a_yaja
10-11 05:02 PM
hi ,
Here is my situation.
(employer) -> (middle vendor ) -> prime vendor -> (End client ).
I am working to a client in california in the above mentioned order. After 1 year we got rid of middle vendor and prime vendor is working with my employer directly . Now middle vendor is threatning me that he can sue me for breaking the line of contract .
i dont understand ho can even its possible as i never signed any document with middle vendor and he is not even my employer . He is just acting as middle layer by showing prime vendor that i am his employee which is wrong. now we removed him from line of contract and he is saying that he will sue all of us for doing this.
is there any way that he can even do this ?
- Thanks in advance.
Is he threatening to sue you or your employer? If it is your employer, then it is really not your problem. Depending on the way the contract was worded between your employer and the "middle vendor", the "middle vendor" may have grounds to go after your employer. But like I said before, it has nothing to do with you.
As others have mentioned in this forum, the "middle vendor" cannot go after you as there is no contract between you and the "middle vendor". Even if there was, it would hardly stand in a court of law.
Here is my situation.
(employer) -> (middle vendor ) -> prime vendor -> (End client ).
I am working to a client in california in the above mentioned order. After 1 year we got rid of middle vendor and prime vendor is working with my employer directly . Now middle vendor is threatning me that he can sue me for breaking the line of contract .
i dont understand ho can even its possible as i never signed any document with middle vendor and he is not even my employer . He is just acting as middle layer by showing prime vendor that i am his employee which is wrong. now we removed him from line of contract and he is saying that he will sue all of us for doing this.
is there any way that he can even do this ?
- Thanks in advance.
Is he threatening to sue you or your employer? If it is your employer, then it is really not your problem. Depending on the way the contract was worded between your employer and the "middle vendor", the "middle vendor" may have grounds to go after your employer. But like I said before, it has nothing to do with you.
As others have mentioned in this forum, the "middle vendor" cannot go after you as there is no contract between you and the "middle vendor". Even if there was, it would hardly stand in a court of law.
wallpaper of Lenny Kravitz and Lisa
fearonlygod
11-14 10:12 AM
thanks for the response ....how long is the response time for such cases....
.jpg "Lenny Kravitz and Lisa")
little_willy
08-15 11:28 PM
^^^^^^^^^
2011 rock God Lenny Kravitz and
studmvr
12-20 01:29 PM
Instead i will donate the travel expenses to IV...........
Good Luck Every one
Good Luck Every one
more...
madhu345
11-29 10:32 AM
I'm based in Dallas, anyone in this area send me the PM.
Since I travel extensivley there might be a slight delay in pesponding to the emails.
Thanks!
Madhu
Since I travel extensivley there might be a slight delay in pesponding to the emails.
Thanks!
Madhu
Ann Ruben
01-08 11:26 PM
There are really two questions here. First, are you eligible for unemployment compensation? And second, will applying for unemployment compensation adversely impact your application for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident?
The answer to the first question is controlled by the law of the particular state in which you worked and/or reside. In theory, to be eligible one must have worked long enough that an adequate amount of UC insurance was paid into the UC system, AND one must be willing and ABLE to accept new employment. The law varies from state to state with respect to whether someone in your situation qualifies as "ABLE" to accept new employment. If you let me know where you reside and work, I can try to provide further guidance as to eligibility for UC benefits.
As to the second question, (assuming your I-140 has been approved and your I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days) under the INA, when your PD is reached and your I-485 is adjudicated, you are required to have the intention to take up an offer of permanent full time employment in the same or similar occupation for which your LC was granted. This is a prospective requirement, and your employment status prior to the actual grant of AOS is relevant only to the extent that it supports or undercuts your ability to prove that you have an appropriate offer of full time employment which you intend to take up. There is no requirement that you be employed while you are waiting for your priority date to become current and your I-485 to be adjudicated. However, being unemployed or employed in an entirely unrelated occupation could trigger USCIS to perform a more searching inquiry into the bona fides of the prospective AC21 qualifying job offer and your intention to accept it.
To the best of my knowledge, USCIS is not notified when an AOS applicant applies for UC. Similarly, I am not aware of any cases where an UC claim triggered an RFE. Nevertheless, it would be prudent to act on the assumption that USCIS is aware of UC claims and be well prepared to prove one's intention to take up a bona fide offer of AC 21 qualifying employment once your PD is reached.
The answer to the first question is controlled by the law of the particular state in which you worked and/or reside. In theory, to be eligible one must have worked long enough that an adequate amount of UC insurance was paid into the UC system, AND one must be willing and ABLE to accept new employment. The law varies from state to state with respect to whether someone in your situation qualifies as "ABLE" to accept new employment. If you let me know where you reside and work, I can try to provide further guidance as to eligibility for UC benefits.
As to the second question, (assuming your I-140 has been approved and your I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days) under the INA, when your PD is reached and your I-485 is adjudicated, you are required to have the intention to take up an offer of permanent full time employment in the same or similar occupation for which your LC was granted. This is a prospective requirement, and your employment status prior to the actual grant of AOS is relevant only to the extent that it supports or undercuts your ability to prove that you have an appropriate offer of full time employment which you intend to take up. There is no requirement that you be employed while you are waiting for your priority date to become current and your I-485 to be adjudicated. However, being unemployed or employed in an entirely unrelated occupation could trigger USCIS to perform a more searching inquiry into the bona fides of the prospective AC21 qualifying job offer and your intention to accept it.
To the best of my knowledge, USCIS is not notified when an AOS applicant applies for UC. Similarly, I am not aware of any cases where an UC claim triggered an RFE. Nevertheless, it would be prudent to act on the assumption that USCIS is aware of UC claims and be well prepared to prove one's intention to take up a bona fide offer of AC 21 qualifying employment once your PD is reached.
more...
talash
10-15 11:47 PM
Sorry to hear about ur denail .I've been through this .Unfortunately u cant fime MTR bacause it has to be within 30 to 33 days of denail depending how u get ur denail notice .U can file an apeal but that will take more time then filing a new 140 and getting spproval .I dont know if u can use old labour .If u can use old labout then better to file new 140 with approved labour .If u cant use old labout then apeal may be batter becaue more n more labours are goin to audit and endless delays .
hope it helps .
hope it helps .
2010 Lenny Kravitz and Lisa
USDream2Dust
09-24 10:13 AM
but we received an RFE Yday forwarded from my old address which I moved out 1 year ago and filed AR11.
also the RFE stated that there is no G28 representation on our case and worst thing was online status is still pending.
We had lost 13 valuable days because of address they used in RFE.
Good Luck.!!
also the RFE stated that there is no G28 representation on our case and worst thing was online status is still pending.
We had lost 13 valuable days because of address they used in RFE.
Good Luck.!!
more...
softcrowd
04-16 09:46 PM
Nothing to panic. This is a disaster & the entire world knows about it. Just make sure to take the screenshots of flight cancellation status & few online news headlines. Ask your parents to carry this while traveling to US in future.
For now, try to see there are any other options for them (like booking the ticket via one of those middle-east airlines). If not, just wait till middle of the next week so situation would be improved anyway.
Couple of days delay is easily justifiable under extraordinary situation like this one.
For now, try to see there are any other options for them (like booking the ticket via one of those middle-east airlines). If not, just wait till middle of the next week so situation would be improved anyway.
Couple of days delay is easily justifiable under extraordinary situation like this one.
hair dresses lisa bonet and lenny
smuggymba
08-18 11:18 PM
^^
agree with above. This forum is to press our genuine demands....not some a**holes news who brings a bad name.
delete this.
agree with above. This forum is to press our genuine demands....not some a**holes news who brings a bad name.
delete this.
more...
shruthii_1210@yahoo.com
09-30 12:07 PM
Hi,
I received my EAD recently ,I-140 got approved (separate filing) last year and 485 still pending (not reached 180 days so far).
Now i have the following questions.
1) If anything happens like layoff with my current employment , is it possible to use AC21 wihin 180 days of 485 filing may be with the similar new job?
2) I have worked a for the past 5 years in this country, and how come bcz of my current company lays me out then my 485 will get affected?
3) if it is not possible to use ac21 , can i join another company to apply for a new LC , I140 ,I485 again, if so i have only 1.5 years left .. is that okay ?
4) I cannot get the LC copy also from my employer if at all i want ti use ac21?
Advance Thanks for your replies ...
Thanks
karthik
I received my EAD recently ,I-140 got approved (separate filing) last year and 485 still pending (not reached 180 days so far).
Now i have the following questions.
1) If anything happens like layoff with my current employment , is it possible to use AC21 wihin 180 days of 485 filing may be with the similar new job?
2) I have worked a for the past 5 years in this country, and how come bcz of my current company lays me out then my 485 will get affected?
3) if it is not possible to use ac21 , can i join another company to apply for a new LC , I140 ,I485 again, if so i have only 1.5 years left .. is that okay ?
4) I cannot get the LC copy also from my employer if at all i want ti use ac21?
Advance Thanks for your replies ...
Thanks
karthik
hot Lenny Kravitz amp; Lisa Bonet
justin150377
07-01 02:48 PM
I'll join..I'd only have to go back to Canada. I can understand why the thousands on here would not. However, Canadian permanant residency is easier to get, anyone applying for it?
more...
house Lenny Kravitz and actress
h1b_visaholder
06-08 09:57 PM
Any updates on this... I would really like to know cos I am in the same situation and would like to know what happened in your case.
Thanks in Advance.
Thanks in Advance.
tattoo Celebuspawn Zoe Kravitz
praveen888
04-09 09:45 PM
Ken,
I am on same boat. Mine and my wife case also transfered from Texas to Orlando,FL.My PD is EB2 sep06 and we filed 485 July2nd'07.140 approved in March07.
We never worked in FL state.
My case is tranfered on 8th April'08 and a LUD today(9th April 08).
I am on same boat. Mine and my wife case also transfered from Texas to Orlando,FL.My PD is EB2 sep06 and we filed 485 July2nd'07.140 approved in March07.
We never worked in FL state.
My case is tranfered on 8th April'08 and a LUD today(9th April 08).
more...
pictures star Lenny Kravitz and
for_gc
09-21 11:52 AM
I don't agree with more fees for 485 etc ...
They are already taking too much money out of us ...
They are already taking too much money out of us ...
dresses Lisa Bonet
dba9ioracle
08-04 10:26 AM
done
more...
makeup of Lenny Kravitz and Lisa
njboy
11-28 10:00 AM
hope your name is in english and not in hindi.
girlfriend Lisa Bonet. Lenny Kravitz
deba
05-29 10:41 AM
Be careful about claiming residency thru employment for a Canadian company while outside the country. It is not automatically considered. I had the first hand experience myself while applying for Canadian citizenship. I was a few days short, however was able to prove my case because I was employed by a Canadian company which was doing business in the US and I was a frequent business visitor. I was approved because of all other things considered, time spent in Canada, family ties, owner of residential property in Canada etc. etc. But overall it wasn't a pleasant experience proving my case to CIC. I had to organize tons of paperwork and proof to prove my case. So just don't assume you will meet the requirements of residency with only a remote employment connection with a Canadian entity.
hairstyles of Lisa Bonet and Lenny
Googler
02-14 05:22 PM
Great ruling. The analysis is totally applicable to AOS. Moreover, the government admitted that it was wrong in recent memo.
"In the context of removal proceedings, ICE has determined that FBI fingerprint checks and Interagency Border Inspection Services (IBIS) checks are the required checks for purposes of the applicable regulations."
Wait a minute, isn't immigration judge able to grant AOS in removal proceedings? It means that the DHS acknowledges that it wrongfully interpreted regulations for all these years and that name check is not required by law (at least for AOS) as we were saying all along!
I love also this part: "in the unlikely event that FBI name checks reveal actionable information".
As judge Baylson pointed out, "name check" is nowhere to found in laws and regs.
Good point about the recent memo -- happily there are multiple pdfs of it floating around so they can't make that language disappear -- and and immigration judge granting AOS. Those two points should do.
About "name check" nowhere found in laws -- i.e no language in some obscure subsection -- I just want to make sure that the interpretation is ironclad for AOS, we know it is for naturalization.
Yep, I *love* the "unlikely event" part.
"In the context of removal proceedings, ICE has determined that FBI fingerprint checks and Interagency Border Inspection Services (IBIS) checks are the required checks for purposes of the applicable regulations."
Wait a minute, isn't immigration judge able to grant AOS in removal proceedings? It means that the DHS acknowledges that it wrongfully interpreted regulations for all these years and that name check is not required by law (at least for AOS) as we were saying all along!
I love also this part: "in the unlikely event that FBI name checks reveal actionable information".
As judge Baylson pointed out, "name check" is nowhere to found in laws and regs.
Good point about the recent memo -- happily there are multiple pdfs of it floating around so they can't make that language disappear -- and and immigration judge granting AOS. Those two points should do.
About "name check" nowhere found in laws -- i.e no language in some obscure subsection -- I just want to make sure that the interpretation is ironclad for AOS, we know it is for naturalization.
Yep, I *love* the "unlikely event" part.
gcdreamer05
09-29 01:27 PM
If the doctor's office can give you claim codes, fine. Otherwise, you gotta do it yourself. Just submit the invoice copies with a good cover letter (explaining what it is). I did it with my insurance company and it went through smoothly. They treated our immigration medical exams as usual annual physical exams which are fully covered. Immunizations (i.e., vaccinations) are fully covered as well.
Maverick_2008-+
If you dont mind could you PM me or if it is ok with you share the name of your insurance provider so that we know and we too can file for reimbursement......
Maverick_2008-+
If you dont mind could you PM me or if it is ok with you share the name of your insurance provider so that we know and we too can file for reimbursement......
goosetavo
03-03 02:20 AM
C'mon guys, you are supposed to be the smartes of the smart here. The bill referenced above has nothing for EB-immigrants true, but it is not the Bill proposed in the US House for CIR in 2010 (it has ZERO Co-sponsors), the "good one" is HR 4321 (93 co-sponsors):
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h4321ih.txt.pdf
It's the CIR ASAP act, see postings from me from last year for a summary. This bill recaptures lost GC's from the last two decades and exempts STEM degree holders from the numerical caps, read it, its all there.
Can we stop hating on illegal immigrants? Please read Pappu's postings on the subject, this whinning does nothing to help our cause. We're all in this together. The CIR ASAP Act does put more limits on H1B visas, which is unfortunate, but we need to try and negotiate here, not throw everything away.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h4321ih.txt.pdf
It's the CIR ASAP act, see postings from me from last year for a summary. This bill recaptures lost GC's from the last two decades and exempts STEM degree holders from the numerical caps, read it, its all there.
Can we stop hating on illegal immigrants? Please read Pappu's postings on the subject, this whinning does nothing to help our cause. We're all in this together. The CIR ASAP Act does put more limits on H1B visas, which is unfortunate, but we need to try and negotiate here, not throw everything away.