snthampi
08-16 02:24 PM
Hi ,
I have a problem with my employer. He never paid me ontime and he didn't paid me since April,2010. So i have applied for H1 trasfer as i am having problems with this Employer. My H1 got approved and now my old employer sent me a notice saying i am in breach of agreement and i should not work for the same client and he will sue me for 50,000 dollars .
Then i replied him saying since he is not paying me from past 4 months his agreement got voided as he is in Material Breach of Agreement.
He is still giving me hard time. Can any one please give some suggestions like if i also proceed legally will it be helpful to me .
Thanks,
Srikanth
As @hebron suggested, complain to DOL. Prepare records for proving that you didn't get paid for significant amount of time to defend yourself.
I have a problem with my employer. He never paid me ontime and he didn't paid me since April,2010. So i have applied for H1 trasfer as i am having problems with this Employer. My H1 got approved and now my old employer sent me a notice saying i am in breach of agreement and i should not work for the same client and he will sue me for 50,000 dollars .
Then i replied him saying since he is not paying me from past 4 months his agreement got voided as he is in Material Breach of Agreement.
He is still giving me hard time. Can any one please give some suggestions like if i also proceed legally will it be helpful to me .
Thanks,
Srikanth
As @hebron suggested, complain to DOL. Prepare records for proving that you didn't get paid for significant amount of time to defend yourself.
wallpaper Gibson Les Paul Traditional
jayz
07-15 01:42 PM
Clicked on Immigration visa's and then appointments and you can find all months schedule there.... where I found for August too..
Aghh.. got it. Thanks!
Aghh.. got it. Thanks!
DDash
11-10 03:36 PM
Go for it! She can volunteer (obviously, she cannot get paid for the work she will do). I think it is a great idea to volunteer to establish connections and gain work experience to get ready for a real job.
My wife did the same thing when she was on H-4 and HR had no issues with that.
Cheers!
My wife did the same thing when she was on H-4 and HR had no issues with that.
Cheers!
2011 Les Paul Junior shap…
edaltsis
11-12 11:58 AM
From the day you file your case you are legal to work with your new employer until its approval or denial. When you file your case (filed in normal processing without including paystub) sometimes they just approve it and sometimes they ask for a current paystub for evidence to close the case as approved. As you start working for your new company you would get a pay stub which can be used for the query.
more...
gee_see
10-19 12:06 PM
As i mentioned in my first post, new job offer salary is more than prevailing wages for that location.
My concern is how USCIS will interpret AC21 cases where the salary is more than prevailing wages for the new location but less than specified in LC.
Does it help if we include a letter explaining salary difference and prevailing wage information for the new location from DOL site
Please advise
My concern is how USCIS will interpret AC21 cases where the salary is more than prevailing wages for the new location but less than specified in LC.
Does it help if we include a letter explaining salary difference and prevailing wage information for the new location from DOL site
Please advise
monkeyman
02-26 11:28 PM
You are all set if you have gone through your FP.
more...
SlowRoasted
06-13 01:18 PM
i dunno, its probably some crazy formula it goes by. Any math wizes here?
2010 2009 Satin White Junior
americandesi
09-10 12:05 AM
Hi - How to complain to USCIS about a fradulant company, What would be the affect of the complain on the employee ? Please advise and provide with any information. I know abot a cheater who exploites innocent students, are there any threads or blogs where there is informtion about fradulant companies, I guess there should be thread about such kind of companes and people running them, so that people do not get into their trap..
Thanks.
Here's the form to complain H1 violations to DOL.
http://www.dol.gov/esa/forms/whd/WH-4.pdf
If you are on H1, better to get it transferred to another employer before complaining, so that your old employer doesn't retaliate by withdrawing your H1.
Thanks.
Here's the form to complain H1 violations to DOL.
http://www.dol.gov/esa/forms/whd/WH-4.pdf
If you are on H1, better to get it transferred to another employer before complaining, so that your old employer doesn't retaliate by withdrawing your H1.
more...
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
hair Gibson Les Paul Junior 1958
arundhati_datta
07-08 06:14 AM
Hello ASh027,
I do have same query since I got a offer from teksystem and not sure if i join them would i be in the same trouble during AC21. Can i even do AC21, what should i do.
Anyone please advice, what happens if i join this contract position, leaving my perm job since they are not able to give me projects and not paying either. So later on once this contract is over and if I join a perm job, will there be any questions if I do not do AC21 now.
Please help. Is there any chance of getting my I-1485 rejected. I-140 approved 3 years back and Got EAD 2 years back too.
I do have same query since I got a offer from teksystem and not sure if i join them would i be in the same trouble during AC21. Can i even do AC21, what should i do.
Anyone please advice, what happens if i join this contract position, leaving my perm job since they are not able to give me projects and not paying either. So later on once this contract is over and if I join a perm job, will there be any questions if I do not do AC21 now.
Please help. Is there any chance of getting my I-1485 rejected. I-140 approved 3 years back and Got EAD 2 years back too.
more...
Green.Tech
08-05 05:41 PM
Thanks for the response, folks.
It will be interesting to hear from people who have or are required to sing certain contracts with their employers.
I am assuming the employers logic can be that - "well we were the ones who really paid for your labor cert" and that may be true as far as DOL is concerned. But my logic is if I reimburse you that money a year or two down the line, doesn't that mean that eventually I had to pay for my labor cert :)
I am also interested to know what kind of contracts the employers are having people sign - reimburse us if you leave within a certain time frame (2 or 3 years from when your GC process was initiated by the company) or are the contracts more like - reimburse us full amount no matter when you leave during pending GC process.
It will be interesting to hear from people who have or are required to sing certain contracts with their employers.
I am assuming the employers logic can be that - "well we were the ones who really paid for your labor cert" and that may be true as far as DOL is concerned. But my logic is if I reimburse you that money a year or two down the line, doesn't that mean that eventually I had to pay for my labor cert :)
I am also interested to know what kind of contracts the employers are having people sign - reimburse us if you leave within a certain time frame (2 or 3 years from when your GC process was initiated by the company) or are the contracts more like - reimburse us full amount no matter when you leave during pending GC process.
hot Rakuten: Gibson Les Paul
gcsucks
06-01 02:37 PM
I dont know about others but for me stuck with the same compay for 5 years. I really want to move on !!But it does increase the GC quota which will substantially hasten the process
more...
house גיטרה חשמלית Gibson Les Paul
Appu
04-02 12:40 AM
You guys probably verified this already but -
if you read (the intended) Sec 218D (amendment to the INA) and Sec 602 of S.2454, they do not exclude legal aliens.
All that is required under 218D is that a person must have been in the US on or before Jan 7, 2004 and have proof of employment.
Why shouldn't a legal nonimmigrant visa holder apply for AOS under 218D?
What am I missing here?
if you read (the intended) Sec 218D (amendment to the INA) and Sec 602 of S.2454, they do not exclude legal aliens.
All that is required under 218D is that a person must have been in the US on or before Jan 7, 2004 and have proof of employment.
Why shouldn't a legal nonimmigrant visa holder apply for AOS under 218D?
What am I missing here?
tattoo Les Paul Studio Swamp Ash
dealsnet
11-09 10:13 AM
You can check all LUD and all statistics by google. Add your case after log into google. see the link for details
http://imminav.com/gadgets.php
http://imminav.com/gadgets.php
more...
pictures Gibson+les+paul+studio+60
![gibson les paul junior satin white. Rakuten: Gibson Les Paul Junior (Satin Cherry) Limited] [Web Specials Free](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sLhVBgU62BSFs5VD5nhKzCENGMjAX3lulP8ZJ0hU8CwL0yHGZtTzk8eVFbkdnKlLEP91isyGET-EhblhJ-YgOAlXLyl-7FLClSP4A-ozb6jYOAvgye8CTSOABeh_PV2vG-jL2ZBhlce6kEJn22tg=s0-d "Rakuten: Gibson Les Paul Junior (Satin Cherry) Limited] [Web Specials Free")
sroyc
11-09 01:24 AM
I think they are talking about the number of receipts that were issued in September, not the number of AOS filings.
why more filers in Sept than June? I thought most PDs were better in June than in Sept...
why more filers in Sept than June? I thought most PDs were better in June than in Sept...
dresses Re: 2009 Gibson Les Paul jr
GCard_Dream
04-27 04:12 PM
Do you have a link to the news or the bill itself? If so, would you please make that available.
more...
makeup Gibson Les Paul Junior SW
immi_seeker
07-12 10:10 PM
Thanks for the responses. Will call uscis on monday.
girlfriend Gibson Les Paul Junior
vinayskadam
11-23 08:49 PM
@sameer2730 :
So when you made the mistake "Country Of Citizenship" on your EAD eFile, how did you get that corrected? Did you send in a "Request For Correction" along with your supporting documentation to USCIS? Did they send you an RFE or did they accept your docs and approved your EAD?
Sent the request for correction with my supporting documents.
-- I have done the same mistake, so can you please tell what exactly you did. I mean did you call the helpline and is there any format in which we need to "Request for correction".
And once you sent the "Request for Correction", was it ok. Or is there any problem with the correction.
Please help me with your advice. I am completely in dilemma as to what needs to done..
Thanks in advance..
Vinay
So when you made the mistake "Country Of Citizenship" on your EAD eFile, how did you get that corrected? Did you send in a "Request For Correction" along with your supporting documentation to USCIS? Did they send you an RFE or did they accept your docs and approved your EAD?
Sent the request for correction with my supporting documents.
-- I have done the same mistake, so can you please tell what exactly you did. I mean did you call the helpline and is there any format in which we need to "Request for correction".
And once you sent the "Request for Correction", was it ok. Or is there any problem with the correction.
Please help me with your advice. I am completely in dilemma as to what needs to done..
Thanks in advance..
Vinay
hairstyles Les Paul Junior…
asphaltcowboy
05-27 10:31 AM
it's gotta be Soul's... the worst thing is the flippin' page transitions! I'm growing old waiting for them! congrats to everyone with a **** website
;)
;)
scorpioduo
10-14 03:42 PM
Hi all,
I have to go to India on 1st jan , 2009 for 2 weeks , for my brother's marriage on jan 14,2009, but my existing advance parole expires on jan 12 2009.
I have filed for the renewal of advance parole but I want to know as to what other option do I have , if I dont get my renewal advance parole by jan 1st ?
If my AP expires on jan 12th and I come back on jan 16th and tell the customs agents that i have applied for a renewal and just didnt get it before I left, is that acceptable?
Thanks for your help in advance!
I have to go to India on 1st jan , 2009 for 2 weeks , for my brother's marriage on jan 14,2009, but my existing advance parole expires on jan 12 2009.
I have filed for the renewal of advance parole but I want to know as to what other option do I have , if I dont get my renewal advance parole by jan 1st ?
If my AP expires on jan 12th and I come back on jan 16th and tell the customs agents that i have applied for a renewal and just didnt get it before I left, is that acceptable?
Thanks for your help in advance!
chanduv23
03-14 06:50 AM
If someone completes their residency in US and gets a license to practice medicine, will this MD degree be valid in Canada and Australia?
My wife is doing her residency and due to this retrogression we want to have a plan B, and for plan B we want to know if it is worth moving to Canada or Australia after she completes her Residency? While I am in IT, I think the job scene is almost same everywhere which is based on experience.
I am sure a lot of IV members are physicians and would be looking into these options also. Please share your thoughts.
My wife is doing her residency and due to this retrogression we want to have a plan B, and for plan B we want to know if it is worth moving to Canada or Australia after she completes her Residency? While I am in IT, I think the job scene is almost same everywhere which is based on experience.
I am sure a lot of IV members are physicians and would be looking into these options also. Please share your thoughts.
No comments:
Post a Comment