dexter
12-16 01:37 PM
Hi All,
My perm application was denied and the resson for denial is -
"The newspaper used by the employer to advertise the job opportunity per the mandatory recruitment step provisions is not a newspaper of general circulation in the area of intended employment which has a Sunday circulation"
Once we received the denial, the attorney found out that he made a mistake in the perm application and the news paper mentioned in the perm application was not the news paper in which the advertisement was placed. Now they are filing an appeal to reverse the certifying officers decision. Also the news paper mentioned the perm application is a valid news paper for the area of intended employment. The attorney is submitting evidence to the same.
As I am in the 6th year of my H1b, what are my options? I was out of the country for 88 days in the last 5 years and can use it for H1B recapture.
Would it make sense for me to ask my employer to file for a new perm application or should I wait for the appeal's decision.
Thank you your help.
My perm application was denied and the resson for denial is -
"The newspaper used by the employer to advertise the job opportunity per the mandatory recruitment step provisions is not a newspaper of general circulation in the area of intended employment which has a Sunday circulation"
Once we received the denial, the attorney found out that he made a mistake in the perm application and the news paper mentioned in the perm application was not the news paper in which the advertisement was placed. Now they are filing an appeal to reverse the certifying officers decision. Also the news paper mentioned the perm application is a valid news paper for the area of intended employment. The attorney is submitting evidence to the same.
As I am in the 6th year of my H1b, what are my options? I was out of the country for 88 days in the last 5 years and can use it for H1B recapture.
Would it make sense for me to ask my employer to file for a new perm application or should I wait for the appeal's decision.
Thank you your help.
wallpaper Porsche Boxster (2012) Spied
natrajs
12-16 02:07 PM
Ladies and Gentlemen,
As a EB2-India hopeful I was Current in Aug/Sept 2008, and had a 99.9% of hope of getting approval. However, they did nothing then though many with a lot lower (later) PD's and RD's were approved.
Now suddenly, I got several sets of emails with "Card production ordered", "Approval notice sent" and "Wecome as a New permanent resident" messages (some more than one with same message).
So, may be USCIS is not following any PD dates announced in Visa Bulletins, but this time for good. Ironically, I also got emails on my AP approval, which is dated a day later than GC approval. Sequence of LUDs is - AP received 11/11 with a soft LUD on 12/10, I-485 approval on 12/11, AP approval on 12/12. Got another set of emails today with similar contents as in emails dated 12/11.
Perhaps a lot is going on to clear old cases. Have hopes, and do something so that your file comes to someone's attention. ....Best to all....
Congrats and Best Wishes , It happened to my friend also, His PD is March 05 and got the approval on 10/29/08
As a EB2-India hopeful I was Current in Aug/Sept 2008, and had a 99.9% of hope of getting approval. However, they did nothing then though many with a lot lower (later) PD's and RD's were approved.
Now suddenly, I got several sets of emails with "Card production ordered", "Approval notice sent" and "Wecome as a New permanent resident" messages (some more than one with same message).
So, may be USCIS is not following any PD dates announced in Visa Bulletins, but this time for good. Ironically, I also got emails on my AP approval, which is dated a day later than GC approval. Sequence of LUDs is - AP received 11/11 with a soft LUD on 12/10, I-485 approval on 12/11, AP approval on 12/12. Got another set of emails today with similar contents as in emails dated 12/11.
Perhaps a lot is going on to clear old cases. Have hopes, and do something so that your file comes to someone's attention. ....Best to all....
Congrats and Best Wishes , It happened to my friend also, His PD is March 05 and got the approval on 10/29/08
bluekayal
09-19 02:17 PM
I am in a tricky situation. Filed concurrent I-140 and I-485 (Schedule A Group 2..exceptional ability in the arts and science) ... 8/2006.
In the meanwhile a labor cert as well- PD 8/ 2004 was approved in 2006 and I recieved an updated I-140 using the old priority date, ie. 2004. Now after 2 years the TSC is adamant that my PD is 2006 not 2004 and have given me yet another "corrected" I-140 with 2006 PD.
One lawyer said I could cite "affirmative misconduct" and request the supervisor of the I-140 section to consider and accept the late filing on the basis of affirmative misconduct. If not for the earlier I-140 with 2004 PD we would have filed another I-140. So their affirmative mistake cost us 2 years in a category so backlogged already. (I am EB 2 India).
My lawyer says we will not win and does not want to do it. Any advice?
In the meanwhile a labor cert as well- PD 8/ 2004 was approved in 2006 and I recieved an updated I-140 using the old priority date, ie. 2004. Now after 2 years the TSC is adamant that my PD is 2006 not 2004 and have given me yet another "corrected" I-140 with 2006 PD.
One lawyer said I could cite "affirmative misconduct" and request the supervisor of the I-140 section to consider and accept the late filing on the basis of affirmative misconduct. If not for the earlier I-140 with 2004 PD we would have filed another I-140. So their affirmative mistake cost us 2 years in a category so backlogged already. (I am EB 2 India).
My lawyer says we will not win and does not want to do it. Any advice?
2011 2012 Porsche Boxster 1 450x300
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.
more...
wandmaker
10-23 10:15 AM
Thanks guys,
But I am still not 100% clear. I thought both of them have independent EAD statuses, but applying together is because of maritial status.
Is it not needed for wife's case to be independently handled.
You can have independent status of EAD, but your wife's EAD is based on her 485 and her 485 is based on your 485. If your 485 is denied, your EAD is invalid and you dont have any status. Eventually her 485 will also be denied based on your denial that will make her EAD invalid. Hope this helps! Basic rule! Until the 485 denial of individual application, individual EAD is valid
But I am still not 100% clear. I thought both of them have independent EAD statuses, but applying together is because of maritial status.
Is it not needed for wife's case to be independently handled.
You can have independent status of EAD, but your wife's EAD is based on her 485 and her 485 is based on your 485. If your 485 is denied, your EAD is invalid and you dont have any status. Eventually her 485 will also be denied based on your denial that will make her EAD invalid. Hope this helps! Basic rule! Until the 485 denial of individual application, individual EAD is valid
illusions
07-11 12:39 PM
Ah Snap. I'm From Sri Lanka and would be willing to go, but i work till 5, then have other arrangements till 7pm. Let me call her in a bit and see if anything can be worked out.
more...
waitin_toolong
06-16 11:55 AM
Unless you need to travel immediately, I551 stamp is not important. I am assuming she only declined to stamp the I-551 but the GC was approved.
These days you get the card in 30-60 days from approval. sometimes even within the week so you dont need the stamp. The actual GC card is the I-551 document you need. The stamp let you travel without the card in the days it took around a year for the card to arrive.
Congratulations and get the passport renewed, you would need the current passport for travel anyways.
These days you get the card in 30-60 days from approval. sometimes even within the week so you dont need the stamp. The actual GC card is the I-551 document you need. The stamp let you travel without the card in the days it took around a year for the card to arrive.
Congratulations and get the passport renewed, you would need the current passport for travel anyways.
2010 Re: Porsche planning to expand
WeShallOvercome
11-13 04:55 PM
USCIS has accepted my application and we received the receipts today. Thanks to USCIS. They are being lenient.
That is GREAT!
I can understand what you have gone through and it must be a big relief for you !
Can you tell us when did you resubmit your application and what fee did they accept..old or new. A friend of mine resubmitted his application a few days ago with new fee... his original app was rejected earlier because his attorney sent thre wrong fee amount...(neither new nor old..)
Good luck and enjoy the feleing now
That is GREAT!
I can understand what you have gone through and it must be a big relief for you !
Can you tell us when did you resubmit your application and what fee did they accept..old or new. A friend of mine resubmitted his application a few days ago with new fee... his original app was rejected earlier because his attorney sent thre wrong fee amount...(neither new nor old..)
Good luck and enjoy the feleing now
more...
getta05
03-27 04:20 PM
So what do I do.
I am looking to buy a SUBWAY franchise outright costing 200 K
I am looking to buy a SUBWAY franchise outright costing 200 K
hair the 2012 Porsche Boxster
chapper
07-23 06:59 PM
Others can correct me, if I'm interpreting it wrong. A try...
An individual is eligible for AC21 only if he/she has approved I-140 but is not granted GC because of per country cap.
It means that when a petitioner applies for H1B extension - they (beneficiary and petitioner) must at the time of filing H1B establish/prove that the alien is not eligible for GC at the time of filing of H1B due to per country visa cap (not many visas available for the country the individual belongs or is claiming GC under).
Q17: How will USCIS interpret the language of AC21 Sec 104(c) (for three-year H-1B extensions) during a period in which AOS applications could be filed?
A17. USCIS interprets AC21 �104(c) as only applicable when an alien, who is the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, is eligible to be granted lawful permanent resident status but for application of the per country limitations. Any petitioner seeking an H-1B extension on behalf of a beneficiary pursuant to AC21 �104(c) must thus establish that at the time of filing for such extension, the alien is not eligible to be granted lawful permanent resident status on account of the per country immigrant visa limitations
An individual is eligible for AC21 only if he/she has approved I-140 but is not granted GC because of per country cap.
It means that when a petitioner applies for H1B extension - they (beneficiary and petitioner) must at the time of filing H1B establish/prove that the alien is not eligible for GC at the time of filing of H1B due to per country visa cap (not many visas available for the country the individual belongs or is claiming GC under).
Q17: How will USCIS interpret the language of AC21 Sec 104(c) (for three-year H-1B extensions) during a period in which AOS applications could be filed?
A17. USCIS interprets AC21 �104(c) as only applicable when an alien, who is the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, is eligible to be granted lawful permanent resident status but for application of the per country limitations. Any petitioner seeking an H-1B extension on behalf of a beneficiary pursuant to AC21 �104(c) must thus establish that at the time of filing for such extension, the alien is not eligible to be granted lawful permanent resident status on account of the per country immigrant visa limitations
more...
chvs2000@yahoo.com
08-17 10:05 PM
^^^^
hot 2012 Porsche Boxster -
arc
11-12 01:08 AM
I have a future employment never worked for them and was going to do a AC21 cause I received RFE asking my intent, the RFE mentioned that I can either do AC21 with current company or stay with the future employment company... :confused: I stayed with the future employment company and I thank my stars cause the current company I worked for went under...:eek:
My attorney told me one can do AC21 and so did the RFE... although I have read on forums that its better to work with the company who applied your GC for atleast 6 mos, I ahve also read that one can be asked at the time of Citizenship about why they changed their Intent - Hope this helps!
Anyway to the Person who was asking about the extension of 6th year H1 - 6th year H1 extension is based on Labor does not matter if 140 is approved or applied...FYI
My attorney told me one can do AC21 and so did the RFE... although I have read on forums that its better to work with the company who applied your GC for atleast 6 mos, I ahve also read that one can be asked at the time of Citizenship about why they changed their Intent - Hope this helps!
Anyway to the Person who was asking about the extension of 6th year H1 - 6th year H1 extension is based on Labor does not matter if 140 is approved or applied...FYI
more...
house the 2012 Porsche Boxster
luckylavs
07-16 12:48 PM
hk196712 ,
Please dont mind , when you ask / post a question please provide a brief describtion about ur situation which will enable all the readers and gurus to provide you an accurate answers. Say for example : PD, date filed and other details that you can see on many of signatures. Insdead of asking 10 questions to you , you might get the answer straight away...
Not just you , but many of the users who are new to this form , please first explain your situation with details and then ask the actual question.
Thanks
Please dont mind , when you ask / post a question please provide a brief describtion about ur situation which will enable all the readers and gurus to provide you an accurate answers. Say for example : PD, date filed and other details that you can see on many of signatures. Insdead of asking 10 questions to you , you might get the answer straight away...
Not just you , but many of the users who are new to this form , please first explain your situation with details and then ask the actual question.
Thanks
tattoo 2012-Porsche-Boxster-S-
ita
11-04 02:19 PM
But I think it's thanks to CBN who pulled the consulate to Hyd when they were debating to have the consulate in Hyd or Bangalore. From what I know YSR govt just boomed up the realty prices but nothing else, though realty went up in other parts of the country too.
PS: I'm not very sure if it was CBN who got the consulate to Hyd but just expressed my thoughts as we are talking about consulate/Hyd/how proud we should be etc in this thread.For those who know better or disagree with me please feel free to do so by posting in the thread but not by giving red/accompanying mssgs. These days I'm so cautious that unless absolutely sure I don't take any chances with posting on threads so as to avoid upsetting people even remotely. Felt it's been long since I've been easy on IV threads..so I'm posting on this thread :)
Thank you.
PS: I'm not very sure if it was CBN who got the consulate to Hyd but just expressed my thoughts as we are talking about consulate/Hyd/how proud we should be etc in this thread.For those who know better or disagree with me please feel free to do so by posting in the thread but not by giving red/accompanying mssgs. These days I'm so cautious that unless absolutely sure I don't take any chances with posting on threads so as to avoid upsetting people even remotely. Felt it's been long since I've been easy on IV threads..so I'm posting on this thread :)
Thank you.
more...
pictures 2012 Porsche Boxster S Black
delhirocks
07-19 03:40 PM
Exactly...you don't need any service. Just ask one your buddies to do it. as long as the translator is not a family member. He has to sogn the declaration given below
All that your have to do is get it translated by any one who is fluent in English and Marathi ,
Document has to be signed and contact information of the Translator has to be placed.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Translated Text
------------------------------------
Declaration of Translator
I ____________________ certify that I am fluent in the English and Marathi languages, and that the foregoing is a complete and accurate translation of the attached document.
Signature
Date
Contact Info
All that your have to do is get it translated by any one who is fluent in English and Marathi ,
Document has to be signed and contact information of the Translator has to be placed.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Translated Text
------------------------------------
Declaration of Translator
I ____________________ certify that I am fluent in the English and Marathi languages, and that the foregoing is a complete and accurate translation of the attached document.
Signature
Date
Contact Info
dresses 2012 Porsche Boxster S Black
illusions
07-11 12:57 PM
Called her. But she is interviewing Ashish who is in Manhattan, and even though i'm not Indian and since i'm working in Westchester (about 10~15) miles from the city she would not be able to conduct the interview.
I urge that anybody who is not Indian and in Manhattan to please call her.
I urge that anybody who is not Indian and in Manhattan to please call her.
more...
makeup of the Porsche Boxster S
Legal_In_A_Limbo
01-14 05:12 PM
I have done it once. It all depends on your relationship with your current employer. If they are ok with it, you shouldnt have any problems.
Assume my husband company doesn't want him to leave.
Then what you say.
When you said u had a good relationship does that mean, you talked to your employer before changing jobs.
Thanks
Assume my husband company doesn't want him to leave.
Then what you say.
When you said u had a good relationship does that mean, you talked to your employer before changing jobs.
Thanks
girlfriend 2012 Porsche Boxster
nixstor
10-27 04:06 PM
Nah.. I think the talk to power guys skim the whole thing and ask him questions. He didnt even ask him about these issues. Now its Sen Brownback
hairstyles Spy pics 2012 Porsche Boxster
HRPRO
02-23 10:36 AM
I know we can enter back on AP.
I have similar situation:
I am only going for a week long training to Toronto, I am working on EAD and have a Valid AP...DO I NEED TO GET A CANADA VISA? If Yes which one, Temp Work or Temp Resident?
Arc,
You will need a Canadian visa and your employer will have to give you a letter to get the same
I have similar situation:
I am only going for a week long training to Toronto, I am working on EAD and have a Valid AP...DO I NEED TO GET A CANADA VISA? If Yes which one, Temp Work or Temp Resident?
Arc,
You will need a Canadian visa and your employer will have to give you a letter to get the same
capriol
06-03 03:48 PM
Sure, the USCIS will ofcourse remind certain people to apply for the Travel documents: Why not?
After all (1) $305 from pre-July 30, 2007 (I485) applicants (and many, many of such applicants) will count to make the USCIS (and the US) "rich." (2) Keeping the chain of advance parole and EAD's will prevent this country from giving permanency to the "foreigners." Goodness, gracious, we are taking away their jobs...remember....
After all (1) $305 from pre-July 30, 2007 (I485) applicants (and many, many of such applicants) will count to make the USCIS (and the US) "rich." (2) Keeping the chain of advance parole and EAD's will prevent this country from giving permanency to the "foreigners." Goodness, gracious, we are taking away their jobs...remember....
americandesi
03-13 04:32 PM
Here�s how it works. Suppose there are 78 pending GC applications each with a proffered wage of 80K/annum, then the employer should prove at least one of the following to prove �Ability to Pay� for all the applications to go through.
1) Company�s net profit exceeds or equals 78 x 80K = $6,240,000 per annum since the establishment of their Priority Dates
(or)
2) Company�s net assets exceeds or equals 78 x 80K = $6,240,000 per annum since the establishment of their Priority Dates
(or)
3) The company paid >= 80K in salary to all the 78 beneficiaries since the establishment of their Priority Dates
(or)
4) The company paid < 80K (say 70K) in salary to all the 78 beneficiaries since the establishment of their Priority Dates but the difference (10K) was matched by Company�s net profit or net assets (10K x 78 = 7,80,000)
Now let�s assume that the company sponsors GC for 79th employee, then the company should replace 78 with 79 in the conditions specified above and they can�t use the same old figures anymore to prove �ability to pay�.
In your case, I�m afraid that your employer didn�t even meet the condition specified for 78 employees and that resulted in your colleagues I-140 denial. In such situations, USCIS might even revoke previously approved I-140�s because the employer�s financials doesn�t support all the pending GC applications.
Refer http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15993
1) Company�s net profit exceeds or equals 78 x 80K = $6,240,000 per annum since the establishment of their Priority Dates
(or)
2) Company�s net assets exceeds or equals 78 x 80K = $6,240,000 per annum since the establishment of their Priority Dates
(or)
3) The company paid >= 80K in salary to all the 78 beneficiaries since the establishment of their Priority Dates
(or)
4) The company paid < 80K (say 70K) in salary to all the 78 beneficiaries since the establishment of their Priority Dates but the difference (10K) was matched by Company�s net profit or net assets (10K x 78 = 7,80,000)
Now let�s assume that the company sponsors GC for 79th employee, then the company should replace 78 with 79 in the conditions specified above and they can�t use the same old figures anymore to prove �ability to pay�.
In your case, I�m afraid that your employer didn�t even meet the condition specified for 78 employees and that resulted in your colleagues I-140 denial. In such situations, USCIS might even revoke previously approved I-140�s because the employer�s financials doesn�t support all the pending GC applications.
Refer http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15993