yesterday I asked AA if one can get BE (BeschErl)
after 3-4 y and I was suprised they new everything.
Than I told them I am GC and I was suprised to see that thay still think GC is limited to max 5 years and because of that they issue no BE to GClers.
To say hnestly even if GC would be limited law says that after 3-4 y one gets BE and even than they should give BE.
But GC is not even limited any more and my ABH knos it but my AA not.
What a stupid situation. I have to make antrag auf BE at ABH and they will pass it to AA because they do not know anything about WP.
And AA will answer NO because they think GC is limited even if ABH knows that GC is not limited any more.
Pure Kafka.

Hi DvD
Thanks for sharing with us this info.
You said:

To say hnestly even if GC would be limited law says that after 3-4 y one gets BE and even than they should give BE.

I think this is not that correct because if we look at the BeschVerfV §9 (2) 2
http://www.aufenthaltstitel.de/beschverfv.html#9
It says:

Auf die Beschäftigungszeit nach Absatz 1 Nr. 1 werden nicht angerechnet Zeiten
2. einer nach dem Aufenthaltsgesetz oder der Beschäftigungsverordnung zeitlich begrenzten Beschäftigung

so as you see, if AA thinks that GC is limited to 5 years, then They are lawfully correct by saying that your 3 years will not be counted for BescherVerfV §9 (1) 1

I think it is also discussable whether we can claim that because of BeschV §46 (2), a GC becomes automatically unlimited. (in my opinion it is, but you may need to point to this paragraph in your application, maybe this will convince AA so that they will count your 3 years)

Please let us know how this goes..

Regards,

Lacrima

(2) Auf die Beschäftigungszeit nach Absatz 1 Nr. 1
werden nicht angerechnet Zeiten

einer nach dem Aufenthaltsgesetz oder der Beschäftigungsverordnung zeitlich begrenzten Beschäftigung oder

sich seit vier Jahren im Bundesgebiet ununterbrochen erlaubt oder geduldet aufhalten; Unterbrechungszeiten werden entsprechend § 51 Abs. 1 Nr. 7 des Aufenthaltsgesetzes berücksichtigt.

Das heißt doch dass jeder der 4 Jahre Aufenthahlt und GC (oder irgendeine AE) hat kriegt doch eine BE.

Oder doch nicht ?

@cedomir

Jein.. bitte siehe meinen letzten Beitrag in diesem Thread, in dem ich versucht habe, zu erklären ob GC-Zeiten für BeschVerf §9 (1)angerechnet werden sollen oder nicht.

Gruss,

Lacrima

@cedomir

Dein "oder" in deiner Referenz bindet falsche Absätze. Bitte siehe mal den Gesetzlink genauer an.

lacrima cedo is right, and you are wrong.

zeitlich begrenzte Beschäftigung can not be counted only to 3 y Frist BUT IT MUST BE COUNTED IN 4 y Frist.
that is because it says:
Auf die Beschäftigungszeit nach Absatz 1 Nr. 1 werden nicht angerechnet Zeiten...

Auf die Aufenthaltszeit nach Absatz 1 Nr. 2 is only studium Zeit not counted completely (only 2 y).

And however GC is not zeitlich begrenzt any more

@Lacrima could you explain me / us (bitte) was hast du gemeint das ich falsche dinge verbunden habe ? I have understood that you must have three years of "unlimited" employement (btw., this is absurd too-AFAIK it is alyays limited) OR four years of legal stay.

Pls help. Thanks !

@dvd: Who says GC is unlimited :-) ? Qoute: "We do not work according to law, we work according to inscructions that we got from our boss" qoute end - just one of famous "Sprüche" of ABH.

Langsam reicht´s mir, das wird eben doch eine Sache für VPMK. Ich habe noch etwas Zeit, aber falls es so weiter geht mit diversen Aussagen aus ABH und AA es geht leider doch keinen Weg von einem Rechtsanwalt vorbei.

@DvD

Hey men, check this thread out:

http://www.xonder.at/cgi-bin/yabbserver/foren/F_0134/YaBB.cgi?board=arbeit;action=display;num=1106550967

Mick keep supporting your position. You were always right, but take a look to the case of this man (I think he is also here in Trust7).

What do you think?

@cedomir

§ 9 Beschäftigung bei Vorbeschäftigungszeiten oder längerfristigem Voraufenthalt
(1) Die Zustimmung zur Ausübung einer Beschäftigung kann ohne Prüfung nach § 39 Abs. 2 Satz 1 Nr. 1 des Aufenthaltsgesetzes Ausländern erteilt werden, die eine Aufenthaltserlaubnis besitzen und

1. drei Jahre rechtmäßig eine versicherungspflichtige Beschäftigung im Bundesgebiet ausgeübt haben oder

2. sich seit vier Jahren im Bundesgebiet ununterbrochen erlaubt oder geduldet aufhalten; Unterbrechungszeiten werden entsprechend § 51 Abs. 1 Nr. 7 des Aufenthaltsgesetzes berücksichtigt.


(2) Auf die Beschäftigungszeit nach Absatz 1 Nr. 1 werden nicht angerechnet Zeiten

von Beschäftigungen, die vor dem Zeitpunkt liegen, an dem der Ausländer aus dem Bundesgebiet unter Aufgabe seines gewöhnlichen Aufenthaltes ausgereist war,
1. einer nach dem Aufenthaltsgesetz oder der Beschäftigungsverordnung zeitlich begrenzten Beschäftigung oder
2. einer Beschäftigung, für die der Ausländer auf Grund dieser Verordnung, der Beschäftigungsverordnung oder auf Grund einer zwischenstaatlichen Vereinbarung von der Zustimmungspflicht für eine Beschäftigung befreit war.


So please check the "oder"s in this text and the paragraphs it is connecting and compare it with your quoted text and "oder" ? are they identical ?

@DvD
if smt is "zeitlich begrenzt", it is "zeitlich begrenzt".. after reading these paragraphs, how can you be so sure that "zeitlich begrenzt" work is only for students ?
What I am trying to say here is, if AA says they are basing their decision regarding the 3-4 year BE issue on the assumption that GC is limited to 5 years.. their way of thinking is correct. If you prove them, GC is unlimited then they have legally nothing to do but FIRST you have to prove them Beschv §46 is enough for considering GC as not "zeitlich begrenzt". If AA accepts Beschv §46, then you dont have problems anyway.

Regards,

Lacrima

@lacrima & others:

This is how I have got it (I leave open possibility that I am too stupid to understand this :-). Actually it is very possible :-) ).

So:


§ 9 contains (1) and (2).

(1) can be fulfilled if you satisfy conditions under (1)/1. OR (1)/2.

Simultaneously however:

(2)/1. says that time-limited employement cannot be used to fulfill the criteria under (1)/1. (2)/2. is for GC anyway not relevant.

Thus: I want to use only to § 9 (1)/2., and forget the fact that I have worked there. The condition for § 9 (1)/2 is only legal stay. § 9 (2) says that "Auf die Beschäftigungszeit nach Absatz 1 Nr. 1 werden nicht angerechnet Zeiten..."

The fact that I have worked there allowed me legal stay for 4 years, which should be enough for BE, according to § 9 (1)/2.

For example: GC wife who sat at home in Germany waiting for lovely husband to come home for four years and did nothing but watching TV after 4 years should have right for BE, because she stayed legally in Germany for four years (watching TV :-) and paying GEZ ).

Where did I made mistake this time ?

Thanks !

About Mick: What he says is valid only in his ABH. And also keep in mind that he is apparently very "into" his job and very well informed, the fact that he participates in this forum says enough. I doubt that the other ABHs & AA have such degree of awareness, and that is the Problem for us.

@lacrima you speak deutsch very good.
take a better look and you will see that "zeitlich begrenzt" goes
only for 3 y Arbeit and
not for 4 y Aufenthalt because
Arbeit is in 1.1 and
Aufenthalt is in 1.2


And 2 says that:
(2) Auf die Beschäftigungszeit nach Absatz 1 Nr. 1 werden nicht angerechnet Zeiten...

also nur auf 1.1 (Arbeit) is that not counted

What is not counted for 4 y Aufenthalt is defined in 3:
(3) Auf die Aufenthaltszeit nach Absatz 1 Nr. 2 werden Zeiten eines Aufenthaltes nach § 16 des Aufenthaltsgesetzes nur zur Hälfte und nur bis zu zwei Jahren angerechnet.

Also only Studium (§ 16) is not counted in 4 y Aufenthalt.

@cedomir

You are right.. I overlooked this "Beschäftigunszeit" part. For 3 years, what I am saying is valid but 4 years, you are correct.
A GC which legally stayed in Germany for 4 years shoud get BE.

Regards,

Lacrima

@lacrima
I only wish I could pursuade Beamterin that quick.

All this stuf with visa connected to employer, visa "erlischt mit beendigung der tätigkeit" is in my eyes pure and unnecessary discrimination of GCs and nothing else. Before we came here the GC was never marketed as work permit connected to employer but rather as 5-year work permit for IT field.

The effect of visa connected to company, and visa which "erlischt mit beendigung der tätigkeit" was not bad only for me, but also for at least two of my employees. How ?

I have (suddenly) lost my job, and then accepted shitty payed job (GC minimum) just to avoid problems with ABH. After 1.5 Months (it would be then in total 2.5 months on job suche visa if I hadn't accepted this job), I have got better offer, so I have changed to this job. Previous company was of course "sauer". Then in this new job, it was a consulting company, the customer ordered work for 6 months, instead for 12 months as promised before I came to this firma. So I have immediately changed to third company just to avoid any risk of being "gekündigt". This time there were even more people "sauer".

But this was the only way to fight the unnecessary restrictive visa policy of local ABH.

Unfortunately this trick doesn't work anymore because now people are having problems also for jobwechsel.

Last week I asked the AB to give me a stamp without company name on it. The AB has asked the AA, and the AA has told me that I can not get it.
The lady in ABH has told me that as AA does not approve, she can not issue me anything. She rather told me that she wants to help me to ease my condition. She knows that I have been in Germany since Oct 2000 (Study until Oct 2003, Doktorand until December 2004, Greencard since Jan 2005).
She has asked me to apply according to BeschVerfV §9. But she asked to apply written. But I know I may not qualify in this category if I calculate so:
3yr*1.5 = 1.5 yrs
1.5 years
Total is 3 years. But I need 4 year category.

But if the lady calculates my rente of 24 months during my 3 years of study period , then my total rente is 24 months + 17 months = 42 months. I am doubtful about this calculation.

Should I proceed according to her instructions or I should fight at first for ohne firmabindung?

Please pour some light on it.

danke!

regards,

mk

@mk

According to BeschVerfV §9 you should have min. 4
years of residence in BRD (with any valid AE) to apply for unlimited WP.
Since you came here in Oct 2000, there should be no problem.

Thinking so, Lady Beamterin is not totaly wrong. Seems that she really wants to help you?!?!

I would apply as she told you:
- in written form
- according to BeschVerfV §9
- tell us what happened after all

Regards

@BiliPiton

DObra slika

But according to §9 (4), study time is counted half as i calculetd.

Will the lady in ABH contact with AA to decide on this case? If so, my change is very low to get it.

any idea?

regards,

mk

@mk

As I have understood your case, you have nothing to loose. At least in the matter of WP.

You are eligible to request anything you need!

It seams that Beamterin also did not read the law in detail.

Worse can happen that you get negative response.
In that case, collect some more working months and
apply again.

Regards

But the thing is that if I give up my fight for ohne firmabindung, it can be said that I agreed with their decision. Dont you think so?

Great Photo BiliPiton !!!

Bravo majstore ;)

@mk

>Should I proceed according to her instructions
>or I should fight at first for ohne firmabindung?

Might be that I dont understand you, but what your are askinng from AA is "ohne firmabindung" and what you would get from BeschVerfV §9 is also the same but little bit more (unlimited and valid for any job).

If you do not fullfill requirements for "ohne firmabindung" at this moment and get a negative response, you can apply for it some months later and you should get it.

@cedomir @VK

non abla inglese. :-)

> Great Photo BiliPiton !!!
>
> Bravo majstore


@BiliPiton:

I think, the picture comes from "Underground". Isn't it?

@ppetrov

Nope. That's one of my favorite fotos just before I arrived here. Then I was pretty younger as today:-(.

But, we better keep following thread!

ko je to na slici

@mk

you have low chances to get rid of firma binding according to BeschVerfv §9
you could get it only if they do some mistake.

But you could ask IT work permit without firma bindung according to BeschV §46.2.
if you look law explanation it is clear that GC needs no AMC for whole IT Bereich and because of that you can get "Beschäftigung erlaubt nur als IT-Fachkraft"

That should be enough for you.
But AA has definitly keine Ahnung about BeschV §46.2. All they know is BeschVerfV §9.
So if you do Antrag schriftlich do it nach dem §42.2 BeschV and write the whole § in Antrag.

@DvD

mk mentioned that he has GreenCard since Jan 2005.
I think it could not be Green Card because since Jan 2005 there is no GCs any more.

§46.2 is Uebergangsregelungen and it regulates the state of all WPs that are issued according to §6(2) IT-Av (GC-Verordnung).

If mk has anything else that §6(2) IT-Av in his AE then he cannot apply through §46.2.

As I have told you that my work permit is according to IT-ArVO which was applied on 22nd December and issued on 28th December 2004. So my case should be handled according to GC law.
Isn't it?

@mk

Yes, since you are a GC I also agree with DvD.

Good luck!

Sorry for digression, the photo comes from this movie:

http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movies/movie.html?v_id=151539

@VR
gledo!

aha Zoran Radmilovic
I remember that he died long before war.

@DvD @VR

barking good film!

I have discussed my case with info4alien. They have suggested me to apply to the ABH in written form. Then I can challenge their denial. I have submitted the printout of info4alien discussion.

According to the advice from the Beamterin I submitted 2 applications -
i. to get only "Beschaftigung Erlaubt" according to BeschVerfV §9 ( she also asked me to give her my all rente papers),
ii. if (i) is denied, then she will try for the ohne Frimabindung according to BeschV §46 (2).

During the complete discussion she was very friendly. She even told me that Germany needs skilled people like you. She asked me if I lie Germany and have any intentions to live here permanently.

She has told me that she wants to help me. But let's see how much she helps.

I am getting ready to fight this case with some Rechtsanwalt.

regards,

mk