dingudi
04-20 11:18 PM
i had the same situation. your friend can apply for H1-B coz he is already counted. He'll loose whatever time that he is used on EAD and get the remaining time that is left on his 6 year period. If 6 years is already passed, he can still file for H1-B based on labor, 140 approval. In my case, my H1-B got denied coz of employer issues and i have an another H1-B with another company. Mean while i have filed AC21 with my new employer to be able to work..Hope this helps..
But will the remaining time not depend on H1 period left. Example, if first 3 years of H1 used followed by 1 year EAD use then one would still get additional 3 years for H1 without being counted against the cap. But you would still have to do consular notification instead of change of status as there is no status to change once you use EAD.
But will the remaining time not depend on H1 period left. Example, if first 3 years of H1 used followed by 1 year EAD use then one would still get additional 3 years for H1 without being counted against the cap. But you would still have to do consular notification instead of change of status as there is no status to change once you use EAD.
gc_kaavaali
11-21 10:01 PM
Happy Thanksgiving to all IV members.
Lasantha
07-05 01:11 PM
I guess you mistook my statement... what I said was, where did they get enough EB2-ROW to approve and so fast that they used up all the visas earmarked for EB2-ROW... Its unavailability now that will cause a backlog and thus retorgression after october...
in other words, if demand is higher than supply there will be a demand side backlog and this backlog occurs due to more demand than supply and thus unavailability of the "commodity"... this "unsatisfied demand" or "backlog" will then cause retrogression...
my question was, where did so much EB2-ROW demand come from when in reality with country quotas and EB2-ROW being current all along there NEVER was a extrodinary demand and a pending backlog in this cat. to begin with...
yes, I never looked at it that way.
in other words, if demand is higher than supply there will be a demand side backlog and this backlog occurs due to more demand than supply and thus unavailability of the "commodity"... this "unsatisfied demand" or "backlog" will then cause retrogression...
my question was, where did so much EB2-ROW demand come from when in reality with country quotas and EB2-ROW being current all along there NEVER was a extrodinary demand and a pending backlog in this cat. to begin with...
yes, I never looked at it that way.
just_waiting
10-17 03:53 PM
Let me add one more wrinkle:
Do you guys think I would lose my right to use EAD if I move to another employer by transferring my H1B? (I still have 2 years on it).
Do you guys think I would lose my right to use EAD if I move to another employer by transferring my H1B? (I still have 2 years on it).
more...
karthiknv143
02-06 04:03 PM
Yes, you have to change your H4 also. Submit a new petition.
satishku_2000
07-30 05:08 PM
Thanks for posting this. I was thinking of creating a thread for this purpose. Self filers please make sure that you file the "correct" versions of 131 and 765
Here is a link for your reference.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=db029c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCR D
Here is a link for your reference.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=db029c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCR D
more...
GCwaitforever
09-26 10:57 PM
You need experience letter from employer A. Explain to employer A that you are attempting a switch to EB2 for your own career and if it does not work out, you will stick with theim. Telling lies is not a good idea.
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...
getta05
03-30 07:47 AM
I am on L2 visa. You dont need to have to have a GC with L2?
kshitijnt
06-03 06:47 PM
For how long AOS primary applicant can be job-less?
until you get an RFE on 485 or 180 days whichever is less.
until you get an RFE on 485 or 180 days whichever is less.
more...
rongha_2000
04-22 02:24 PM
And whats your point?
This is ONLY EB2- India Priority dates from prior visa bulletins. Just FYI - no guesses no assumptions.
Jan-05 C
Feb-05 C
Mar-05 C
Apr-05 1-Apr-02
May-05 C
Jun-05 C
Jul-05 C
Aug-05 C
Sep-05 C
Oct-05 1-Nov-99
Nov-05 1-Nov-99
Dec-05 1-Jul-00
Jan-06 1-Jan-01
Feb-06 1-Aug-01
Mar-06 1-Jan-02
Apr-06 1-Jul-02
May-06 1-Jan-03
Jun-06 1-Jan-03
Jul-06 1-Jan-03
Aug-06 U
Sep-06 U
Oct-06 15-Jun-02
Nov-06 1-Jan-03
Dec-06 8-Jan-03
Jan-07 8-Jan-03
Feb-07 8-Jan-03
Mar-07 8-Jan-03
Apr-07 8-Jan-03
May-07 8-Jan-03
Jun-07 1-Apr-04
Jul-07 C
Aug-07 U
Sep-07 1-Apr-04
Oct-07 1-Apr-04
Nov-07 1-Apr-04
Dec-07 1-Jan-02
Jan-08 1-Jan-00
Feb-08 U
Mar-08 U
Apr-08 1-Dec-03
This is ONLY EB2- India Priority dates from prior visa bulletins. Just FYI - no guesses no assumptions.
Jan-05 C
Feb-05 C
Mar-05 C
Apr-05 1-Apr-02
May-05 C
Jun-05 C
Jul-05 C
Aug-05 C
Sep-05 C
Oct-05 1-Nov-99
Nov-05 1-Nov-99
Dec-05 1-Jul-00
Jan-06 1-Jan-01
Feb-06 1-Aug-01
Mar-06 1-Jan-02
Apr-06 1-Jul-02
May-06 1-Jan-03
Jun-06 1-Jan-03
Jul-06 1-Jan-03
Aug-06 U
Sep-06 U
Oct-06 15-Jun-02
Nov-06 1-Jan-03
Dec-06 8-Jan-03
Jan-07 8-Jan-03
Feb-07 8-Jan-03
Mar-07 8-Jan-03
Apr-07 8-Jan-03
May-07 8-Jan-03
Jun-07 1-Apr-04
Jul-07 C
Aug-07 U
Sep-07 1-Apr-04
Oct-07 1-Apr-04
Nov-07 1-Apr-04
Dec-07 1-Jan-02
Jan-08 1-Jan-00
Feb-08 U
Mar-08 U
Apr-08 1-Dec-03
bp333
09-25 12:51 PM
I had a similar issue for my son (I attached the check and it appeared that they lost the check) and it can be re-submitted again as long as the receipt date stamped on the rejected application is before retrogression which must be the case for you. But you need to wait for the rejected App.
Thanks for your response. Clarification on your stmt "as long as the receipt date stamped on the rejected application is before retrogression" assuming mine gets rejected say "09/20/2007" with a receipt date "july 12 2007" and for EB3 dates being retrogressed to Apr 2001 will I be able to refile in Oct 2007 ??
Thanks for your response. Clarification on your stmt "as long as the receipt date stamped on the rejected application is before retrogression" assuming mine gets rejected say "09/20/2007" with a receipt date "july 12 2007" and for EB3 dates being retrogressed to Apr 2001 will I be able to refile in Oct 2007 ??
more...
voldemar
02-27 05:11 PM
6) The simple logic is, eb1 has higher qualifications than eb2, and eb2 has more qualifications compared to eb3. If you believe they treat everyone the same, then be happy and stick with your belief.That's true. Also EB3 cases are the easiest, EB2 a little more complex and EB1 the most complex. USCIS officers tend to do easiest job more often ;)
BMS1
09-10 11:08 AM
Among other things, one important change for H1-b program would be to make H1-B transfer easier for folks that are laid off or had to resign abruptly due to various reasons by providing some legal leg room to land a new job. The current rule for laid off / abruptly resigning people is to pack up and leave the very next day of separation for their country of origin and start the H1B process again if they need to maintain a clean legal record. That is not always pracitcally possible due to ticket availability, disposing of residence lease etc. This is very much acknowledged by USCIS by overlooking some minor gaps between employments for H1-B transfer. So provision of some gap (60 days?) between job changes for H1B transfer will provide some legal/legislative back-up to the procedures currently being followed by USCIS as a matter of practicality.
more...
RamK
09-24 02:09 PM
Thanks for all your replies. Your information is helpful. I will talk to an attorney and will take a decision.
seekingadvice
12-07 03:10 PM
Hi Everyone,
We r in a totally confused state of H1,H4,Visa & passport. I would be very gr8ful if u can help.
The thing is my husbnad is on H1 & me on H4.
His H1 was getting expired in Jan07 & has been extended till May08.
His passport is getting expired in Sep07(the 10yrs validity will be over & we will need to get a new passport plz mind new not renewed).
We r going to India in Jan-Feb07 & would like to get the Visa stamped there. Now the US consulate says that you present a passport that is valid for at least 6 months beyond your date of anticipated stay in the U.S. i.e May08 in our case.
Questions:-
1) To take an appointment in India we need to get the HDFC bar code, for which we need to present the copy of first page of passport. Can we take an appoinment on the basis of old passport & then carry both the old & new passport at the time of interview?
If yes, on which passport will we get the stamp? If only the old passport then do we need to take another appointment later to get the new passport stamped.
2) Do we need to take seperate appointment for my husband & me to get the stamping done in India ?
3) Will appointment be available in Feb or we r too late ?
We have not yet sent the application for new passport. Not getting a clear cut solution for this situation we even wrote to the US consulate but no relevant reply.Plz suggest what is to be done.
Thanx in advance.:)
We r in a totally confused state of H1,H4,Visa & passport. I would be very gr8ful if u can help.
The thing is my husbnad is on H1 & me on H4.
His H1 was getting expired in Jan07 & has been extended till May08.
His passport is getting expired in Sep07(the 10yrs validity will be over & we will need to get a new passport plz mind new not renewed).
We r going to India in Jan-Feb07 & would like to get the Visa stamped there. Now the US consulate says that you present a passport that is valid for at least 6 months beyond your date of anticipated stay in the U.S. i.e May08 in our case.
Questions:-
1) To take an appointment in India we need to get the HDFC bar code, for which we need to present the copy of first page of passport. Can we take an appoinment on the basis of old passport & then carry both the old & new passport at the time of interview?
If yes, on which passport will we get the stamp? If only the old passport then do we need to take another appointment later to get the new passport stamped.
2) Do we need to take seperate appointment for my husband & me to get the stamping done in India ?
3) Will appointment be available in Feb or we r too late ?
We have not yet sent the application for new passport. Not getting a clear cut solution for this situation we even wrote to the US consulate but no relevant reply.Plz suggest what is to be done.
Thanx in advance.:)
more...
meridiani.planum
06-20 12:24 PM
Can someone who used Advance Parole to travel back to USA extend his H1.
Candidate has H1 valid while coming back and also worked on H1 after coming back.
yes, Even if you used your AP to travel back to US, you can come back and file an H1 extension.
Candidate has H1 valid while coming back and also worked on H1 after coming back.
yes, Even if you used your AP to travel back to US, you can come back and file an H1 extension.
Anil_s
07-02 06:48 AM
Hi Ari,
Thank you for the information.
How Will it affect my H1-B process
Anil
Thank you for the information.
How Will it affect my H1-B process
Anil
hiralal
10-08 04:40 PM
Visa Bulletin for November 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_5172.html)
Canadian_Dream
06-18 02:31 PM
That's NOT right. AC-21 Yates Memo states that:
As long as your I-140 is not revoked and your I-485 is NOT adjudicated with in 6 months, you are covered by AC-21 portability law. That means you can change jobs before six months (with or without EAD) and still continue with you GC process.
The chances of I-485 being adjudicated in six month is quite low. Stick to your current job for 2 months, remain on payroll for few months by forgoing PTO/Severance. That would give you 3-4 months. Then change your job with H1B and let your I-140/I-485 continue as it is. Send AC-21 letter at the end of 5th month. I think you should stick to your current employer.
Please check old thread on AC-21 discussions and the following link should be useful.
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_yatmay.html
To invoke, AC21 you should have filed 485 and passed 180 days.
In your situation, I would go with the new employer if he is ready to file the labor today(ASAP). If he has the ad already running for a month, then you should be able to get the LC approved within a week.
Then file 140 in premium and wait with all 485 docs ready. if you dont get 140 approved before July end and if the bulletin retrogress, then go ahead and file 485. If the bulletin does not retrogress, then wait till 140 gets approved and file 485. PORT THE PD.
If you dont want to wait, the file 140 and 485 togather. But 140 in regular is unpredictable. If you file in premium then you can get H1 for 3 years later and also you wil get EAD faster.
CONTRIBUTE TO IV.
As long as your I-140 is not revoked and your I-485 is NOT adjudicated with in 6 months, you are covered by AC-21 portability law. That means you can change jobs before six months (with or without EAD) and still continue with you GC process.
The chances of I-485 being adjudicated in six month is quite low. Stick to your current job for 2 months, remain on payroll for few months by forgoing PTO/Severance. That would give you 3-4 months. Then change your job with H1B and let your I-140/I-485 continue as it is. Send AC-21 letter at the end of 5th month. I think you should stick to your current employer.
Please check old thread on AC-21 discussions and the following link should be useful.
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_yatmay.html
To invoke, AC21 you should have filed 485 and passed 180 days.
In your situation, I would go with the new employer if he is ready to file the labor today(ASAP). If he has the ad already running for a month, then you should be able to get the LC approved within a week.
Then file 140 in premium and wait with all 485 docs ready. if you dont get 140 approved before July end and if the bulletin retrogress, then go ahead and file 485. If the bulletin does not retrogress, then wait till 140 gets approved and file 485. PORT THE PD.
If you dont want to wait, the file 140 and 485 togather. But 140 in regular is unpredictable. If you file in premium then you can get H1 for 3 years later and also you wil get EAD faster.
CONTRIBUTE TO IV.
sathishav
02-25 10:23 AM
Guys,
Would it be of benefit, if USCIS sends us a notice when our petition is "Pre-adjudicated; awaiting visa number"? So, we can at least be in peace and go on with our life?
Also, I see there is a suggestion to NOT count Dependants in the VISA numbers, since they are not counted for other visa (H1) status. Its a very good suggestion. We just have to be ready with the counter-argument, if we are told, H1 Dependant is H4 and not eligible to work. However, once GC is approved, that spouse gets equivalent benefits and hence its counted.
Would it be of benefit, if USCIS sends us a notice when our petition is "Pre-adjudicated; awaiting visa number"? So, we can at least be in peace and go on with our life?
Also, I see there is a suggestion to NOT count Dependants in the VISA numbers, since they are not counted for other visa (H1) status. Its a very good suggestion. We just have to be ready with the counter-argument, if we are told, H1 Dependant is H4 and not eligible to work. However, once GC is approved, that spouse gets equivalent benefits and hence its counted.
No comments:
Post a Comment