That is lying under oath

[Xkuger]

Well your case is on in which you are clearly lying under oath. If the INS were to know about this they can easily prove that you had clear intensions of leaving your present employer even as you took the Oath.

My friend the Immigration law is very strict. They can revoke your Green Card even 15 years later ( so don't try such stupid things)

You make get away with it and get luck but for ever in the future can you live with a peace of mind they will find out one day if they dig (Is it worth it - I don't think so).

So think clearly before make such decisions.

[Xkuger]

That is lying under oath

The prior posting was in response to Satyam

Details about the Oath at Consulate - Need Help

some how it opened a new topic rather than a response to the posting.

[rmalghan]

That is lying under oath

Does that mean one has to stay with the same company till he/she becomes a citizen?

[JoeF]

Of course you can switch companies.
The issue is, however, that you should not have the INTENT of switching companies at the time you enter the US on the immigrant visa. That would be immigration fraud, and as Xkuger said, in a case like that, they can revoke the GC and even citizenship decades later. There is no statute of limitation on immigration fraud.

Now how do you show that you didn't have the intention to change companies? The easiest way is to stay some time with the sponsoring company. For how long? Common sense is to stay at least 1/2 year, although some lawyers recommend up to two years. If you change soon after getting the GC, make sure you keep all letters, email etc. to show that you didn't have the intention to switch companies when you entered the US.

-JoeF

[satyam]

thanks

Thanks Xkuger and everybody for timely advice.
Great sleep has the utmost precedence than GC or any thing else :-))

[Yaj]

consular processing

I dont think one needs to stay for 2 years, especially in light of the fact that AOS employees could switch after 6 months (according to the new immigration bill). I fully agree with the rest of the posting, though