Citizenship implications of working for different company than sponsor

[johnnyirl 7]

I recently became a permanent resident through the employment-based category. When I came to the US, the company (aka the sponsor) wanted me to work for a different company that the owners had setup. I believe it was something to do with retaining all software intellectual property in the second company. Some important details:

 

All the work I do is for the sponsoring company, I just get paid by company B. I'm under the same roof as the sponsoring company, and company B has the same address as the sponsor. The ownership of both companies is almost, but not entirely the same.

 

I'm worried that when I go for the citizenship interview that USCIS might turn around and say that fraud was committed or something like that. Has anyone been in this situation before?

 

I've tried to be proactive about things and managed to get the sponsoring company to issue me a check for one of the months I worked. This was to maintain a trail of a connection to the sponsoring company. Also I managed to get a letter from the sponsor stating '...even though we sponsored this person, he started work with an affiliate company under similar ownership as we deemed his work to be more suited to that company".

 

I've been thinking about this for months and don't want to spend the next 4.5 years worrying about it. If anyone had any guidance that would be great. Thank you!

[Boiler 43,689]

There is no requirement but yes you could be asked about it and seems you have a valid explanation 

[johnnyirl 7]

5 minutes ago, Boiler said:

There is no requirement but yes you could be asked about it and seems you have a valid explanation 

Thanks Boiler. About there is no requirement - do you mind if I ask what that means specifically? E.g. does it mean that it doesn't matter who you work for as long as the intent was there during the I-140 process?

[Mike E 11,726]

16 hours ago, Boiler said:

There is no requirement but yes you could be asked about it and seems you have a valid explanation 

There is definitely a requirement that you work for the petitioner 

 

How long that employment must continue is indefinite.  But cases have been rejected including the naturalization cases of derivatives 

 

This is not a DIY case.  OP shoukd hsve received something in writing that the offer of employment was rescinded and why. 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 25, 2022 by Mike E

[Boiler 43,689]

Do you mean undefined rather than indefinite?

 

Personally I play it safe so would be thinking of say 6 months before moving on, but seems the OP has a few pay slips.

[Boiler 43,689]

Companies restructure all the time so there is that point as well

[Mike E 11,726]

2 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Do you mean undefined rather than indefinite?

 

Personally I play it safe so would be thinking of say 6 months before moving on, but seems the OP has a few pay slips.

“

indefinite

 

ĭn-dĕf′ə-nĭt

adjective

1. Not definite, especially.
2. Unclear; vague.
3. Lacking precise limits.”

 

All of above apply 

[Family 3,549]

19 hours ago, johnnyirl said:

When I came to the US, the company (aka the sponsor) wanted me to work for a different company that the owners had setup.

 

19 hours ago, johnnyirl said:

All the work I do is for the sponsoring company, I just get paid by company B. I'm under the same roof as the sponsoring company, and company B has the same address as the sponsor. The ownership of both companies is almost, but not entirely the same.

There are enough red flags for scrutiny, especially given that immediately on entering the US , neither your position nor you are “ needed” by the sponsor, but farmed out to affiliate . There is certainly some maneuvering at hand . 
Is your sponsor and/ or affiliate company staffed with workers brought in through labor petitions ? 

Do you know if others found themselves switched out , same as you? 

Perhaps they routinely do this and have not run into problems…but your best recourse is to get opinion/ assessment from the immigration attorney that prepped/ filed the I-140 and Green Card…now.

What contractual obligations do you have with your sponsor co and are theirs spelled out ..cause you may not be working for them by the time it’s time to Natz…and if you are not one of the lucky ones to get through without questions,  the issue will remain 

[johnnyirl 7]

3 hours ago, Mike E said:

There is definitely a requirement that you work for the petitioner 

 

How long that employment must continue is indefinite.  But cases have been rejected including the naturalization cases of derivatives 

 

This is not a DIY case.  OP shoukd hsve received something in writing that the offer of employment was rescinded and why. 

 

 

 

 

It's worth mentioning again that I'm still working for the sponsor. I'm in the sponsor's office, the boss are my sponsor's employees. I have the sponsor's apparel. I sometimes get a check directly from them. The only thing is that a different company pays my wage most of the time (except that once or twice where I received a check directly from the sponsor). This other company was setup so that IT staff doing work for the sponsor, if they create software, that the software would remain the intellectual property of this other company. Just to be clear,  this other company is not a staffing agency.

[johnnyirl 7]

31 minutes ago, Family said:

 

There are enough red flags for scrutiny, especially given that immediately on entering the US , neither your position nor you are “ needed” by the sponsor, but farmed out to affiliate . There is certainly some maneuvering at hand . 
Is your sponsor and/ or affiliate company staffed with workers brought in through labor petitions ? 

Do you know if others found themselves switched out , same as you? 

Perhaps they routinely do this and have not run into problems…but your best recourse is to get opinion/ assessment from the immigration attorney that prepped/ filed the I-140 and Green Card…now.

What contractual obligations do you have with your sponsor co and are theirs spelled out ..cause you may not be working for them by the time it’s time to Natz…and if you are not one of the lucky ones to get through without questions,  the issue will remain 

I'm not farmed out to anyone. The affiliate is just a company on paper. There are no employees in it except for myself of course. It's the same owners, the same address (on paper). I work directly for the sponsor and the sponsor created this other company to keep the intellectual property of all software created within this company. It's the same address, the same ownership, I even have the sponsor's email domain.

 

The position was needed by the sponsor - like, I am part of the sponsor's employee hierarchy, I have the sponsor's email, I work on the sponsor's systems, I work at the sponsor's address. The sponsor created this other company to protect intellectual property and I get paid by this company. That's the only difference. As someone else pointed out, it's a slight restructure to protect software rights but nothing to do with moving me to different company in the general sense.

 

The attorney who filed my I-140 is the legal counsel for the sponsor. As my work is still directly for the sponsor, she is still my attorney and I have full access to legal counsel. She is the one who gave me the letter saying that the sponsor determined that I would be better suited to placed under the guise of the affiliate company. I am going to go back and ask for the statement to be adjusted, to say that the recipient of the work is still the sponsor, but that I get paid by this other company that was setup to protect intellectual property. It's worth mentioning that she said I'm over-thinking things and that as long as there was true intent when my I-140 was filed then it doesn't matter who you work for. And besides, in my case, it's not as if I moved to another location - I'm still in the sponsor's office working for them.

[Family 3,549]

26 minutes ago, johnnyirl said:

). I work directly for the sponsor a

 

27 minutes ago, johnnyirl said:

The position was needed by the sponsor - like, I am part of the sponsor's employee hierarchy, I have the sponsor's email, I work on the sponsor's systems, I

Since Mr. Sponsor hired you and is the one that can fire you, and you wear his uniform/ apparel you will be fine ……, because if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, then by Jove ! It’s a duck!
So you will be fine stating that you work for Mr. Sponsor , regardless of the intricacies of their accounting/ legal payroll entities. 

 

I don’t necessarily agree that you are overthinking, because generally the consensus is to be able to show at least 6 months employment with sponsor and valid separation…You have already put in place crucial evidence to prove you started and continue to work for same ….and they have legal representative to vouch for their own actions, if questions arise in 4.5 years.

[Villanelle 4,121]

https://www.uscis.gov/forms/all-forms/petition-filing-and-processing-procedures-for-form-i-140-immigrant-petition-for-alien-workers

 

Have you seen the above? It discusses various aspects regarding portability and SII.

[johnnyirl 7]

Just got a second opinion from a very good immigration lawyer in NY. He said that as long as you didn't intend to commit fraud during the I-140 and visa adjudication process, and you aren't committing fraud now, that there will be no problem whatsoever during the naturalization interview.

 

He said that you could get denied if the intended job never existed or if the GC was paid for as a scheme, something like that.

 

And also, he mentioned that it's not my fault that I'm getting paid from a different company - if anything that's on the employer. I showed up for work and am working for the sponsor, just getting paid from another company. No red flags whatsoever. He said with this AC21 thing that they really don't care about switching jobs any more.

 

He confirmed that I was overthinking it, that he has being doing this a long time, and to go and enjoy the US and stop worrying. Another tip - that since the naturalization form only says to put down the last 5 years worth of employment history, if we waited a little longer to naturalize, the sponsor's name would not even appear on the list and so the question would be avoided entirely.

 

Hope this helps!