Libra
07-05 12:50 PM
CNN is asking us to fix our(India) country first before asking for justice in this(USA) country..............
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/07/05/damon.india.widows/index.html
that is what CNN is doing now.........
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/07/05/damon.india.widows/index.html
that is what CNN is doing now.........
ChainReaction
06-14 02:55 PM
If one is applying I 140 and I 485 concurrently, will EAD come after I 140 gets approved or EAD will come irrespective of I 140 is approved or not?
I also have the same question can someone comment on this
thanks !!
Bumming up /\ /\ /\
I also have the same question can someone comment on this
thanks !!
Bumming up /\ /\ /\
gdhiren
07-10 12:12 AM
I am planning to be there little after 11 AM with Flowers. hey, how about getting a car full of flowers delivering by our own hands? Now that I am thinking about it, in stead of people sending $32 online we should have bought the flowers locally (using paypal). Is it too late?
Let's do it, guys. It's time for some real work.
Let's do it, guys. It's time for some real work.
Kodi
07-06 01:31 PM
If the allocated visa numbers doesn't get filled in one country does the remainder get assigned to other countries?
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.
uma001
03-15 09:01 AM
L1 has been in use for past 12 years...and the L1 holders have been working at client sites.
TCS never does grean cards, WIPRO rarely does, that too in 5th year of H1. InFOSYS rarely does. CTS is the one who does many H1s, L1s and green cards, green cards in EB1.
When consulting companies are misusing H1s, why cant companies like TCS,WIPRO,CTS,HCL misuse L1s...Nobody is honest in US. Nobody is working honestly in US. Less than 1% in US are honest. And those people will be working as developer forever.
TCS never does grean cards, WIPRO rarely does, that too in 5th year of H1. InFOSYS rarely does. CTS is the one who does many H1s, L1s and green cards, green cards in EB1.
When consulting companies are misusing H1s, why cant companies like TCS,WIPRO,CTS,HCL misuse L1s...Nobody is honest in US. Nobody is working honestly in US. Less than 1% in US are honest. And those people will be working as developer forever.
more...
reddog
03-09 11:22 AM
I think she need to fill I-9 form to switch to EAD and thus switching out of H1.
Right now she is on H1 as well as AOS.
incorrect thought.
I-9 is a Employment Eligibility Verification form that stays with the Employer.
She is considered to be on an AOS status. nothing to be done.
Right now she is on H1 as well as AOS.
incorrect thought.
I-9 is a Employment Eligibility Verification form that stays with the Employer.
She is considered to be on an AOS status. nothing to be done.
jkm2282
01-07 09:06 PM
Thanks. The VO did said that the visa has been issued and the PP would be delivered to me in 5-7 days. It's been over a week now and i am getting all tensed about this whole thing. Can i just go over to the consulate and enquire about it? There is no appointment needed?
more...
arc
10-26 01:05 AM
???like a week before?
yestogc
05-11 10:19 PM
Keep going
more...
ArkBird
08-05 02:02 PM
It auto-converts all H1Bs and EADs into Green Cards effective immediately. :)
If that happens I will start walking with my hands instead of my feet... ;)
If that happens I will start walking with my hands instead of my feet... ;)
Nikith77
12-17 11:13 AM
Dude wakeup, this is a old story. please read all the post before you create a new one.
more...
PDOCT05
10-29 11:27 AM
Friends,
I am july 2nd filer and for dependant the case has been rejected for missing signature.My lawyer is refiling it today. I have following questions can some one clarify me?
1) Is there any precautions that i should take while re-filing?
2) Will USCIS accept the app or should they make me wait for my PD?
Thanks,
I am july 2nd filer and for dependant the case has been rejected for missing signature.My lawyer is refiling it today. I have following questions can some one clarify me?
1) Is there any precautions that i should take while re-filing?
2) Will USCIS accept the app or should they make me wait for my PD?
Thanks,
zilmax007
07-31 06:02 PM
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Bump
more...
pmamp
02-27 07:42 PM
I have found some useful information as I was looking for solutions. I believe, if she does not leave US, she could stay on F1.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
http://www.hooyou.com/f-1/140filing.htm
Please correct me if I am wrong.
http://www.hooyou.com/f-1/140filing.htm
gsc999
07-11 01:34 AM
Lets take this offline. It will be a shame if we let this sour our success. Let the core team figure this out with USINPAC.
We sent flowers now we need help with the San Jose peaceful protest. Let us keep the momentum and not loose focus.
This event is unprecedented, as some member pointed out because it will be this first protest by legal immigrants on such a scale in San Jose, home of the silicon valley.
We sent flowers now we need help with the San Jose peaceful protest. Let us keep the momentum and not loose focus.
This event is unprecedented, as some member pointed out because it will be this first protest by legal immigrants on such a scale in San Jose, home of the silicon valley.
more...
overseas
10-09 03:36 PM
The whole problem is where should I send my AP application to ?? :confused:
It depends on the state you live in. Please go through the AP filing instructions. There it is clearly mentioned.
Download "Download Instructions for completing Form I-131" at the below link and you can find the information in page 7.
USCIS - Application for Travel Document (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=b11747a55773d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCR D&vgnextchannel=dd346d26d17df110VgnVCM1000004718190a RCRD)
It depends on the state you live in. Please go through the AP filing instructions. There it is clearly mentioned.
Download "Download Instructions for completing Form I-131" at the below link and you can find the information in page 7.
USCIS - Application for Travel Document (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=b11747a55773d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCR D&vgnextchannel=dd346d26d17df110VgnVCM1000004718190a RCRD)
lazycis
01-09 08:45 AM
Hi Guys
I know somany experts in this Forum
I am some problem becoz of desi company
I am working for Company A I applied GC from Company B
I joined in Company B just one month ago but my 180 days passed can i port AC21 is there any copulsory period need to be on their payroll
please help me
I have problems which everybody can understand wht problems with desi company
You cannot leave on your own and keep I-485 alive in this situation. If you get laid off, it may be possible.
I know somany experts in this Forum
I am some problem becoz of desi company
I am working for Company A I applied GC from Company B
I joined in Company B just one month ago but my 180 days passed can i port AC21 is there any copulsory period need to be on their payroll
please help me
I have problems which everybody can understand wht problems with desi company
You cannot leave on your own and keep I-485 alive in this situation. If you get laid off, it may be possible.
royus77
06-16 06:26 PM
you can maintain dual status .
Have couple of questions .
1) What is the status of dependents in the above case ?WIll they still be on H4 or Adjustment of status( After applying 485/EAD and before getting the approval of EAD)
Have couple of questions .
1) What is the status of dependents in the above case ?WIll they still be on H4 or Adjustment of status( After applying 485/EAD and before getting the approval of EAD)
snowcatcher
01-28 09:05 AM
Hi Viva, Instead of using the bank account I used teh paypal from IV homepage. Made a $20 contribution from my paypal account. Please PM me if you need the receipt number or any another information.Thnaks.
go_guy123
01-03 06:20 PM
......
The closest Congress came to action was the Dream Act, which would establish a path to citizenship for the most sympathetic class of undocumented immigrants: those brought to the U.S. as children, have stayed out of trouble, completed high school and committed to college or service in the U.S. military.
The Dream Act won passage in the House, and 53 votes in the Senate - but not enough to break a Republican-led filibuster.
Dream Act supporters should try again in the new Congress, but this time they should take a page from the tax compromise forged in the lame-duck session. That deal combined something Democrats wanted - an extension of unemployment benefits - with something Republicans wanted - an extension of tax cuts for high earning individuals.
Some leading conservatives have proposed loosening immigration rules for another worthy group: highly-educated foreigners capable of creating the new ideas, inventions and enterprises so important to America's economy. The brightest minds from around the world come to leading American universities, only to take their knowledge and talents back home because they can't legally stay here.
Conservative think tanks and commentators - and some elected officials - have suggested every foreign student who receives a post-graduate degree be automatically granted a green card. Some will still go home, but those who choose to stay can supply the brains and ambition that immigrants have been bringing to America's economy for hundreds of years.
Our first choice would be for Congress to enact the kind of comprehensive immigration reform proposed in recent years by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, former President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama. If that's not in the cards, we suggest pairing the Dream Act with a bill offering legal residency to the most highly educated foreign students.
What ties these proposals together is the assumption, shared by leaders of most political stripes, that legal immigration is good and necessary. America's population is aging and America's economic competitors are gaining ground in innovative technologies. We need immigrants, especially those who already consider themselves Americans - like the ones welcomed by the Dream Act - and those whose education and skills can contribute to economic growth.
The best compromises are those which incorporate the ideas and priorities of both sides. Such a compromise on immigration policy is long overdue.
Editorial: Immigration in 2011 - Framingham, MA - The MetroWest Daily News (http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinions/editorials/x338106193/Editorial-Immigration-in-2011)
See the politics in this article..written out of an MA media/mouthpiece...liberal leaning state and nature.
First they wanted comprehensive and wanted to hold the EB /skilled people hostage to their cause. They tried and failed again and again and again....and realized that mas amnesty is politically impossible and now with GOP in power in house it is even more impossible.
They tried Dream act stand alone...and failed even when Democratic party was in its high tide. and failed there as well. But short of few vote in senate. But house is a deep challenge. But they know conservative think tanks are in favor of skil bill and so they are now talking of attaching the dream act to the skill bill which has better chance of passing.
They have climbed down from their grand stand. But now they are trying to hold the SKIL Bill hostage to the Dream act....that is how Dream act s trying to make a comeback by attaching themselves to SKIL bill.
My feeling is that Dream act is still too politically toxic and even if "sugar coated" with SKIL
bill. It is way too bitter and politically radioactive for SKIL-Dream combined act to pass.
Democratic party still holds the Senate and Reid et al will be the ones trying to attach the Dream act to any SKIL bill....and that is where the problem lies.
Perhaps we will need to hope that "donkeys" get wiped out in Senate in 2012 for skilled immigrants to see the promised land.
The closest Congress came to action was the Dream Act, which would establish a path to citizenship for the most sympathetic class of undocumented immigrants: those brought to the U.S. as children, have stayed out of trouble, completed high school and committed to college or service in the U.S. military.
The Dream Act won passage in the House, and 53 votes in the Senate - but not enough to break a Republican-led filibuster.
Dream Act supporters should try again in the new Congress, but this time they should take a page from the tax compromise forged in the lame-duck session. That deal combined something Democrats wanted - an extension of unemployment benefits - with something Republicans wanted - an extension of tax cuts for high earning individuals.
Some leading conservatives have proposed loosening immigration rules for another worthy group: highly-educated foreigners capable of creating the new ideas, inventions and enterprises so important to America's economy. The brightest minds from around the world come to leading American universities, only to take their knowledge and talents back home because they can't legally stay here.
Conservative think tanks and commentators - and some elected officials - have suggested every foreign student who receives a post-graduate degree be automatically granted a green card. Some will still go home, but those who choose to stay can supply the brains and ambition that immigrants have been bringing to America's economy for hundreds of years.
Our first choice would be for Congress to enact the kind of comprehensive immigration reform proposed in recent years by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, former President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama. If that's not in the cards, we suggest pairing the Dream Act with a bill offering legal residency to the most highly educated foreign students.
What ties these proposals together is the assumption, shared by leaders of most political stripes, that legal immigration is good and necessary. America's population is aging and America's economic competitors are gaining ground in innovative technologies. We need immigrants, especially those who already consider themselves Americans - like the ones welcomed by the Dream Act - and those whose education and skills can contribute to economic growth.
The best compromises are those which incorporate the ideas and priorities of both sides. Such a compromise on immigration policy is long overdue.
Editorial: Immigration in 2011 - Framingham, MA - The MetroWest Daily News (http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinions/editorials/x338106193/Editorial-Immigration-in-2011)
See the politics in this article..written out of an MA media/mouthpiece...liberal leaning state and nature.
First they wanted comprehensive and wanted to hold the EB /skilled people hostage to their cause. They tried and failed again and again and again....and realized that mas amnesty is politically impossible and now with GOP in power in house it is even more impossible.
They tried Dream act stand alone...and failed even when Democratic party was in its high tide. and failed there as well. But short of few vote in senate. But house is a deep challenge. But they know conservative think tanks are in favor of skil bill and so they are now talking of attaching the dream act to the skill bill which has better chance of passing.
They have climbed down from their grand stand. But now they are trying to hold the SKIL Bill hostage to the Dream act....that is how Dream act s trying to make a comeback by attaching themselves to SKIL bill.
My feeling is that Dream act is still too politically toxic and even if "sugar coated" with SKIL
bill. It is way too bitter and politically radioactive for SKIL-Dream combined act to pass.
Democratic party still holds the Senate and Reid et al will be the ones trying to attach the Dream act to any SKIL bill....and that is where the problem lies.
Perhaps we will need to hope that "donkeys" get wiped out in Senate in 2012 for skilled immigrants to see the promised land.
No comments:
Post a Comment