ravish_kaipa
09-27 04:16 PM
Hi
Can you please confirm from your lawyer , if the A# shows up only if your 140 is approved or do you get one as soon as you have the receipt number . The reason I ask is , I saw an A# on my 485 forms that my lawyer filled and its the same number that shows up on my EAD and FP . However my company won't tell me if my 140 is approved or not .. so trying to decipher...
Thanks
tinoue I will suggest talk to lawyer,
As per my lawyer, If at the time of filing of I-485 , you already have I-140 approved , you are supposed to write A# I-140 on I-485 Application.
Otherwise they might assign New One..
If you remember on I-485 Application there is place for A#.
Can you please confirm from your lawyer , if the A# shows up only if your 140 is approved or do you get one as soon as you have the receipt number . The reason I ask is , I saw an A# on my 485 forms that my lawyer filled and its the same number that shows up on my EAD and FP . However my company won't tell me if my 140 is approved or not .. so trying to decipher...
Thanks
tinoue I will suggest talk to lawyer,
As per my lawyer, If at the time of filing of I-485 , you already have I-140 approved , you are supposed to write A# I-140 on I-485 Application.
Otherwise they might assign New One..
If you remember on I-485 Application there is place for A#.
wallpaper Vin Diesel, vin, diesel, wife,
mrdelhiite
08-08 07:59 AM
Yes, its good to file I-134 especially when she is on H4. Paystubs and tax returns are not required documents though a lot of people tend to submit them. Just an employment letter from your employer would suffice. You dont need to include your I-20 with your wife's application....However, do include her medicals, though its not part of the initial evidence......
Thank you.
-M:)
Thank you.
-M:)
gcFiler08
02-15 03:42 PM
Any news on this bill.
2011 vin diesel wife and baby. vin
cheg
07-20 04:44 PM
Based on our experience, my husband's lawyer applied for I-140 premium processing and after it was approved we were able to file for an extension of 3 years since I-485 is still retrogressed and we got approved for that one as well.
My 6 yrs are getting over in Jan 2008.
1. Can I apply for H1 extension request for 3 yrs instead of EAD?
2. Or with EAD?
Excuse me but I am a novice here.
My 6 yrs are getting over in Jan 2008.
1. Can I apply for H1 extension request for 3 yrs instead of EAD?
2. Or with EAD?
Excuse me but I am a novice here.
more...
indyanguy
03-18 07:37 PM
What is the reasonable time to wait for the approval of I-140 (EB3, NSC) before contacting the senator's office?
Mine has been pending for 8 months now.
Mine has been pending for 8 months now.
natrajs
04-21 02:38 PM
Isn't this everyody's concern ? GC process is something that has absolutely no predictability. It's all luck...I've been waiting for that moment from almost 8 years postponing many important decisions in life. So, I've come to the realization that the only thing we can do is hope.
Congrats and Best Wishes
Congrats and Best Wishes
more...
swamy
01-02 12:57 PM
I am from ATL
eduction evaluation done by a prof from GA sate university
and my transcripts.
Spend some money and get your credentials evaluated by a professional organization - you should be able to locate one online. Some prof giving his opinion wont cut it with USCIS.
eduction evaluation done by a prof from GA sate university
and my transcripts.
Spend some money and get your credentials evaluated by a professional organization - you should be able to locate one online. Some prof giving his opinion wont cut it with USCIS.
2010 vin diesel wife and baby. vin
martinvisalaw
04-26 04:25 PM
I agree with the posters who say that the employer is probably trying to frighten you. It is very difficult to restrict a person's right to work wherever they want - or to restrict an employer hiring whoever they want - especially in Texas. However, it is not really an immigration question. You or, ideally the client company, should see an employment lawyer here in Texas.
more...
smartboy75
09-27 02:39 AM
well said....it is surprising how US can afford to turn a blind eye to the mounting problems faced by legal immigrants....
hair vin diesel wife paloma. vin diesel wife paloma. with
deejay
01-16 07:23 PM
Hi,
How do I file my taxes when I was on an OPT for 9 months and 3 months on H1B?
Also,
8 Months of the OPT was in Cincinnati and 1 Month in Chicago.
3 Months of the H1B was in Chicago.
Can I use Turbo Tax to file my taxes or should I go to an accountant?
I got 2 w2 forms from my employer. 1 for the time I worked in Cincinnati and 1 for Chicago. I am not sure if they are 2 different w2 forms or just 1, because on 1 of the w2 forms it says "1 of 2 w2 form" and on the other it says "2 of 2 w2 form".
I am pretty confused, so if anyone was in a similar situation can please let me know what they did, that would be great.
Thanks,
Deejay
How do I file my taxes when I was on an OPT for 9 months and 3 months on H1B?
Also,
8 Months of the OPT was in Cincinnati and 1 Month in Chicago.
3 Months of the H1B was in Chicago.
Can I use Turbo Tax to file my taxes or should I go to an accountant?
I got 2 w2 forms from my employer. 1 for the time I worked in Cincinnati and 1 for Chicago. I am not sure if they are 2 different w2 forms or just 1, because on 1 of the w2 forms it says "1 of 2 w2 form" and on the other it says "2 of 2 w2 form".
I am pretty confused, so if anyone was in a similar situation can please let me know what they did, that would be great.
Thanks,
Deejay
more...
sabr
09-19 05:39 PM
meaning I can work for company B now and even though my h1b renewal approves with company A? then when I feel like I can go out and reenter before the h1b renewal period ends?
hot vin diesel. vin diesel wife.
ssdtm
02-08 08:11 PM
NCR Region
Sr Developer / Lead Developer (7-15yrs exp) - 8 - 15 lakhs
Project Manager (10-15yrs exp) - 10-20 lakhs
Above this level, the jobs are far and few, but some are
Principal Consultant / Program Manager (in cos like Wipro, Infy, HP) (12- 18 yrs exp) - 18-28 lakhs
Also note, just because someone has worked in US for a few years does not get any advantage above Project Manager level.
Information based on many well placed contacts at these levels.
Sr Developer / Lead Developer (7-15yrs exp) - 8 - 15 lakhs
Project Manager (10-15yrs exp) - 10-20 lakhs
Above this level, the jobs are far and few, but some are
Principal Consultant / Program Manager (in cos like Wipro, Infy, HP) (12- 18 yrs exp) - 18-28 lakhs
Also note, just because someone has worked in US for a few years does not get any advantage above Project Manager level.
Information based on many well placed contacts at these levels.
more...
house vin diesel wife. vin diesel wife and kids. vin diesel wife and kids. Patdt13
martinvisalaw
01-06 05:42 PM
Thanks for all the details. Greatly appreciate your advise. Looks like lot of information needs to be collected and without a research background I think its really a long shot to justify the time effort and resources.
I agree that unless the person really is outstanding, with lots of publications, conference presentations, reference letters, journal articles, etc, it is very difficult to get an EB-1 approved as an outstanding researcher or extraordinary ability. I just filed one, for example, and the package weighed almost 5 lbs, and included 54 exhibits. Yes, it was approved!
I agree that unless the person really is outstanding, with lots of publications, conference presentations, reference letters, journal articles, etc, it is very difficult to get an EB-1 approved as an outstanding researcher or extraordinary ability. I just filed one, for example, and the package weighed almost 5 lbs, and included 54 exhibits. Yes, it was approved!
tattoo vin diesel wife paloma. sean
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.
more...
pictures Vin Diesel - Ask Jeeves
chanukya
05-23 07:35 AM
As many of you have been following, there are some provisions that benefit folks with advanced degree in STEM from US universities by exempting them from the Visa quota. I think CIR in its current form has a provision and the Cornyn (4005) and the Brownback (4058) ammendments that are yet to be introduced also have some such provisions.
My question is, will people who qualify under this category still have to clear labor? If so, then those of us who are stuck in BEC can only wait and watch while those who have cleared using PERM will go ahead. We could transfer from BEC to PERM but this is not as easy as it sounds. We could also apply fresh in PERM (as retrogression will not apply, hence PD will not matter) but this is also not as easy as it sounds for folks who are in 7th year or greater in H1B.
Any thoughts or comments?
CORNYN amendment�Very cleverly worded..Regarding US Masters and above...
On Careful reading of SA4005...
On one hand exempts US any Masters from Quota but does not exempt from LC any US Masters unless such US Masters and above are "Member of Professions" ???? with advanced degrees.
So, US Masters(STEM or no STEM) and above still have to go thru LC Process....unless they are "Member of Professions", who will be handled as a special case.
Above "Memebr of Professions" open to many legal interpretations and INS dictionary may say something like it means only Doctors/Lawyers....?
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/at...6&d=1147880856
Bottom Line, US Masters thru any bill or its amendments cannot avoid LC process.
Only difference is in CORNYN amendment any US Masters (not necessarily STEM US Masters) are exempt from quota.
And your assessment is correct, PERM ..US Masters stand to benefit immedeatly.
My question is, will people who qualify under this category still have to clear labor? If so, then those of us who are stuck in BEC can only wait and watch while those who have cleared using PERM will go ahead. We could transfer from BEC to PERM but this is not as easy as it sounds. We could also apply fresh in PERM (as retrogression will not apply, hence PD will not matter) but this is also not as easy as it sounds for folks who are in 7th year or greater in H1B.
Any thoughts or comments?
CORNYN amendment�Very cleverly worded..Regarding US Masters and above...
On Careful reading of SA4005...
On one hand exempts US any Masters from Quota but does not exempt from LC any US Masters unless such US Masters and above are "Member of Professions" ???? with advanced degrees.
So, US Masters(STEM or no STEM) and above still have to go thru LC Process....unless they are "Member of Professions", who will be handled as a special case.
Above "Memebr of Professions" open to many legal interpretations and INS dictionary may say something like it means only Doctors/Lawyers....?
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/at...6&d=1147880856
Bottom Line, US Masters thru any bill or its amendments cannot avoid LC process.
Only difference is in CORNYN amendment any US Masters (not necessarily STEM US Masters) are exempt from quota.
And your assessment is correct, PERM ..US Masters stand to benefit immedeatly.
dresses vin diesel wife. vin diesel wife and baby. vin
leoindiano
07-09 02:03 PM
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=22772
Here's what uscis said...
Here's what uscis said...
more...
makeup vin diesel wife. vin diesel wife and baby. vin diesel wife and baby.
Steve Mitchell
December 5th, 2003, 09:44 PM
Could you put a link up to that plug in? I really like that.
girlfriend vin diesel brother pictures.
lskreddy
07-14 08:38 PM
My wife and I are from Austin. I have a few friends that are in Dallas that will be more than willing to participate in any organized activity...
hairstyles vin diesel wife and baby. vin
andycool
04-23 02:49 PM
I am employeed in IT consultancy, and wants to change my employement as a permenent employee of the client.
When i told this to my employeer he is telling me that he can file a lawsuite against my Client(New Employeer) on the bases of Small Business Administantion laws, stated below
Although the contract does not specifically state that the client cannot hire the contractor (you) on a permanent job, it also does not state that the client can. Current Employeer comes under the category of the 'Small Business Administration' under the State and the Federal Governments. Both governments fully support the growth and looks after the interests of small businesses in the country. They have always done it and are even more supportive lately as a result of the struggle small businesses are undergoing in these bad economic times. I have been advised by the company attorney that I contracted you to the client purely on professional and ethical grounds for the benefit of Current Employeer business. If a giant company like Client just takes you away to their advantage, it may not be looked upon favorably by a small business court.
Below is what is in the contract between my Employeer and Client.
1. This agreement is for the sole purposes of providing the services of the Contractor’s employee XXX to (Client).
2. Contractor will be an independent contractor of Company and will work on a Client assignment.
3. Company will pay $XX.00 per hour to Contractor for all the hours of work and expenses approved by Client.
4. All time and expenses should be entered into client’s system and should be approved by the concerned manager or project manager.
5 Company will not pay contractor for any time and expenses not authorized and not approved by Client.
6. Contractor shall be solely responsible for the quality of work performed.
7. Payment terms shall be XX days net and will be made on a bi-weekly basis.
8. The start date and the length of assignment will be determined by Client, and Company shall let the Contractor know in writing before the date on which the consultant starts working for the Client.
9. Contractor reserves the right to offer consultant’s services to other clients until such time the Company and the Contractor executes this agreement as well as a project work order.
10. This is the only agreement between the Contractor and the Company. Changes can be made in writing only and have to be signed by both parties to be effective.
11. This agreement is subject to the laws of the State of Texas.
12. Either party can terminate this contract by giving 2 week’s written notice, via email or physical mail. The notifying party must obtain proof of delivery of such notification to the other party.
Can any one tell if there is any possibility of that
I think your Employer is trying to scare you ...:)
When i told this to my employeer he is telling me that he can file a lawsuite against my Client(New Employeer) on the bases of Small Business Administantion laws, stated below
Although the contract does not specifically state that the client cannot hire the contractor (you) on a permanent job, it also does not state that the client can. Current Employeer comes under the category of the 'Small Business Administration' under the State and the Federal Governments. Both governments fully support the growth and looks after the interests of small businesses in the country. They have always done it and are even more supportive lately as a result of the struggle small businesses are undergoing in these bad economic times. I have been advised by the company attorney that I contracted you to the client purely on professional and ethical grounds for the benefit of Current Employeer business. If a giant company like Client just takes you away to their advantage, it may not be looked upon favorably by a small business court.
Below is what is in the contract between my Employeer and Client.
1. This agreement is for the sole purposes of providing the services of the Contractor’s employee XXX to (Client).
2. Contractor will be an independent contractor of Company and will work on a Client assignment.
3. Company will pay $XX.00 per hour to Contractor for all the hours of work and expenses approved by Client.
4. All time and expenses should be entered into client’s system and should be approved by the concerned manager or project manager.
5 Company will not pay contractor for any time and expenses not authorized and not approved by Client.
6. Contractor shall be solely responsible for the quality of work performed.
7. Payment terms shall be XX days net and will be made on a bi-weekly basis.
8. The start date and the length of assignment will be determined by Client, and Company shall let the Contractor know in writing before the date on which the consultant starts working for the Client.
9. Contractor reserves the right to offer consultant’s services to other clients until such time the Company and the Contractor executes this agreement as well as a project work order.
10. This is the only agreement between the Contractor and the Company. Changes can be made in writing only and have to be signed by both parties to be effective.
11. This agreement is subject to the laws of the State of Texas.
12. Either party can terminate this contract by giving 2 week’s written notice, via email or physical mail. The notifying party must obtain proof of delivery of such notification to the other party.
Can any one tell if there is any possibility of that
I think your Employer is trying to scare you ...:)
Danko
11-27 03:46 AM
Honestly, what does it even matter if it is MS biased? He works at MS, and has every right to focus on that content. :P
I knew it.. :beer2:
Someone said:
It�s hard to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
btw I am the C# .NET developer, I use it on the server-side all the time - I love it!!
But honestly - every MS client side techology till now (classic forms&post backs... Atlas/MS Ajax) sucked when having a more complex project.
ps. I will install Expression Blend today or tomorrow and start working with it... :geek: However, I know that solutions that work cross-platform and cross-OS currently come from Adobe only (AIR). ;) So I think it's at least worth mentioning...
I knew it.. :beer2:
Someone said:
It�s hard to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
btw I am the C# .NET developer, I use it on the server-side all the time - I love it!!
But honestly - every MS client side techology till now (classic forms&post backs... Atlas/MS Ajax) sucked when having a more complex project.
ps. I will install Expression Blend today or tomorrow and start working with it... :geek: However, I know that solutions that work cross-platform and cross-OS currently come from Adobe only (AIR). ;) So I think it's at least worth mentioning...
helpmeExperts
01-13 12:00 PM
Hi
i just saw your thread about FOI.
please care to share with me how can i do that.
plz reply to my message
thanks a ton!
i just saw your thread about FOI.
please care to share with me how can i do that.
plz reply to my message
thanks a ton!
No comments:
Post a Comment