mittal_a
06-26 02:45 PM
I did the address change long back and got the LUD for the same reason way back.
Thanks
Amit Mittal
Thanks
Amit Mittal
wallpaper tattoo sleeves designs. Sleeve
kirupa
11-19 07:04 PM
Congrats lost! Voting twice for your own name *coug* mdipi *cough* doesn't really help all that much =)
Cheers!
Kirupa :rambo:
Cheers!
Kirupa :rambo:
walking_dude
11-21 12:04 PM
Nooooooooo. That Turkey was "Amnestied". Some Anti-immigrant will be roasting it soon :)
Bush just pardoned a Turkey - that Turkey could be a GC Holder very fast !!;) - I understand that it is headed to Baltimore - can the Balitmore chapter use it as a mascot ? !!!
Bush just pardoned a Turkey - that Turkey could be a GC Holder very fast !!;) - I understand that it is headed to Baltimore - can the Balitmore chapter use it as a mascot ? !!!
2011 half sleeve tattoo designs
northstar1
07-26 11:36 AM
Thanks Ashkam. So does that mean it's not really subject to the I-140 processing backlog..any idea?
more...
l8A
10-05 11:09 AM
I found an article that explains the 180 day rule a little better. I believe it is called section 245(k). You should definitely get advice through an experienced attorney to make sure.
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:kryvq9A7YjkJ:www.murthy.com/adjsta.html+section+245k&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
Thanks a lot. I'll definitely see my lawyer today, but section 245(k) as you pointed out does look promising.
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:kryvq9A7YjkJ:www.murthy.com/adjsta.html+section+245k&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
Thanks a lot. I'll definitely see my lawyer today, but section 245(k) as you pointed out does look promising.
msr999
03-03 08:41 PM
EB2 gets unused EB1 quota. So potentially more GC numbers under EB2. Now I am not sure if EB1 is fully utilized or not so it might not really matter.
I have been thinking in what way EB2 vs EB3 matters after filing 485. Here is the scenario..
My friend (EB2-INDIA-Labor_Dec2005-485_receipt_Date_072007) and I (EB3-INDIA--Labor_Dec2001-485_receipt_Date_062007) have filed our I-485 almost same time...
Assume that all Dates are curent now...My friend was saying that he will get his GC prior to me since he is EB2...
My question is in what way EB2 vs EB3 matters once we file I-485. According to me, as long as Visa dates are current EB2/EB3 does not matter. It all depends of RD (Receipt Date) when Visa dates are current..
Please correct me if I am wrong...
I have been thinking in what way EB2 vs EB3 matters after filing 485. Here is the scenario..
My friend (EB2-INDIA-Labor_Dec2005-485_receipt_Date_072007) and I (EB3-INDIA--Labor_Dec2001-485_receipt_Date_062007) have filed our I-485 almost same time...
Assume that all Dates are curent now...My friend was saying that he will get his GC prior to me since he is EB2...
My question is in what way EB2 vs EB3 matters once we file I-485. According to me, as long as Visa dates are current EB2/EB3 does not matter. It all depends of RD (Receipt Date) when Visa dates are current..
Please correct me if I am wrong...
more...
ArkBird
07-12 01:21 PM
Its NATIVE INDIAN AMERICANS not 'RED INDIANS'. The term you used is considered derogatory by many.
Nope. That will be us... "Native Indian" Americans. They are "Native Americans"
Oh.. Damn Parenthesis ....! :)
Nope. That will be us... "Native Indian" Americans. They are "Native Americans"
Oh.. Damn Parenthesis ....! :)
2010 2010 half sleeve tattoo ideas
alterego
11-11 09:22 PM
both the parties have decided not to touch immigration at all this year (till elections) they have decided against any increase in any numbers (h1b's, GC's) etc, so much so that the senate are requesting chertoff (homeland security secretary) to increase the OPT time for international student to 2.5 years so they can temp overide the h1b jam.
Did you hear Sen. Grasley last week? There are many bills to be concluded before the end of the year. There is a lot of pressure from corporate America right now. The US economy can ill afford to alienate capitalists at this juncture.
There are also other skill sets like Medicine, Nursing and other areas where there are well documented shortages, the issues of these fields have been held up in the overall debate over H1bs. Legislators are aware they have to address these also.
Did you hear Sen. Grasley last week? There are many bills to be concluded before the end of the year. There is a lot of pressure from corporate America right now. The US economy can ill afford to alienate capitalists at this juncture.
There are also other skill sets like Medicine, Nursing and other areas where there are well documented shortages, the issues of these fields have been held up in the overall debate over H1bs. Legislators are aware they have to address these also.
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.
hair half sleeve tattoo ideas for
gc_chahiye
11-28 01:04 AM
Hi guys,
I am a july 3 filer . I saw that there is on LUD with date of 11/25/2007 on my 140 which was approved on Jan 8,2007. My 485, EAD are still pending at NSC.
Can you guys tell me what that LUD on my 140 means?
I appreciate your help.
Your PD is still current (its still Nov.) so you never know, this might even be an approval coming soon... All the best...
I am a july 3 filer . I saw that there is on LUD with date of 11/25/2007 on my 140 which was approved on Jan 8,2007. My 485, EAD are still pending at NSC.
Can you guys tell me what that LUD on my 140 means?
I appreciate your help.
Your PD is still current (its still Nov.) so you never know, this might even be an approval coming soon... All the best...
more...
eb3_nepa
02-08 04:46 PM
Greenever i totally support that view. I am all for trying to contact the ministry incharge. All i meant is, if it does not work out, we shudnt start throwing insults at the Government. We pay ZERO taxes in India and technically do Nothing worth writing home about for our country or it's government.
U know it is interesting that we bring up Indians and the Indian Government debate. The Government did what it could to further the economy. Then we had Scams in BPO offices (Citibank etc). The Question now is, who is the bigger problem, the Indian Govenrment or the Indian? Another example: People litter the streets and expect the Govt to pick up after them. A simple example here. On my recent visit to India, at the bombay airport, in the immigration queue, i saw an Indian guy just dump a soiled plastic bag in a perfectly clean area, while standing in the Queue! Just left it there, as though it was a dumping ground. Try doing that on ANY airport here! Forget the police, one of the citizens here will ask u to pick up ur trash.
Thoughts anyone? :)
U know it is interesting that we bring up Indians and the Indian Government debate. The Government did what it could to further the economy. Then we had Scams in BPO offices (Citibank etc). The Question now is, who is the bigger problem, the Indian Govenrment or the Indian? Another example: People litter the streets and expect the Govt to pick up after them. A simple example here. On my recent visit to India, at the bombay airport, in the immigration queue, i saw an Indian guy just dump a soiled plastic bag in a perfectly clean area, while standing in the Queue! Just left it there, as though it was a dumping ground. Try doing that on ANY airport here! Forget the police, one of the citizens here will ask u to pick up ur trash.
Thoughts anyone? :)
hot tattoo scripts. cross tattoos
PDOCT05
10-31 09:54 AM
^^^bump^^^^^^^^^^
more...
house dragon tattoo pictures,
EB3June03
06-15 05:18 PM
Wow.... Sounds like those who had TB Skin test come out positive are on the hook for the Medical RFE's
I had my TB (Skin) test positive, but I also think the X Ray reports were included, but I might be wrong...
Good idea though.. and it does make sense to get a new medical done that way the USCIS does not have another thought looking at the old medical forms.
I had my TB (Skin) test positive, but I also think the X Ray reports were included, but I might be wrong...
Good idea though.. and it does make sense to get a new medical done that way the USCIS does not have another thought looking at the old medical forms.
tattoo images Half Sleeve Tattoo
myan88
03-29 10:29 PM
I need help on my 140 filings. My situation is:
02/2004, applied EB3 LC, pending until 02/2007
10/2005, applied PERM EB2, LC & 140 approved, but unable to file 485 due to retrogession
in 02/2007, my EB3 was certified. I asked attorney to file EB3 140 to capture this earlier PD to my EB2 case.
But the attorney hired by my company refused to file another EB3 140. His reason is: it may be questioned by USCIS to file a EB3 140 after EB2 140 is approved -- my job position is downgraded. And back and forth I will still use EB2 to apply 485, then it may bring the company to a potential fraud issue, blah, blah...
I know that the company is reluctant to let me get gc quickly, so the attorney found this excuse. I did not find strong proof to refute this excuse.
Is there any legal proof (like USCIS memo, AILA Liasion meeting minute, etc) to refute this excuse and convince the employer to go ahead to file 140 for me?
Thanks
02/2004, applied EB3 LC, pending until 02/2007
10/2005, applied PERM EB2, LC & 140 approved, but unable to file 485 due to retrogession
in 02/2007, my EB3 was certified. I asked attorney to file EB3 140 to capture this earlier PD to my EB2 case.
But the attorney hired by my company refused to file another EB3 140. His reason is: it may be questioned by USCIS to file a EB3 140 after EB2 140 is approved -- my job position is downgraded. And back and forth I will still use EB2 to apply 485, then it may bring the company to a potential fraud issue, blah, blah...
I know that the company is reluctant to let me get gc quickly, so the attorney found this excuse. I did not find strong proof to refute this excuse.
Is there any legal proof (like USCIS memo, AILA Liasion meeting minute, etc) to refute this excuse and convince the employer to go ahead to file 140 for me?
Thanks
more...
pictures house Quarter Sleeve Tattoos
Munna Bhai
01-30 07:32 AM
My employer says that USCIS confused with another employer with the same name who is not funcioning from 2003(Or this guys would have given their old Licence number of 2003 to USCIS while applying I140 which was overlooked by USCIS while approval). On this confusion they 'Intent to revoke'.My employer has sent the current licence they have to USCIS. So we are waiting for the decision. But I did not see the 'Intent to Revoke' letter myself. They are not sending it too. So i am nervous and thinking of other options.
USCIS site says that additional documents has been received and they will make a decision soon.
If you know that it is for another employee then why you worry. Just submit all the required document and everything should be fine. USCIS are very considerate.
USCIS site says that additional documents has been received and they will make a decision soon.
If you know that it is for another employee then why you worry. Just submit all the required document and everything should be fine. USCIS are very considerate.
dresses half sleeve tattoo ideas for
diqingshen
06-30 09:17 AM
this injustice being done to legal immigrants community.
more...
makeup sleeve tattoo ideas for men.
Ram_C
09-29 10:46 AM
Immigrants at USC have helped design a special randomization program for LAX security called ARMOR! Doctoral student, Pankaj Paruchuri, and his professor, Milind Tambe, have designed this special program that will help National Security and enhance the security for all of us!
A Random Weapon in the War against Terror (http://http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21035785/site/newsweek/)
I can bet that the Doctoral student himself must have faced Backlog/ Retrogression at some time! I do not know him, but I think IV should contact him!
link is broken
A Random Weapon in the War against Terror (http://http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21035785/site/newsweek/)
I can bet that the Doctoral student himself must have faced Backlog/ Retrogression at some time! I do not know him, but I think IV should contact him!
link is broken
girlfriend quarter sleeve tattoo ideas
HV000
04-07 10:39 AM
Just got it. Right now.Thanks guys.
Application Type: I485 , APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
Current Status: Approval notice sent.
On April 7, 2008, we mailed you a notice that we have approved this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS. Please follow any instructions on the notice. If you move before you receive the notice, call customer service.
If you have questions or concerns about your application or the case status results listed above, or if you have not received a decision from USCIS within the current processing time listed*, please contact USCIS Customer Service at (800) 375-5283.
GOOD. Go get a massage!! :)
Application Type: I485 , APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
Current Status: Approval notice sent.
On April 7, 2008, we mailed you a notice that we have approved this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS. Please follow any instructions on the notice. If you move before you receive the notice, call customer service.
If you have questions or concerns about your application or the case status results listed above, or if you have not received a decision from USCIS within the current processing time listed*, please contact USCIS Customer Service at (800) 375-5283.
GOOD. Go get a massage!! :)
hairstyles half sleeve tattoo ideas for
pappusheth
05-08 01:33 AM
i filed for EAD in early April this year. I could check the case status online and see it as "case received and pending". On the last day of April I received my EAD in mail but the status still showed the same.. There was neither soft nor hard LUD. Rather I checked it again today on May 7th and the status is still the same, no soft or hard lud..!
i think there's some disconnect.
i think there's some disconnect.
hsingh82
03-09 10:55 AM
Thanks. Could you tell me more details if possible through a PM? I applied last year. During that month PD had gone from 2004 to 2003 to 2000 to U and then back to 2003. My PD was March 15 2004. Yes I could have waited for PD to become current and of course I would have preferred EAD for my wife. But you know as well as I do how the PD movement is. There is no way to tell what the PD will be next month. Knowing how these consultancies work we had investigated a lot. We talked to couple of people who had worked for him and they recommended him. They said they haldnt got any trouble from him. So we went ahead. I agree it was a mistake. But anyway whats done is done. Now just looking ahead.
I am new to this PD business as you can see from my profile I have no dates (yeah stupid me!!)..my employer working on perm application.Anyways, you can PM me or we can discuss here as it may help others too.
I am new to this PD business as you can see from my profile I have no dates (yeah stupid me!!)..my employer working on perm application.Anyways, you can PM me or we can discuss here as it may help others too.
innervoice
01-20 12:29 PM
I got RFE for my spouse in August 2008 for I-485 regrading the marriage certificate and stil the status hasn't got update, called several times but no luck.
No comments:
Post a Comment