WeShallOvercome
12-13 01:59 AM
It depends on the terms of the contract.
I think Washington is an "At Will" employment state, so no matter what a contract says, its pretty much !#*$. I'd do some research if I were you -google, get some state specific employment law advice, check your employee handbook etc.
At Will means that either side (employer or employee) can end a contract at any point, AFAIK
Employee handbook should spell it out. I guess they "could" force you to use your PTO - don't know of the legality in that.
Just my opinion, not legal advice:o
Quick search online got this:-
At Will
In Washington, employees are presumed to be "at will." At-will employees may be terminated for any reason, so long as it is not illegal. Generally, employees that work under an employment contract can only be terminated for reasons specified in the contract. In Washington, in order to overcome the at-will presumption, an employee must show that the employer made clear and unequivocal statements of job security to the employee.
The most common exception to employment-at will is for public policy. This holds that an employee is wrongfully discharged if the termination is counter to an explicit policy of the government. One example is the discharge of an employee for filing a workers' compensation claim.
Employee Handbooks
While an employer is not required by law to have an employee handbook, in most cases, it is recommended. An employee handbook provides a centralized, complete and certain record of the employer's policies and procedures. It also provides more convenient access by employees and managers. At a minimum, an employee handbook should include:
* A statement regarding the at-will employment relationship
* An equal employment opportunity statement
* A policy regarding sexual and other types of harassment in the workplace
* Internet access, e-mail, and voice mail policies
* The Family Medical Leave Act
In Washington, in limited circumstances, the at-will presumption can be overcome and a just-cause employment relationship can be created by an employee's legitimate expectations that are grounded in an employer's policy statements. The employee has to show that the employer, through the employee manual or otherwise, made representations or promises that termination would be only for just cause.
The laws regarding an employer's duties and responsibilities arising under an employee handbook are complex, and a licensed attorney should be contacted to review individual circumstances.
Thanks franklin,
My concern here is that IF I want to leave my employer without having to pay the 'damages' , Can I do that in case they are not able to find me a project in my state of residence (I have a house here in WA). I don't think they can force me to stay unpaid just so I don't break their agreement.
Also from the USCIS point of view, how safe or risky is it to be in this situation where the employer is not able to find any work for you just 1.5 months after GC approval? I can easily find work here, but if I can use this to get out of the agreement, I don't mind being unpaid for a few days...
I've heard some cases where the employee forced the employer to release him from all contractual obligations because employer wasn't able to pay him when he was willing to work..
btw, it's nice to be able to attach some face to a handle... I remember you from the DC rally day.
I think Washington is an "At Will" employment state, so no matter what a contract says, its pretty much !#*$. I'd do some research if I were you -google, get some state specific employment law advice, check your employee handbook etc.
At Will means that either side (employer or employee) can end a contract at any point, AFAIK
Employee handbook should spell it out. I guess they "could" force you to use your PTO - don't know of the legality in that.
Just my opinion, not legal advice:o
Quick search online got this:-
At Will
In Washington, employees are presumed to be "at will." At-will employees may be terminated for any reason, so long as it is not illegal. Generally, employees that work under an employment contract can only be terminated for reasons specified in the contract. In Washington, in order to overcome the at-will presumption, an employee must show that the employer made clear and unequivocal statements of job security to the employee.
The most common exception to employment-at will is for public policy. This holds that an employee is wrongfully discharged if the termination is counter to an explicit policy of the government. One example is the discharge of an employee for filing a workers' compensation claim.
Employee Handbooks
While an employer is not required by law to have an employee handbook, in most cases, it is recommended. An employee handbook provides a centralized, complete and certain record of the employer's policies and procedures. It also provides more convenient access by employees and managers. At a minimum, an employee handbook should include:
* A statement regarding the at-will employment relationship
* An equal employment opportunity statement
* A policy regarding sexual and other types of harassment in the workplace
* Internet access, e-mail, and voice mail policies
* The Family Medical Leave Act
In Washington, in limited circumstances, the at-will presumption can be overcome and a just-cause employment relationship can be created by an employee's legitimate expectations that are grounded in an employer's policy statements. The employee has to show that the employer, through the employee manual or otherwise, made representations or promises that termination would be only for just cause.
The laws regarding an employer's duties and responsibilities arising under an employee handbook are complex, and a licensed attorney should be contacted to review individual circumstances.
Thanks franklin,
My concern here is that IF I want to leave my employer without having to pay the 'damages' , Can I do that in case they are not able to find me a project in my state of residence (I have a house here in WA). I don't think they can force me to stay unpaid just so I don't break their agreement.
Also from the USCIS point of view, how safe or risky is it to be in this situation where the employer is not able to find any work for you just 1.5 months after GC approval? I can easily find work here, but if I can use this to get out of the agreement, I don't mind being unpaid for a few days...
I've heard some cases where the employee forced the employer to release him from all contractual obligations because employer wasn't able to pay him when he was willing to work..
btw, it's nice to be able to attach some face to a handle... I remember you from the DC rally day.
wallpaper Circulatory System
.soulty
03-30 04:00 PM
when is this thing going in completed battles? Just wondering...Poll closed and moved to completed battles..
congrats everyone, nice work. ;)
congrats everyone, nice work. ;)
sukhyani
09-04 12:05 PM
Fellows in pain ...
It's been horribly long 10 years and many complications along the way but my journey seemed to have reached the end. This morning I got a magically enchanted email:
Application Type: I485 , APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
Current Status: Card production ordered.
I am still at awe and can't believe ... probably will never do until I get the physical card.
For those interested:
EB3 ROW - Dec 2004 (first application was April 2001)
I filed 765 and 485 in June of this year
Congratulations man!
now here is the stream of questions :)
Your Service Center?
GC approved with Priority date April 2001 or Dec 2004?
It's been horribly long 10 years and many complications along the way but my journey seemed to have reached the end. This morning I got a magically enchanted email:
Application Type: I485 , APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
Current Status: Card production ordered.
I am still at awe and can't believe ... probably will never do until I get the physical card.
For those interested:
EB3 ROW - Dec 2004 (first application was April 2001)
I filed 765 and 485 in June of this year
Congratulations man!
now here is the stream of questions :)
Your Service Center?
GC approved with Priority date April 2001 or Dec 2004?
2011 cardiovascular_system_diagram-
bondgoli007
08-01 12:59 PM
Now that H.R 5582 has cleared Judiciary sub - commitee and moves to Judiciary Full Commitee, I think we all need to focus our "Call/Fax" campaign and overwhelm the fence sitters with calls etc .
1. At Full judiciary commitee the list of congressman would be more than 10-15 .Probably 30-40??. Size wise it might be prohibitive.
2 No point in 1000 of us calling Steve Kings ....He will never change his mind . Spare this effort to convince fence sitters instead. No point in calling the one who we know already support either.
This leaves us with plenty of time to repeatedly call the fence sitters and force them to jump our way
Hi chmur,
Yes the Full commitee had 40 members, 23 democrats and 17 Republicans including Congressman Sensenbrenner who is a co sponsor.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/committee.xpd?id=HSJU
I got a hold of 5 of my friends at work who are in the same GC boat as I and spent 20 mins explaining the whole process and got them to make the calls. Afterwards they were all surprised to notice it took up just 15-20 mins. Now seeing the result they are further motivated to participate in forthcoming action items....maybe this is one way we can get others to participate....
All the best IV!!
1. At Full judiciary commitee the list of congressman would be more than 10-15 .Probably 30-40??. Size wise it might be prohibitive.
2 No point in 1000 of us calling Steve Kings ....He will never change his mind . Spare this effort to convince fence sitters instead. No point in calling the one who we know already support either.
This leaves us with plenty of time to repeatedly call the fence sitters and force them to jump our way
Hi chmur,
Yes the Full commitee had 40 members, 23 democrats and 17 Republicans including Congressman Sensenbrenner who is a co sponsor.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/committee.xpd?id=HSJU
I got a hold of 5 of my friends at work who are in the same GC boat as I and spent 20 mins explaining the whole process and got them to make the calls. Afterwards they were all surprised to notice it took up just 15-20 mins. Now seeing the result they are further motivated to participate in forthcoming action items....maybe this is one way we can get others to participate....
All the best IV!!
more...
sam_hoosier
12-11 12:39 PM
Does anybody know what is the current fee for H1B transfer (from one employer to another), and how long does it take.
$ 320 filing fees + $ 1500 employer fees = $ 1820
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=f56e4154d7b3d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCR D&vgnextchannel=db029c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
$ 320 filing fees + $ 1500 employer fees = $ 1820
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=f56e4154d7b3d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCR D&vgnextchannel=db029c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
milind70
09-16 02:16 PM
Hello Gurus,
I am July 2nd filer like so many others. I have changed employer after 9 month of filing I-485. I-140 was approved in Jun 2007. I have AP approved.
My question : Is it advisable to travel to India and come back on AP? the reason I am asking is I have changed the employer? Will that affect my entry back to USA in any way at immigration check? Please advise.
Thanks in advance.
--Srinivas
Well if you have used EAD to join the new employer you have no other option but use valid AP for reentry, if you have used H1 transfer and if you plan to get the H1 stamping (if the passport H1 stamp is expired) then you enter normally,
if you already have a valid stamping in passport make sure you show the latest I 797 showing the latest employer whom you are currently working so the IO enters the correct employer details.
This travel will not have any impact as long as you have AP and the new employer is supporting you GC process( i meant was providing documents as requested by USCIS if any)
I am July 2nd filer like so many others. I have changed employer after 9 month of filing I-485. I-140 was approved in Jun 2007. I have AP approved.
My question : Is it advisable to travel to India and come back on AP? the reason I am asking is I have changed the employer? Will that affect my entry back to USA in any way at immigration check? Please advise.
Thanks in advance.
--Srinivas
Well if you have used EAD to join the new employer you have no other option but use valid AP for reentry, if you have used H1 transfer and if you plan to get the H1 stamping (if the passport H1 stamp is expired) then you enter normally,
if you already have a valid stamping in passport make sure you show the latest I 797 showing the latest employer whom you are currently working so the IO enters the correct employer details.
This travel will not have any impact as long as you have AP and the new employer is supporting you GC process( i meant was providing documents as requested by USCIS if any)
more...
ArkBird
06-07 11:24 PM
www.msnbc.com
www.cnn.com
Cheers!
www.cnn.com
Cheers!
2010 diagram of circulatory system
TheCanadian
01-01 10:27 PM
What about AS1?
more...
MArch172008
06-05 01:20 PM
My labour got approved on May 23rd .
Is it possible to switch company and use this labour whihc got approved by this company?
Thanks for all your support and sharing for knowledge.
Is it possible to switch company and use this labour whihc got approved by this company?
Thanks for all your support and sharing for knowledge.
hair diagram of circulatory system
va_12_2004
07-19 08:42 PM
First, I would like to congratulate each and every member of IV for having an effect on USCIS and successfully able to submit the 485 in July. The things that mattered were the unity and direction / advise from the core team. Its a victory by any standard.
The next big problem will be the delay in FBI name check. With the very little workload they have there are backlogged cases from 2003. It is again like a black box (Hope you remember philly BEC). You can do anything you want but FBI wont budge. And with this extra 200K + applications, the situation would get worse and worse. You really do not want to get stuck here for years. The only thing that works is WOM, and thats not an easy thing to do.
I would strongly urge the core team to consider this as an agenda along with ongoing effort of legislative solution of retrogression (Increasing the number of GCs). I would also ask all the members who were able to file 485 to read some of the forums (Yahoo namecheck tracker, immigration.com etc), and prepare yourself of what is coming. Right now, if you are unlucky, you get stuck, but later if you are lucky, you will get through.
We will win at the end, because we have not done anything wrong. Just keep unity.
Thanks
I contributed $150
The next big problem will be the delay in FBI name check. With the very little workload they have there are backlogged cases from 2003. It is again like a black box (Hope you remember philly BEC). You can do anything you want but FBI wont budge. And with this extra 200K + applications, the situation would get worse and worse. You really do not want to get stuck here for years. The only thing that works is WOM, and thats not an easy thing to do.
I would strongly urge the core team to consider this as an agenda along with ongoing effort of legislative solution of retrogression (Increasing the number of GCs). I would also ask all the members who were able to file 485 to read some of the forums (Yahoo namecheck tracker, immigration.com etc), and prepare yourself of what is coming. Right now, if you are unlucky, you get stuck, but later if you are lucky, you will get through.
We will win at the end, because we have not done anything wrong. Just keep unity.
Thanks
I contributed $150
more...
probe
05-02 04:30 PM
NOV 29 2006 (RD) EB3 category NOV 2003 (PD ). Still waiting ...
hot diagram of circulatory system
BEC_fog
04-23 10:55 AM
Yes, that means your I-140 is "filed" under EB2...But note that USCIS can always comeback & say it "can" or "can not" be approved under Eb2 based on the job description in Labor.
In rare scenarios, USCIS comes back with a "NO" to Eb2, especially if the JOB description in Labor does not suit an Eb2 requirement. But in 99% of the cases, its fine (because, attorneys normally don't file it under Eb2 if its not one).
All the best!!
I read this on immigration-law.com which says that USCIS lost a lawsuit about its ability to look into the employer's requirement for job.
04/17/2007: Jurisdictions for USCIS and DOL in the Labor Certification Employment-Based Immigration
* In the labor certification based immigration proceedings, there are two federal agencies involved: One is the Department of Labor and the other is Department of Homeland Security USCIS. The immigration statutes give the jurisdiction of the U.S. labor market test government function over to the U.S. Department of Labor and one of the key elements of the labor market test is the description and requirement of jobs and prevailing wage in the intended area of employment. Accordingly, when it comes to the issue of the employer's requirement for job, it has remained the jurisdiction of the USDOL. However, sometimes, the USCIS, in adjudicating I-140 immigrant petitions, tends to overstep into the issues which clearly fall under the jurisdiction of its sister agency, DOL.
* Well, this jurisdictional issue was brought to the U.S. Court of Appeals in the 7th Circuit in Hossier Cares, Inc. v. Chertoff , Case #06-3652 (7th Cir, April 11, 2007) [Click "Opinion" to Download], which ruled that when it comes to the employer's job requirement issues, it is clearly the jurisdiction of the DOL and the USCIS should have no business to mess up with the issue. Isn't it something?!? The court says to the USCIS that you mind your own business with the issue of whether alien beneficiary is qualified for the job and stay out of the business of the employer's needs. Hoorah!
In rare scenarios, USCIS comes back with a "NO" to Eb2, especially if the JOB description in Labor does not suit an Eb2 requirement. But in 99% of the cases, its fine (because, attorneys normally don't file it under Eb2 if its not one).
All the best!!
I read this on immigration-law.com which says that USCIS lost a lawsuit about its ability to look into the employer's requirement for job.
04/17/2007: Jurisdictions for USCIS and DOL in the Labor Certification Employment-Based Immigration
* In the labor certification based immigration proceedings, there are two federal agencies involved: One is the Department of Labor and the other is Department of Homeland Security USCIS. The immigration statutes give the jurisdiction of the U.S. labor market test government function over to the U.S. Department of Labor and one of the key elements of the labor market test is the description and requirement of jobs and prevailing wage in the intended area of employment. Accordingly, when it comes to the issue of the employer's requirement for job, it has remained the jurisdiction of the USDOL. However, sometimes, the USCIS, in adjudicating I-140 immigrant petitions, tends to overstep into the issues which clearly fall under the jurisdiction of its sister agency, DOL.
* Well, this jurisdictional issue was brought to the U.S. Court of Appeals in the 7th Circuit in Hossier Cares, Inc. v. Chertoff , Case #06-3652 (7th Cir, April 11, 2007) [Click "Opinion" to Download], which ruled that when it comes to the employer's job requirement issues, it is clearly the jurisdiction of the DOL and the USCIS should have no business to mess up with the issue. Isn't it something?!? The court says to the USCIS that you mind your own business with the issue of whether alien beneficiary is qualified for the job and stay out of the business of the employer's needs. Hoorah!
more...
house of the circulatory system
Krilnon
01-01 04:37 PM
Because the goal of this contest is to have circles move around in clever and interesting ways, you must only use circles. No other shapes or images will be allowed.
What about the gradient in the background of your sample entry?
What about the gradient in the background of your sample entry?
tattoo Diagram of a fish circulatory
kaisersose
07-25 12:35 PM
That is correct. You do not get to sign the 140 as it is has to be applied by the employer. You however, have to sign your approved Labor which will be attached to the 140 application.
more...
pictures Circulatory System: text
vicky007
05-10 12:16 PM
Sorry, the link is not working anymore.
But here is the complete report of the proposed measure:
WASHINGTON - Employers would have to check Social Security numbers and the immigration status of all new hires under a tentative Senate agreement on toughening sanctions against people who provide jobs to illegal immigrants.
Those who don't and who hire an illegal immigrant would be subject to fines of $200 to $6,000 per violation.
Employers found to have actually hired illegal immigrants once an electronic system for the checks is in place could be fined up to $20,000 per unauthorized worker and even sentenced to jail for repeat offenses.
What to do with people who hire illegal immigrants has been one of the stumbling points in putting together a broad immigration bill that tightens borders, but also addresses the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants now in the United States.
Congress left it to employers to ensure they were hiring legal workers when they passed an immigration law in 1986 and provided penalties for those who didn't. But the law was not strictly enforced and the market grew for fraudulent documents.
Senate Republicans and Democrats are hoping this week to reach a compromise on more contentious parts of the immigration bill so they can vote on it before Memorial Day.
The employer sanctions were negotiated separately from other parts of the broader bill after some senators raised concerns about privacy of tax information, liability of employers and worker protections.
Employers are wary of the system Congress wants them to use and say it would be unreliable.
"What's going to happen when you have individuals legally allowed to work in the United States, but they can't confirm it?" asked Angelo Amador, director of immigration policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Critics say expanding a Web-based screening program, now used on a trial basis by about 6,200 employers, to cover everyone might create a version of the no-fly lists used for screening airline passengers after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Infants and Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) of Massachusetts were among people barred from boarding a plane because names identical to their own were on a government list of suspected terrorists.
"This will be the no-work list," predicted Tim Sparapani, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Last year, employers in the trial screening program submitted names and identifying information on more than 980,000 people. Of them, about 148,000 were flagged for further investigation. Only 6,202 in that group were found to be authorized to work.
U.S. citizens could come up as possible illegal workers if, for example, they change their last names when they marry but fail to update Social Security records.
All non-citizens submitted to the system are referred to the Homeland Security Department, even if their Social Security number is valid.
A bill passed by the House would impose stiff employer sanctions, but does not couple them with a guest worker program, drawing opposition from business. The bill also would give employers six years to screen all previously hired employees still on the payroll as well as new hires — altogether, about 140 million people.
The Senate agreement proposes screening all new hires but only a limited number of people hired previously _specifically, those who have jobs important to the nation's security.
Negotiating the Senate agreement are Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana.
Their plan would give employers 18 months to start using the verification system once it is financed. It would create a process for workers to keep their jobs and be protected from discrimination while contesting a finding that they are not authorized to work.
To check compliance and fight identity theft, the legislation would allow the Homeland Security Department limited access to tax and Social Security information.
The Social Security Administration, for example, would give homeland security officials lists of employers who submit large numbers of employees who are not verified as legal workers. The Internal Revenue Service would provide those employers' tax identification numbers, names and addresses.
Social Security also would share lists of Social Security numbers repeatedly submitted to the verification system for different jobs.
The senators also want to increase the number of work site investigators to 10,000, a 50-fold increase.
President Bush asked Congress in January to provide more than $130 million to expand the trial system. That's not expected to be enough.
Once the above plan is agreed to , the senators will be able to come to a way out of the present CIR impasse.
"Report indicates that the Senate leaders have been working on contentious parts of the comprehensive immigration reform proposal as separate from the whole bill to crack the logjam. For instance, Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana formed a team to negotiate the Senate agreement on the employer sanctions for hiring illegal aliens, and successfully reached an agreement".
But here is the complete report of the proposed measure:
WASHINGTON - Employers would have to check Social Security numbers and the immigration status of all new hires under a tentative Senate agreement on toughening sanctions against people who provide jobs to illegal immigrants.
Those who don't and who hire an illegal immigrant would be subject to fines of $200 to $6,000 per violation.
Employers found to have actually hired illegal immigrants once an electronic system for the checks is in place could be fined up to $20,000 per unauthorized worker and even sentenced to jail for repeat offenses.
What to do with people who hire illegal immigrants has been one of the stumbling points in putting together a broad immigration bill that tightens borders, but also addresses the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants now in the United States.
Congress left it to employers to ensure they were hiring legal workers when they passed an immigration law in 1986 and provided penalties for those who didn't. But the law was not strictly enforced and the market grew for fraudulent documents.
Senate Republicans and Democrats are hoping this week to reach a compromise on more contentious parts of the immigration bill so they can vote on it before Memorial Day.
The employer sanctions were negotiated separately from other parts of the broader bill after some senators raised concerns about privacy of tax information, liability of employers and worker protections.
Employers are wary of the system Congress wants them to use and say it would be unreliable.
"What's going to happen when you have individuals legally allowed to work in the United States, but they can't confirm it?" asked Angelo Amador, director of immigration policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Critics say expanding a Web-based screening program, now used on a trial basis by about 6,200 employers, to cover everyone might create a version of the no-fly lists used for screening airline passengers after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Infants and Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) of Massachusetts were among people barred from boarding a plane because names identical to their own were on a government list of suspected terrorists.
"This will be the no-work list," predicted Tim Sparapani, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Last year, employers in the trial screening program submitted names and identifying information on more than 980,000 people. Of them, about 148,000 were flagged for further investigation. Only 6,202 in that group were found to be authorized to work.
U.S. citizens could come up as possible illegal workers if, for example, they change their last names when they marry but fail to update Social Security records.
All non-citizens submitted to the system are referred to the Homeland Security Department, even if their Social Security number is valid.
A bill passed by the House would impose stiff employer sanctions, but does not couple them with a guest worker program, drawing opposition from business. The bill also would give employers six years to screen all previously hired employees still on the payroll as well as new hires — altogether, about 140 million people.
The Senate agreement proposes screening all new hires but only a limited number of people hired previously _specifically, those who have jobs important to the nation's security.
Negotiating the Senate agreement are Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana.
Their plan would give employers 18 months to start using the verification system once it is financed. It would create a process for workers to keep their jobs and be protected from discrimination while contesting a finding that they are not authorized to work.
To check compliance and fight identity theft, the legislation would allow the Homeland Security Department limited access to tax and Social Security information.
The Social Security Administration, for example, would give homeland security officials lists of employers who submit large numbers of employees who are not verified as legal workers. The Internal Revenue Service would provide those employers' tax identification numbers, names and addresses.
Social Security also would share lists of Social Security numbers repeatedly submitted to the verification system for different jobs.
The senators also want to increase the number of work site investigators to 10,000, a 50-fold increase.
President Bush asked Congress in January to provide more than $130 million to expand the trial system. That's not expected to be enough.
Once the above plan is agreed to , the senators will be able to come to a way out of the present CIR impasse.
"Report indicates that the Senate leaders have been working on contentious parts of the comprehensive immigration reform proposal as separate from the whole bill to crack the logjam. For instance, Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana formed a team to negotiate the Senate agreement on the employer sanctions for hiring illegal aliens, and successfully reached an agreement".
dresses circulatory system diagram.
ashkam
12-04 01:42 PM
I think ashkam is missing the main point here. You are on EAD which is based on an employment based GC application where you have to be employed all the time. You (EAD and people who are on H1) are not supposed to tell that are unemployed! Duh!
A people who are on H1 (same goes to people with EAD based on a employment based GC) and out of payroll for more than 28 days (not sure about the exact # of days, some says 42 days), you are out of status.
So think twice before you disclose that you are unemployed.
"You are on EAD which is based on an employment based GC application where you have to be employed all the time" : False and for the "duh" part, FAIL.
Also, FAIL for the second paragraph as well.
You can be unemployed while in I-485 pending status as long as you are able to show proof of future employment, if requested by the USCIS. The key phrases being "future employment" and "if requested".
A people who are on H1 (same goes to people with EAD based on a employment based GC) and out of payroll for more than 28 days (not sure about the exact # of days, some says 42 days), you are out of status.
So think twice before you disclose that you are unemployed.
"You are on EAD which is based on an employment based GC application where you have to be employed all the time" : False and for the "duh" part, FAIL.
Also, FAIL for the second paragraph as well.
You can be unemployed while in I-485 pending status as long as you are able to show proof of future employment, if requested by the USCIS. The key phrases being "future employment" and "if requested".
more...
makeup circulatory system diagram.
Catherine
11-18 12:34 AM
Thank you flresident, I really appreciate the advice. Unfortunately the group I had been getting some help from had to cut a number of services when their funding was cut a couple months ago. All the other help and advice I've received from those quarters has either led to a dead-end or provided me with exactly the kind of conflicting advice I mentioned. Nonetheless, I do thank you for the idea.
I wonder if there are any other ideas out there? Thanks one and all.
I wonder if there are any other ideas out there? Thanks one and all.
girlfriend circulatory system diagram not
sw33t
06-17 06:06 PM
Let's say you setup a business entity (LLC, LLP, LP etc.). You would need to open a business bank account for the entity you incorporated. Use the business account to receive your proceeds from selling the app. You have not violated any laws as long as you don't pay yourself from running your company. Again, there are laws as to how many hours you can "volunteer" as a manager/director to run the company (bookkeeping, accounting etc.) before you end up as someone who SHOULD be paid for running the company. Keep a documentation trail if you decide to go down this path.
You would have to wait until you get your green card to pay yourself out though.
PS: I am not a lawyer.
You would have to wait until you get your green card to pay yourself out though.
PS: I am not a lawyer.
hairstyles circulatory system diagram
heavencard
05-14 07:58 PM
I am planning to file Labor under EB2. Below is my education detail.
3 years Bachelor Degree i.e. B.Com.
2 years MBA(Information Technology)
10 years pure IT experience in Java, Oracle
5 Professional Certification from Sun Microsystem,Oracle and IBM
Based on these education background will I have problem with EB2 labor and I-140 approval?
Please suggest.
3 years Bachelor Degree i.e. B.Com.
2 years MBA(Information Technology)
10 years pure IT experience in Java, Oracle
5 Professional Certification from Sun Microsystem,Oracle and IBM
Based on these education background will I have problem with EB2 labor and I-140 approval?
Please suggest.
kanakabyraju
08-31 01:34 PM
I filed AOS during July 07 fiasco. It has been more than 15 months since the first fingerprint but I have not yet received 2nd fingerprint notice. I noticed a SLUD in May/09 but no notice. Anybody else out there who filed in July but don't have second fingerprint notice yet?
Best thing is to apply AP online. I did the same and got the FP notice 2nd time. Planning to do it again this year end.
kanaka
Best thing is to apply AP online. I did the same and got the FP notice 2nd time. Planning to do it again this year end.
kanaka
shivaniraina
07-26 08:13 AM
As you are exempt from the cap, you can start working as soon as you get new petition approval.
Also, I do not think stamping should make a difference in your suitation as HIB visa count is against the petition and not stamping. However, I would highly recommend that you speak to a lawyer.
Also, I do not think stamping should make a difference in your suitation as HIB visa count is against the petition and not stamping. However, I would highly recommend that you speak to a lawyer.
No comments:
Post a Comment