Immigration Voice - Forums
Register Get Involved Contact Lawmakers Advocacy Discussion Image Image Image Image

Go Back   Immigration Voice > Immigration Voice Issues and Congressional updates > IV Agenda and Legislative Updates
Click to log in with Facebook
IV Agenda and Legislative Updates Immigration Voice's Agenda and Legislative Updates

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 11-20-2015, 10:46 PM
Administrator
Priority Date
:
Jun-02
Category
:
EB3
I140 Mailed Date
:
08/04/2003
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-140+I-485
I485 Mailed Date
:
10/06/2003
Compare
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 996
Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smartguru View Post
hello Admin2,


Thank you for the efforts on getting same or similar for the back logged community.

If GC is filed 5 years ago as senior sw engineer and person has progressed in same domain (e.g writing sw for android phones ) becoming manager and then director will it be ok?
Yes

Quote:

Above all, if the person gets opportunity to be founder of company in same domain will it be ok? (Assuming the board of directors show that they have ability to fire the CEO).
Yes
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 11-24-2015, 01:08 PM
Member
Priority Date
:
Category
:
EB2
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-140
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 68
moon_walker333 is on a distinguished road
Default Thanks a ton IV!

Thanks a ton IV!

I think people don't know how important this change is too. I don't get benefited by this at this time but I am sure it is going to make a difference in my career progression.

Keep rocking!!!
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #18 (permalink)  
Old 11-29-2015, 05:03 PM
Member
Priority Date
:
Category
:
N/A
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
Processing Stage
:
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 40
Jambo is on a distinguished road
Post Is this 1615-AC05?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hil3182 View Post
The Draft memo that is supposed to clarify and hopefully loosen the definitions of "Same or Similar" jobs has been released.

Please study it carefully and post your comments here so we can get issues addressed at this stage as opposed to two years from now when the problems with the rule start to bite - and the rule becomes much harder to change.

Even if this memo doesn't affect you at this point in your life, please take the time to study it carefully - you will probably be living with the after-effects of this memo for a LONG time.

Congratulations to all IV members who have worked on this and other fixes for almost a decade - especially Aman Kapoor. We started work with the Executive Order provisions - which most of you are seeing only now - in 2007 with the Bush White House, but the economic crisis killed that effort.
Does this policy memo refer to 1615-AC05, 1615-ZB44, or 1615-AB97? Is IV going to send us all a standard email template to send before January 4, 2016? That is the deadline specified in the memo for comments.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #19 (permalink)  
Old 11-30-2015, 11:32 AM
Junior Member
Priority Date
:
Category
:
N/A
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
Processing Stage
:
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 21
VinayJ is just really nice VinayJ is just really nice VinayJ is just really nice VinayJ is just really nice VinayJ is just really nice
Default

Can any one throw light on how to find what SOC code and job description from an approved i140 petition? Or we need to look at perm details where employee does not have access to it?
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #20 (permalink)  
Old 11-30-2015, 12:40 PM
Member
Priority Date
:
Oct-04
Category
:
EB3
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
Labor Certification
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29
what_if is just really nice what_if is just really nice what_if is just really nice what_if is just really nice
Default SOC Code

The SOC code should be in your PERM application and your certified labor. If you have your approved PERM case number,
1. Go to www.dolstats.org > Type in your case number in the search text box that asks for your case number. If you have an approved labor that is more than a week or two weeks old (not sure of the publishing delay), the result displayed will show that information.
2. If the result is displayed, click on the link to the case number in the results. This will open a page with details of your case with a link to "official iCert Registry". Click this link, and voila! You will have all the info you need about your labor.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #21 (permalink)  
Old 11-30-2015, 03:10 PM
Junior Member
Priority Date
:
Category
:
N/A
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
Processing Stage
:
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15
GCTopDream is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Administrator2 View Post
Thank you for your support. Yes, there will be a separate regulation that is expected to be announced soon for EAD for I140.

This Draft Policy Memo is NOT a substitute for the EAD for I140 regulation. This is in addition to it. BTW, the name for EAD for I140 will be AC21 Regulation.
Do we still have hope for I40 EAD? Sorry if I am nagging the admins 😜
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #22 (permalink)  
Old 11-30-2015, 03:38 PM
Member
Priority Date
:
Feb-11
Category
:
EB2
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-140
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 66
vikastaneja is on a distinguished road
Default

I was going through the the draft and found the difference in wages section a few lines -
"There can also be an allowance for a difference in pay 24 if such difference is related to varying rates of pay in different economic sectors or geographic locations, or is the result of other factors such as corporate mergers, size of employer, or differences in compensation structure"
"USCIS will be able to perform its adjudicatory function most effectively if an applicant explains any substantial discrepancy in wages between the original position and the new position in detail"

Doesn't this mean that it is still open ended that how much wage difference is appropriate and will the difference in wages due to moving from one company to another be considered? Any clarity on that?
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #23 (permalink)  
Old 11-30-2015, 07:14 PM
Senior Member
Priority Date
:
Sep-05
Category
:
EB3
I140 Mailed Date
:
06/05/2006
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-485
I485 Mailed Date
:
07/02/2007
Compare
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 139
Blog Entries: 1
abcdgc is a name known to all abcdgc is a name known to all abcdgc is a name known to all abcdgc is a name known to all abcdgc is a name known to all abcdgc is a name known to all
Default

Siskind is saying that this memo is bad

Greg Siskind on Immigration Law and Policy | USCIS “Same or Similar” Memo – An Example of Being Careful What You Wish For?
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #24 (permalink)  
Old 11-30-2015, 08:17 PM
Administrator
Priority Date
:
Jun-02
Category
:
EB3
I140 Mailed Date
:
08/04/2003
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-140+I-485
I485 Mailed Date
:
10/06/2003
Compare
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 996
Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute
Default



He is right when he says that "it’s rare that USCIS denies cases based on a new position being dissimilar"

The reason being – a very few people dare to change jobs using AC21. How can USCIS deny a case based on new position being dissimilar if very few people take the risk to change jobs? Due to lack of clarity on “same or similar occupation classification”, there is an inherent risk for immigrants to change jobs on AC21. What is the point of having a provision that was intended to let immigrants change jobs when immigrants can't even figure out what jobs they can change too? Meaning immigrants are afraid (and thus discouraged) to change jobs when there was no clarity of what is allowed and what is not allowed. With lack of clarity and not clearly defining for 15 years (AC21 law passed in the year 2000) the meaning of "same or similar occupation classification", governments in 2 Administrations have prevented hundreds and thousands of immigrants from being able to live free. And thus immigrants live the life of indenture servitude, even when the law clearly allows you to change jobs.

So Greg is right that USCIS rarely denies cases for a new position being dissimilar because, first of all, only handful of people risk changing jobs. And secondly, people don’t even know what jobs they can change too.

Greg is again right when he says "But USCIS seems to have taken a program that has worked reasonably well". He just forgot to add at the end of the sentence - "for employers and lawyers because with lack of clarity or no clarity for what jobs immigrants can change too, only a handful of people take the risk to change jobs". The current lack of clarity works great for immigration lawyers and employers. Yes, Greg is right, that it works great when there is no clarity.

He seem to be arguing that it is good if system is unclear because you can change to infinite jobs (which is practically not true). And he seem to argue - now that things are clear and well defined, the system is putting “restrictions” on what job you can change too because according to this legal mind, finite < infinite.

This is height of absurdity. We have seen many absurd arguments being presented online, but this whopper tops them all. How about you tell him that you will give him money for his legal services, but never say how much and thus never give him any money, ever? Because as soon as you decide on a firm rate, you are just putting a finite value to his service, which is less than infinite, isn’t it?

In a nutshell, he is just saying, when it was not defined, it was infinite, so everyone could change to infinite number of jobs (which we all know is not true or practical). And he seems to be saying, now that it is defined/finite, and [finite < infinite], so now it is less than infinite, and therefore, the memo is putting "restrictions". You know how absurd this argument is? And if this is a good argument, then let’s apply the same concept to lawyer’s fee. Never tell your immigration lawyers what you will pay him and thus never pay him anything. Because as soon as you tell him what you will pay, you just reduced his fee from infinite to a finite number, that is less than infinite, isn't it?

Immigration lawyers want system to be convoluted, unclear and complicated. That keeps immigrants dependent on immigration lawyers. So anytime there is clarity with the process, it is but natural that immigration lawyers will not like any such change.

It is simply not true that this Memo is putting any more restrictions on immigrants than when the system was not clearly defined. Here is the breakdown to put things in perspective.

Before this memo: It was a norm spread by immigration lawyers that new job should not have the salary that is + or - 4% from the salary in GC Labor petition. Let’s say your priority date is 2005. So in 2015, if you get more than 4% of the salary in your GC labor certification/PERM, then lawyers would tell you not to change jobs as that job will be deemed "dissimilar".
With this memo: There is no restriction of + or - 4% salary. In fact, the memo clearly defines that increase in salary is natural phenomenon. Even considering 2-3% yearly inflation, in 10 years, 30% increase, plus the gain in experience would add more increase in salary, sometimes in 70-100% or more. Now you can accept a job with higher salary without fear and having to take permission from your immigration lawyer. Is that wrong?

Before this memo: There was no clear method to define what “same or similar occupation classification” was.
With this Memo: You can look at the SOC job code in your GC PERM/labor petition, and determine yourself which job is same or similar. Not only that, you could match the SOC code of your job in GC PERM/labor petition to the SOC code for the new job for Detailed or Broad Classification code, or match Minor Group or Major Group, and determine "same or similar occupation classification". And the memo says, even if Major group is different, it is still possible that the new and old jobs are "same or similar occupation classification". So it’s like leaving every room that there is possible to determine "same or similar" nature of "occupation classification".

Before this memo: Lawyers would tell you not to take manager or supervisory position as that would be different from your GC PERM/Labor certification.
With this Memo: If anything, the memo clearly spells out, multiple times, that you can take promotions and become Supervisor, Manager, Director, Vice President, or even President. It does not put a ceiling on your talent/potential, which was the original intent of Congress when it said "same or similar occupation classification".

And there are many other benefits of this memo. Ask Greg - is it wrong if backlogged immigrants are less dependent on their immigration lawyers/employers? Is it bad that people can get salary increases or promotions or if people clearly determine for themselves what jobs they can change too?

Look, in the end, this is what we mean by lawyers twisting and turning facts/arguments to make sure you work against your own interest. They will ask you to send letters opposing your own best interests, just like the will ask you to send letters to oppose this Memo, and some idiots may even follow these immigration lawyers. We ask you to be smart and look for yourself and your families. Please don't fall for those who fire putting gun on your shoulders only to see their profits rise every year.

This Memo is tied to another fix that we are expecting soon. We think it is prudent to see the two fixes together before commenting on the Memo and the upcoming Regulation. Therefore, we have not yet posted comments that people can copy-paste to send their letter. In the meantime, please ignore any gimmick from anyone who wants you to work against your own interest. We have thought through this fix for years and even if this fix is not applicable to you right now, in time (after you file I-485) you will realize that this fix will bring you more freedom from the clutches of your employer and immigration lawyer.

Last edited by Administrator2; 11-30-2015 at 09:45 PM.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


5 out of 5 members found this post helpful.
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 11-30-2015, 09:12 PM
Senior Member
Priority Date
:
Nov-12
Category
:
EB2
I140 Mailed Date
:
07/12/2013
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-140
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 135
Bhishma is on a distinguished road
Default

By the way, Who is Greg Siskind? Never heard of him, do i even have to know about him?
__________________
Repeat after me: "Immigration lawyers are Pro-Immigration but Anti-Immigrant"
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 11-30-2015, 09:39 PM
Senior Member
Priority Date
:
Sep-05
Category
:
EB3
I140 Mailed Date
:
06/05/2006
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-485
I485 Mailed Date
:
07/02/2007
Compare
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 139
Blog Entries: 1
abcdgc is a name known to all abcdgc is a name known to all abcdgc is a name known to all abcdgc is a name known to all abcdgc is a name known to all abcdgc is a name known to all
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhishma View Post
By the way, Who is Greg Siskind? Never heard of him, do i even have to know about him?
Don't worry if you haven't heard of him. That is probably good. He is no one.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #27 (permalink)  
Old 11-30-2015, 10:03 PM
Donor
Priority Date
:
Aug-10
Category
:
EB3
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-140
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 41
hx82 has a brilliant future hx82 has a brilliant future hx82 has a brilliant future hx82 has a brilliant future hx82 has a brilliant future hx82 has a brilliant future hx82 has a brilliant future hx82 has a brilliant future hx82 has a brilliant future hx82 has a brilliant future hx82 has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abcdgc View Post
Don't worry if you haven't heard of him. That is probably good. He is no one.
__________________
Facebook | Google+ | Twitter | YouTube
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #28 (permalink)  
Old 12-01-2015, 08:39 AM
Member
Priority Date
:
Category
:
N/A
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
Processing Stage
:
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 40
foia is on a distinguished road
Default Thanks

Thanks Admin2 for clarifying. Off course, it is helpful than the status quo. Not sure why Greg is always for publicity.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #29 (permalink)  
Old 12-01-2015, 10:32 AM
Junior Member
Priority Date
:
Jul-10
Category
:
EB2
I140 Mailed Date
:
04/15/2011
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-140
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 24
sundeepreddym has a reputation beyond repute sundeepreddym has a reputation beyond repute sundeepreddym has a reputation beyond repute sundeepreddym has a reputation beyond repute sundeepreddym has a reputation beyond repute sundeepreddym has a reputation beyond repute sundeepreddym has a reputation beyond repute sundeepreddym has a reputation beyond repute sundeepreddym has a reputation beyond repute sundeepreddym has a reputation beyond repute sundeepreddym has a reputation beyond repute
Default Clear /Straight explanation :-)

Thank you Admin for such clear and concise rebuttal of the lawyer version. With this memo any immigrant who wishes to change job using this provision does not have to wait for blessing from a lawyer to change jobs.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #30 (permalink)  
Old 12-01-2015, 11:15 AM
Senior Member
Priority Date
:
Jan-11
Category
:
EB2
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
Processing Stage
:
I-140
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 628
DMX17 is just really nice DMX17 is just really nice DMX17 is just really nice DMX17 is just really nice DMX17 is just really nice
Default

Just wanted to add that this memo uses the same standard (Preponderance of Evidence) as the L-1B memo when it comes to deciding the job is same or similar. So we do not have to clear all doubts but present the evidence that the new job is “probably” (technically 50% or more) same or similar. So it should be ideally same easy or difficult as proving “specialized knowledge” on an L-1B case.

If I recall correctly, in the Ombudsman conference, the lawyers kinda bitched about the L-1B memo on the issue of specialized knowledge. So it is their standard practice to react and say something is overly restrictive (especially when it comes to bringing in more meat i.e. H-1B and L-B folks).

Of course, we all would have liked if they removed this requirement of same/similar job altogether and some lawyers might also allude to this when they say to the immigrants that the memo does not completely free the immigrants. But that would be aiming for other universe in the current context of AC21. Again their standard practice to shoot arrows in sky towards the stars, while the immigrants applaud at every shooting!
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Porting JOB on EAD - What is "similar role and responsibility" GCPagla AC21 Portability after 180 days of 485 filing 2 02-20-2011 02:01 PM
AC21 - with different job "codes" but similar job description lfadgyas AC21 Portability after 180 days of 485 filing 1 04-16-2009 03:17 PM
Are "Sr Support Engineer" and "Software engineer" AC21 Similar ? softgc All other Green Card Issues 5 04-11-2008 09:33 PM



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c)ImmigrationVoice.org