neelu
03-30 10:50 AM
People who want to contribute money will always do. You may get a few people to donate because of the "Donor" status, but most I feel want to contribute because they care.
Please allow me to turn around that question and pose it back to you - so how do we keep and attract people to volunteer (for all the wonderful things that I mentioned in my post)?
All I am saying is that this approach could hurt more than it may help.
So what do you suggest as the alternate to get the needed fund...?
Please allow me to turn around that question and pose it back to you - so how do we keep and attract people to volunteer (for all the wonderful things that I mentioned in my post)?
All I am saying is that this approach could hurt more than it may help.
So what do you suggest as the alternate to get the needed fund...?
WillIBLucky
06-18 10:44 AM
But, when the doctor asks you if you having any history of problems then you may have to tell him that.
Else, you should be fine. Good Luck
Else, you should be fine. Good Luck
xbohdpukc
02-27 10:34 AM
does anyone know if it's gonna be broadcast online?
snthampi
05-04 05:52 PM
Why don't send them an email stating that the project ended after 4 months? Don't forget to CC company B.
If the project ended, then you are not getting paid for that project anymore. So, that itself is your proof, in case you receive a legal notice. So, stop worrying.
If the project ended, then you are not getting paid for that project anymore. So, that itself is your proof, in case you receive a legal notice. So, stop worrying.
more...
veni001
12-28 11:07 AM
To get H-1 extension you need to have one of the following
Approved PERM labor (not expired)
PERM labor pending for 365 days or more
Pending I-140 or
Approved & "Valid" I-140
If you can not produce any of the above then "no" H1 extension beyond 6th year.
On the other hand once AOS is filed and 180 days passed, if you change your employer( assuming same or similar job), AC21 will protect that pending I485 even if approved I-140(assuming approved before move) is revoked by the original employer.
Background OF Myself
----------------------
a) Worked for Company A from 2003 to 2008.
b) Company A applied I-140 and approved April 2006. AOS 485 filed on July 2007. Got EAD but never used it
c)September 2008 I have Joined employer �B� by transferring H1B (Valid until Aug 2010).
d) Employer A revoked 140 which triggered 485 denial in October 2008.
e)Applied MTR and it was approved in NOVEMBER 2008 and 485 reopened.
f)Applied AP & EAD renewal ,got a EAD card September 2010
g) Since EAD extension got delayed I have applied H1-B Renewal August 1st week of 2010 and got a RFE now asking for proof how beneficiary qualify to extend beyond six years?
Question
I think the I140 revoked and 485 denial back in 2008 triggered the RFE. (Though MTR approved and 485 is pending)
1)I have EAD approved and it�s valid until 2012 September .Is it possible can we withdraw HI-B Petition application when they request RFE?
2)Can I have any chance of explain USCIS, by this rule below?
��USCIS has also specifically stated that if an approved I-140 is withdrawn after an I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days, the I-140 remains valid for purposes of AC21 � 106(c) portabilty:
"If the Form I-140 has been approved and the Form I-485 has been filed and remained unadjudicated for 180 days or more (as measured from the form I-485 receipt date), the approved Form I-140 will remain valid even if the alien changes jobs or employers as long as the new offer of employment is in the same or similar occupation." AFM Sec. 20.2(c) ��
Thanks
KPR
Approved PERM labor (not expired)
PERM labor pending for 365 days or more
Pending I-140 or
Approved & "Valid" I-140
If you can not produce any of the above then "no" H1 extension beyond 6th year.
On the other hand once AOS is filed and 180 days passed, if you change your employer( assuming same or similar job), AC21 will protect that pending I485 even if approved I-140(assuming approved before move) is revoked by the original employer.
Background OF Myself
----------------------
a) Worked for Company A from 2003 to 2008.
b) Company A applied I-140 and approved April 2006. AOS 485 filed on July 2007. Got EAD but never used it
c)September 2008 I have Joined employer �B� by transferring H1B (Valid until Aug 2010).
d) Employer A revoked 140 which triggered 485 denial in October 2008.
e)Applied MTR and it was approved in NOVEMBER 2008 and 485 reopened.
f)Applied AP & EAD renewal ,got a EAD card September 2010
g) Since EAD extension got delayed I have applied H1-B Renewal August 1st week of 2010 and got a RFE now asking for proof how beneficiary qualify to extend beyond six years?
Question
I think the I140 revoked and 485 denial back in 2008 triggered the RFE. (Though MTR approved and 485 is pending)
1)I have EAD approved and it�s valid until 2012 September .Is it possible can we withdraw HI-B Petition application when they request RFE?
2)Can I have any chance of explain USCIS, by this rule below?
��USCIS has also specifically stated that if an approved I-140 is withdrawn after an I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days, the I-140 remains valid for purposes of AC21 � 106(c) portabilty:
"If the Form I-140 has been approved and the Form I-485 has been filed and remained unadjudicated for 180 days or more (as measured from the form I-485 receipt date), the approved Form I-140 will remain valid even if the alien changes jobs or employers as long as the new offer of employment is in the same or similar occupation." AFM Sec. 20.2(c) ��
Thanks
KPR
gc_aspirant_prasad
07-13 05:24 PM
done
more...
prout02
07-30 12:26 PM
I have read in this forum frequent questions about this - legality/enforceability of noncompete clause. Here's a recent court decision from Kansas. It talks about physician practices. No idea if it is applicable to other professions. But the four factors cited in the decision seem relevant.
Interestingly, it talks about 8 states -- Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas -- that have been known to outlaw or significantly restrict such clauses.
Please take it for whatever it's worth.
======================
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/08/04/prsa0804.htm
amednews.com
Kansas court enforces noncompete clause
The court looked at a number of factors in weighing the contract's impact on the doctor, the employer and patient care.
By Amy Lynn Sorrel, AMNews staff. Aug. 4, 2008.
A Kansas appeals court recently affirmed the enforceability of noncompete clauses in a ruling that puts the spotlight on issues that can arise in drafting or signing the employment contracts.
Kansas is among a majority of states that consider noncompete clauses legal, with varying case law or statutes as to when and how the provisions can be used. Eight states -- Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas -- have been known to outlaw or significantly restrict such clauses.
In June, the Kansas Court of Appeals upheld a contract that restricted a family physician from practicing for three years in the same county as the group she left unless she paid the clinic 25% of her earnings during those three years after her termination.
In its decision, the court analyzed four factors to determine the validity of the contract provision. The court looked at whether the restrictive covenant:
* Protected a legitimate business interest of the employer.
* Created an undue burden on the employee.
* Harmed the public welfare.
* Contained time and geographic limitations that were reasonable.
In upholding the noncompete clause, the court found that Wichita Clinic PA had a legitimate interest in protecting its patient base and the investment it made in establishing the practice of Michelle M. Louis, DO, when she joined the group in 1991. The court said the contract did not unfairly restrict competition or patient access because Dr. Louis had the option to continue practicing in the area, where other family physicians were available.
Gary M. Austerman, Dr. Louis' attorney, said the court essentially ruled that "a contract is a contract" while giving "short shrift" to other concerns, including patient care. Dr. Louis plans to petition the Kansas Supreme Court to take her case.
8 states outlaw or significantly restrict noncompete clauses.
"A doctor's right to practice and continue her relationship with her patients in this case is greater than the employer's right to restrain that right," Austerman said. "Patient choice is affected any time you say you can't take care of patients just because of a business relationship."
Austerman said Wichita Clinic -- a practice of nearly 200 multispecialty physicians -- was not harmed by Dr. Louis' departure, and the contract was aimed at protecting itself from competition rather than protecting patient care. He argued that the 25% damages clause imposed an arbitrary penalty on Dr. Louis and was not intended to apply to the income she would make when she left the clinic in 2004.
AMA policy states that covenants not to compete "restrict competition, disrupt continuity of care and potentially deprive the public of medical services." The AMA discourages any agreement that restricts the right of a physician to practice medicine and considers noncompete clauses unethical if they are excessive in scope.
Striking a balance
Gary L. Ayers, an attorney for Wichita Clinic, said the group's contract struck an appropriate balance.
He said the clinic hired Dr. Louis after she completed her residency and helped set up her practice with an existing source of patient contacts and referrals, and by covering administrative and overhead costs. But if doctors decide to leave and take a portion of their patients with them, the group would lose out financially without some reimbursement arrangement, Ayers said. As a result, patient care would suffer.
Restrictive covenants "allow groups to protect their patient base and in turn give them the ability to grow the practice to provide a vast array of patient services," Ayers said.
Doctors on either side of the negotiating table should consult legal counsel to know where their state stands on enforcing noncompete provisions, said Richard H. Sanders, a Chicago-based health care lawyer with Vedder Price.
Employers drafting contracts should make sure time and distance limitations are reasonable and reflect where the practice draws its patient base from, he said. On the flip side, individual doctors should not hesitate to negotiate and ask for a buyout clause or a carve-out leaving a particular geographic territory open.
Jerry Slaughter, executive director of the Kansas Medical Society, warned that doctors should take the contracts seriously. The medical society was not involved in the Wichita Clinic case.
"If properly constructed, [restrictive covenants] are legal and binding, so it's really about the parties going into it understanding it's a contract."
Discuss on Sermo Discuss on Sermo Back to top.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Case at a glance
Was a noncompete clause in a doctor's employment contract enforceable?
A Kansas appeals court said yes.
Impact: Some individual physicians say the provisions restrict their rights to practice in any given area and infringe on patients' rights to choose a doctor. Physicians on the medical group side say the contracts help protect the investment a practice makes in new doctors and its existing business, which, in turn, helps maintain access to care.
Wichita Clinic PA v. Michelle M. Louis, DO, Kansas Court of Appeals
Back to top.
Copyright 2008 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
Interestingly, it talks about 8 states -- Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas -- that have been known to outlaw or significantly restrict such clauses.
Please take it for whatever it's worth.
======================
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/08/04/prsa0804.htm
amednews.com
Kansas court enforces noncompete clause
The court looked at a number of factors in weighing the contract's impact on the doctor, the employer and patient care.
By Amy Lynn Sorrel, AMNews staff. Aug. 4, 2008.
A Kansas appeals court recently affirmed the enforceability of noncompete clauses in a ruling that puts the spotlight on issues that can arise in drafting or signing the employment contracts.
Kansas is among a majority of states that consider noncompete clauses legal, with varying case law or statutes as to when and how the provisions can be used. Eight states -- Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas -- have been known to outlaw or significantly restrict such clauses.
In June, the Kansas Court of Appeals upheld a contract that restricted a family physician from practicing for three years in the same county as the group she left unless she paid the clinic 25% of her earnings during those three years after her termination.
In its decision, the court analyzed four factors to determine the validity of the contract provision. The court looked at whether the restrictive covenant:
* Protected a legitimate business interest of the employer.
* Created an undue burden on the employee.
* Harmed the public welfare.
* Contained time and geographic limitations that were reasonable.
In upholding the noncompete clause, the court found that Wichita Clinic PA had a legitimate interest in protecting its patient base and the investment it made in establishing the practice of Michelle M. Louis, DO, when she joined the group in 1991. The court said the contract did not unfairly restrict competition or patient access because Dr. Louis had the option to continue practicing in the area, where other family physicians were available.
Gary M. Austerman, Dr. Louis' attorney, said the court essentially ruled that "a contract is a contract" while giving "short shrift" to other concerns, including patient care. Dr. Louis plans to petition the Kansas Supreme Court to take her case.
8 states outlaw or significantly restrict noncompete clauses.
"A doctor's right to practice and continue her relationship with her patients in this case is greater than the employer's right to restrain that right," Austerman said. "Patient choice is affected any time you say you can't take care of patients just because of a business relationship."
Austerman said Wichita Clinic -- a practice of nearly 200 multispecialty physicians -- was not harmed by Dr. Louis' departure, and the contract was aimed at protecting itself from competition rather than protecting patient care. He argued that the 25% damages clause imposed an arbitrary penalty on Dr. Louis and was not intended to apply to the income she would make when she left the clinic in 2004.
AMA policy states that covenants not to compete "restrict competition, disrupt continuity of care and potentially deprive the public of medical services." The AMA discourages any agreement that restricts the right of a physician to practice medicine and considers noncompete clauses unethical if they are excessive in scope.
Striking a balance
Gary L. Ayers, an attorney for Wichita Clinic, said the group's contract struck an appropriate balance.
He said the clinic hired Dr. Louis after she completed her residency and helped set up her practice with an existing source of patient contacts and referrals, and by covering administrative and overhead costs. But if doctors decide to leave and take a portion of their patients with them, the group would lose out financially without some reimbursement arrangement, Ayers said. As a result, patient care would suffer.
Restrictive covenants "allow groups to protect their patient base and in turn give them the ability to grow the practice to provide a vast array of patient services," Ayers said.
Doctors on either side of the negotiating table should consult legal counsel to know where their state stands on enforcing noncompete provisions, said Richard H. Sanders, a Chicago-based health care lawyer with Vedder Price.
Employers drafting contracts should make sure time and distance limitations are reasonable and reflect where the practice draws its patient base from, he said. On the flip side, individual doctors should not hesitate to negotiate and ask for a buyout clause or a carve-out leaving a particular geographic territory open.
Jerry Slaughter, executive director of the Kansas Medical Society, warned that doctors should take the contracts seriously. The medical society was not involved in the Wichita Clinic case.
"If properly constructed, [restrictive covenants] are legal and binding, so it's really about the parties going into it understanding it's a contract."
Discuss on Sermo Discuss on Sermo Back to top.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Case at a glance
Was a noncompete clause in a doctor's employment contract enforceable?
A Kansas appeals court said yes.
Impact: Some individual physicians say the provisions restrict their rights to practice in any given area and infringe on patients' rights to choose a doctor. Physicians on the medical group side say the contracts help protect the investment a practice makes in new doctors and its existing business, which, in turn, helps maintain access to care.
Wichita Clinic PA v. Michelle M. Louis, DO, Kansas Court of Appeals
Back to top.
Copyright 2008 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
thomachan72
10-19 09:35 AM
Has anybody done that?
Questions;
1) Will the old 140 be valid (for using the PD) even if the old employer withdraws/revokes the old LC/140? Big corporation, so I thought that would be a standard procedure?
2) Has the new job title and responsibilities be very similar to the old one?
3) Has the new LC/140 to be filed before the old one is cancelled inorder to keep the PD?
4) is there any memo/law that allows us to keep the old PD once a 140 has been approved (even if it is revoken)?
It is clear that a new LC/140 has to be done once you change the job. So any other information is welcome.
Questions;
1) Will the old 140 be valid (for using the PD) even if the old employer withdraws/revokes the old LC/140? Big corporation, so I thought that would be a standard procedure?
2) Has the new job title and responsibilities be very similar to the old one?
3) Has the new LC/140 to be filed before the old one is cancelled inorder to keep the PD?
4) is there any memo/law that allows us to keep the old PD once a 140 has been approved (even if it is revoken)?
It is clear that a new LC/140 has to be done once you change the job. So any other information is welcome.
more...
sanjay02
05-22 06:04 PM
Hi
I had filed my I-485 in Jun 2007 my PD is Nov 2005 and was called for an interview at the local USCIS office in Feb 2009. My I-485 was pre-approved, now I am about to apply for AP renewal.
The question I have is which service center do I mail in my AP renewal docs? My original application was filed in Nebraska. So do I file it there or send it to service center in Missouri? Can any one who has similar experience post the answer to this?
Thnks
Sanjay
I had filed my I-485 in Jun 2007 my PD is Nov 2005 and was called for an interview at the local USCIS office in Feb 2009. My I-485 was pre-approved, now I am about to apply for AP renewal.
The question I have is which service center do I mail in my AP renewal docs? My original application was filed in Nebraska. So do I file it there or send it to service center in Missouri? Can any one who has similar experience post the answer to this?
Thnks
Sanjay
PD_Dec2002
05-22 10:38 AM
OK, my bad for getting the name of the lobbying firm wrong. The moderator is free to change the name of the thread.
Anyway, now that I know that the name is Patton Boggs, doesn't anyone (out of curiosity) want to get their point of view? What does PB have to say about the fact that none of the provisions for legal immigrants went into the CIR? What's their take on the chances that favorable amendments for legal immigrants will make it?
Of course there are no guarantees in life. No one's going to say IV didn't try hard enough even if the CIR in the current form passes. Likewise, I am not saying PB hasn't done much or did not deliver. My questions do not reflect IV's choice to go with PB.
As I said, it just would be interesting to know ... ...
But if no one else finds it interesting, ignore this thread. Don't reply to it.
Thanks,
Jayant
Anyway, now that I know that the name is Patton Boggs, doesn't anyone (out of curiosity) want to get their point of view? What does PB have to say about the fact that none of the provisions for legal immigrants went into the CIR? What's their take on the chances that favorable amendments for legal immigrants will make it?
Of course there are no guarantees in life. No one's going to say IV didn't try hard enough even if the CIR in the current form passes. Likewise, I am not saying PB hasn't done much or did not deliver. My questions do not reflect IV's choice to go with PB.
As I said, it just would be interesting to know ... ...
But if no one else finds it interesting, ignore this thread. Don't reply to it.
Thanks,
Jayant
more...
rajutata
03-18 03:40 PM
Prevailing wage is for your future job after you get your green card. Bonus is paid this year although it was for your last year work and can not be included in your last year W2 and is not necessary also. Sometimes we get paid December months salary in January of the following year and will not show up in previous year's W2.
It is not a requirement at all.
It is not a requirement at all.
cvk90
06-23 10:31 PM
My attornies (big firm...working for Fortune 500 company) says that dates could retrogress anytime i.e. on 15 July 07, dates could move back several months and the chances of that happening are very high. My advise is to have your spouse cut the vacation short and return asap...! You need to file ASAP.
more...
Steven-T
July 9th, 2004, 09:33 AM
Do any equipment savy forum members have any views on the Nikon Nikkor 28-200mm f/3.5 - 5.6D IF AF Zoom lens positive, negitive or otherwise? Target camera will be my D70. Thanks in advance.On 1.5x sensor, the 28mm becomes 42mm 35mm-camera equivalent. That's definitely not wide enough. To me, attaching a wide-range and large lens to my camera, and carrying it in hiking, rain forest, desert, etc is not preferred unless you packed inside the backpack and take it out only when taking pictures. Then I would prefer two lenses, something of 18-35mm, and 70-200mm. That's was my Nikon days for 25+ years prior to changing over to canon one month ago.
Steven
Steven
arc
10-04 04:57 PM
From Poll results, it seems there r 3 people who got their FP notices already. Just want to make sure--you guys are NSC->CSC->NSC transfer cases or was it Xfr'd to TSC?
None of them is a transfer case nsc>csc>nsc... I checked their posts, That means NONE of nsc>csc>nsc transfer cases have received the FP...
None of them is a transfer case nsc>csc>nsc... I checked their posts, That means NONE of nsc>csc>nsc transfer cases have received the FP...
more...
gc_chahiye
07-09 06:02 PM
gc_chahiye - Is it possible to somehow keep the results of the first poll in the main page? It is the only data we have which comes anywhere near the real data, and it would provide good reference.
done. The first post in each poll has a link to the other poll now.
done. The first post in each poll has a link to the other poll now.
glus
05-13 11:26 AM
Staying abroad constitutes "abandonment of U.S. residency." It is not related to "immigrant intent" at all. Worked for an Immigration Law office for long.
more...
crazymish
03-06 10:54 AM
Then again I presume it would involve paying a fee of $80 for the biometrics too each time you apply online. Could be avoided if we go paper based.
That does raise a small question here, the $1010 fee that we pay does that also exempt us on the biometric fee, so in essence AP/EAD/FP is all exempt irrespecitve the number of times we apply under the new fee structure?
That does raise a small question here, the $1010 fee that we pay does that also exempt us on the biometric fee, so in essence AP/EAD/FP is all exempt irrespecitve the number of times we apply under the new fee structure?
walking_dude
11-21 11:17 AM
Don't hide anonymously like a Turkey. Eat Turkey (Fight for your cause)
Happy Thanksgiving
Happy Thanksgiving
needgc1712
06-03 05:36 PM
Hi All,
My company applied 485 and h1b. I am in AOS status and having EAD. My company laid off me on March and they are not revoke my h1b and 140(they may hire me back once get new job). Mean time shall i work hourly job and get around $1200 per month with same job description with using my EAD(new company will run payroll and W2). Also i am keep looking permanent full time job with my higher salary.
For the hourly job they asking to fill I-9(employment eligibility verification will inform USCIS). On that form asking my A# with EAD expiration date.
Is there a chance USCIS will know my hourly job?. My concern - this hourly job will create a problem for my GC process (chance to get REF) because rate is low
Please give me your valuable suggestion
Thanks
My company applied 485 and h1b. I am in AOS status and having EAD. My company laid off me on March and they are not revoke my h1b and 140(they may hire me back once get new job). Mean time shall i work hourly job and get around $1200 per month with same job description with using my EAD(new company will run payroll and W2). Also i am keep looking permanent full time job with my higher salary.
For the hourly job they asking to fill I-9(employment eligibility verification will inform USCIS). On that form asking my A# with EAD expiration date.
Is there a chance USCIS will know my hourly job?. My concern - this hourly job will create a problem for my GC process (chance to get REF) because rate is low
Please give me your valuable suggestion
Thanks
seahawks
11-02 10:33 AM
The meeting was awesome, of course we kept food out of the equation to be more focussed and lack to time during a weekday so we did not meet in a food court or a restaurant and decided to meet instead in a library meeting room:). I think the chapter is maturing quickly though.
It was a wonderful brain storming session with ideas to take this chapter forward. We also had everyone wanting to take up tasks and really wanting to do whatever it takes to get this going.I did send the meeting minutes to everyone attended to get their review done. I have also send it to the leadership group. I am very happy with the members who met and the interesting ideas, thoughts and energy that they bring into this chapter.
I will be sending out the meeting minutes to the rest of the state chapter members sometime this weekend once I get the minutes reviewed by the attendees.
I want to thank everyone from IV for making this happen, the constant support from everyone outside this state from core team, the chapter leads and everyone who believed in us. Wanted to thank the members who showed up and the member who could not but really wanted to due to trick or treat or being a weekday and driving distance from Portland. The next meeting will be a weekend, specifically a Saturday to make sure we get maximum members who really want to make a difference!
Yes, Vandana took pictures, will post soon.
It was a wonderful brain storming session with ideas to take this chapter forward. We also had everyone wanting to take up tasks and really wanting to do whatever it takes to get this going.I did send the meeting minutes to everyone attended to get their review done. I have also send it to the leadership group. I am very happy with the members who met and the interesting ideas, thoughts and energy that they bring into this chapter.
I will be sending out the meeting minutes to the rest of the state chapter members sometime this weekend once I get the minutes reviewed by the attendees.
I want to thank everyone from IV for making this happen, the constant support from everyone outside this state from core team, the chapter leads and everyone who believed in us. Wanted to thank the members who showed up and the member who could not but really wanted to due to trick or treat or being a weekday and driving distance from Portland. The next meeting will be a weekend, specifically a Saturday to make sure we get maximum members who really want to make a difference!
Yes, Vandana took pictures, will post soon.
humdesi
05-31 08:53 PM
A friend of mine just came from India. Works for a bodyshopper. He is transferring to L-1A so that he can file in EB-1 multinational manager. Is this possible? What are the minimum requirements for EB-1?
If it is possible this guy will be laughing a year from now, gc in hand, while we all fume and fret over retrogression, labor, i-140 etc..
If it is possible this guy will be laughing a year from now, gc in hand, while we all fume and fret over retrogression, labor, i-140 etc..
No comments:
Post a Comment