lie and explain that you said that because in your interpretation it isn't.


Not Sure if We can Answer "yes" if they ask if you or still working for
the GC Sponsoring Employer.
My Understanding is that your GC Sponsoring Employer is the One who
has filed your "I-140"
When we Use AC21 we move to the New Employer.

I Could be wrong here.

EndlessWait has brougt up an Interesting Point.
I have posted this question for Attorney Prashanti Reddy.

If She Answers my quesetion on March 1st we can Ask her, if we can answer
"Yes" if the CBP Officer @ the POE asks the above question.

when
02-26-2008, 04:24 PM
Most of ppl who have/will be using AC21 provision would already have worked for many years with the GC/initial sponsor.

Additionally once you change employers under AC21, does one have to go back to GC employer once priority dates become current again?

PLEASE ADVISE

EndlessWait
02-26-2008, 04:34 PM
Most of ppl who have/will be using AC21 provision would already have worked for many years with the GC/initial sponsor.

Additionally once you change employers under AC21, does one have to go back to GC employer once priority dates become current again?

PLEASE ADVISE

i dont understand why ppl are worried about using AC21..if it was always going to be the initial sponsored employer then why did they introduce AC21..cmon

when
02-26-2008, 04:42 PM
Thank You EndlessWait. I just got confused with japs19 comment "Ethically it makes sense to work for the employer who you will be working on a "long" term project and who wants you to get permanent residency. There is no agreement or obligation that restricts employee to reject the employment in the future or employee to not return and that in eyes of CBP officers is a FRAUD."

NNReddy
02-26-2008, 05:02 PM
I entered USA couple of days ago. I had valid Multiple visa stamp(H1B) on my passport. But POE officer asked for AP, I gave him my AP and he said you need to use AP and stamped AP. Now that I used AP, can i still continue on H1B visa. Please advise. My attorney and company HR says that my h1b is still valid, you can travel on AP and still use H1B.
I am under the impression that if you use AP, then you have to use EAD?

webm
02-26-2008, 05:11 PM
My attorney and company HR says that my h1b is still valid, you can travel on AP and still use H1B

---Yes its true...you can still work on using H1-B