GC08
06-19 07:28 PM
Sorry if this is too basic. But can anyone tell me if passport photos taken from Kinko's will work for filing 485, AP, EAD, etc.?
Someone told me that USCIS does not accept digital photos or the digital photos have to meet certain quality requirement (something like that). I went to Kinko's near by and found out their pictures were digital too. So wondering if anyone had any problems with that (like USCIS rejection of the photos).
Thanks in advance!
Someone told me that USCIS does not accept digital photos or the digital photos have to meet certain quality requirement (something like that). I went to Kinko's near by and found out their pictures were digital too. So wondering if anyone had any problems with that (like USCIS rejection of the photos).
Thanks in advance!
MatsP
June 14th, 2005, 08:07 AM
You can use extension tubes for all lenses on either Nikon or Canon cameras (obviously, on a Canon, they need to have Canon mount, and on a Nikon thye need to be Nikon mount).
Canon (and/or Nikon) may be using some special conversion signalling in the extension tube to inform the camera of the extension tubes existance. The teleconverters from Canon does this, whilst some other teleconverters of non-Canon brand do not. However, I think the extension tubes are much simpler animals, so they're probably just straight through connection of wires.
On Nikon, really old lenses are able to work with modern cameras, but some of the automatic functions aren't able to work (obvious things like the autofocus doesn't work on non-AF lenses, and you may not be able to use automatic aperture settings, which also may mean that the camera doesn't know the aperture and can't do automatic time selection either... How much functionality is lost depends on the age of the lens).
Canon on the other hand made a "big changeover", where they obsoleted the old mount and made a complete new, incompatible one when they introduced autofocus some 20 or so years ago.
--
Mats
Canon (and/or Nikon) may be using some special conversion signalling in the extension tube to inform the camera of the extension tubes existance. The teleconverters from Canon does this, whilst some other teleconverters of non-Canon brand do not. However, I think the extension tubes are much simpler animals, so they're probably just straight through connection of wires.
On Nikon, really old lenses are able to work with modern cameras, but some of the automatic functions aren't able to work (obvious things like the autofocus doesn't work on non-AF lenses, and you may not be able to use automatic aperture settings, which also may mean that the camera doesn't know the aperture and can't do automatic time selection either... How much functionality is lost depends on the age of the lens).
Canon on the other hand made a "big changeover", where they obsoleted the old mount and made a complete new, incompatible one when they introduced autofocus some 20 or so years ago.
--
Mats
lazycis
01-13 04:47 PM
I live in northern california and has written letters to congressman, first lady but not response.
Northern Cal is arguably the best district to file Wom. You can give it try. What is the USCIS response?
Northern Cal is arguably the best district to file Wom. You can give it try. What is the USCIS response?
saileshdude
10-07 11:46 PM
Jungalee,
I sent you a PM. Can you reply to that? Thanks a lot
I sent you a PM. Can you reply to that? Thanks a lot
more...
StuckInTheMuck
04-29 05:39 PM
Following up on my original post, NRIs flying in to India from swine flu-affected countries are not only being screened at the airports, teams of doctors are even going to their homes (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Swine-flu-reaches-India/articleshow/4465683.cms) to do additional check-ups. Now, that is impressive!
Carlau
01-10 10:39 PM
This Talent Bill: will it be presented, when, what is the status? This is another way, among great benefits for all, for us H-4s to work.
more...
omved
05-06 02:47 PM
Does replying to RFE along with all required documents means GC is coming soon ??
Augustus..did you get GC yet ?
Thanks
Augustus..did you get GC yet ?
Thanks
Sakthisagar
03-12 02:12 PM
For Your First Question it is a big YES, USCIS/DOS is responsible. as per law, for the wasted visa re-capture, congress approval is not required, that decision is solely on USCIS, and USCIS can definitely make folks who are waiting on I-140 approval to file I-485 and be on EAD, that is solely under the jurdistriction of USCIS.
Now, Please tell us what is the next step??
Now, Please tell us what is the next step??
more...
theconfused
12-15 09:57 PM
Dear Nousername,
Thanks for your reply.
My time period without pay stup was 4 months and 14 days = 134 days.
How much was the gap (without pay stub) for you?
Thanks
Thanks for your reply.
My time period without pay stup was 4 months and 14 days = 134 days.
How much was the gap (without pay stub) for you?
Thanks
seahawks
04-29 10:10 AM
I would like to send emails to my friends about IV and the cause IV stands for. I know a lot of people who are stuck by retrogession. Is there a standard template to invite friends to join, volunteer and contribute that we can include as a link in this website please?
vj
vj
more...
ajju
09-08 12:26 PM
Dear All:
Need your advice. Filed I-485 on July 5th. I-140 is approved. Working with the employer for 6 yrs. Now that I filed for final stage, my employer wants me to sign a contract voluntarily that I should stay with them for 24 months. What are my legal options in state of CA? He wants to get 20K if I leave earlier than contract term. I signed it since he threatened me to revoke I-140. Can I backout after portability law kicks in.
Thanks in advance.
Check with a good attorney like Sheela Murthy or Rajiv Khanna after 6 months... Until then you really don't have any choice... I am surprised to see that you worked for this employer for last 6 years and this is the state of your relationship... Did he paid for all the legal fees or was it paid by you??
Need your advice. Filed I-485 on July 5th. I-140 is approved. Working with the employer for 6 yrs. Now that I filed for final stage, my employer wants me to sign a contract voluntarily that I should stay with them for 24 months. What are my legal options in state of CA? He wants to get 20K if I leave earlier than contract term. I signed it since he threatened me to revoke I-140. Can I backout after portability law kicks in.
Thanks in advance.
Check with a good attorney like Sheela Murthy or Rajiv Khanna after 6 months... Until then you really don't have any choice... I am surprised to see that you worked for this employer for last 6 years and this is the state of your relationship... Did he paid for all the legal fees or was it paid by you??
lazycis
01-24 08:20 PM
If the cort orders them to find a number, they will find one despite the "U".
more...
garamchai2go
12-12 05:17 AM
Current Status: Case received and pending.
On Month XX, CCYY, we received this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS, and mailed you a notice describing how we will process your case. Please follow any instructions on this notice. We will notify you by mail when we make a decision or if we need something from you. If you move while this case is pending, call customer service. We process cases in the order we receive them. You can use our processing dates to estimate when yours will be done. This case is at our XXXX SERVICE CENTER location.
On Month XX, CCYY, we received this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS, and mailed you a notice describing how we will process your case. Please follow any instructions on this notice. We will notify you by mail when we make a decision or if we need something from you. If you move while this case is pending, call customer service. We process cases in the order we receive them. You can use our processing dates to estimate when yours will be done. This case is at our XXXX SERVICE CENTER location.
chem2
06-15 09:07 AM
if you completed an I-9 with your employer after you recd your green card, you may be able to ask them if they are willing to let you make a copy from their files.
more...
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.
haroontabrez
04-15 10:04 AM
TO mbawa2574 & FUNTIMES
Just follow what TomPlate has said.
I had exactly the same issue (the return was rejected) and I called IRS. They asked me to put 0 in the AGI and it was then accepted.
we had a similar issue,
what happens is that when you efile with IRS, They dont have data that your wife had SSN last year, and they have just the ITIN number. thats the reason efile gets rejected. you need to manually file this year and next year it should be OK to efile.
I am not sure which pacakge you are using to Efile, I had similar problem with HR blocks tax cut software.
Hope this information helps
Thanks
My wife has ITIN till last year and we filed jointly. This year she has a social security number and we filed using social security number. Return was rejected by IRS saying that my wife's last year's AGI is wrong. Has anyone run into this ? What was the resolution ?
Just follow what TomPlate has said.
I had exactly the same issue (the return was rejected) and I called IRS. They asked me to put 0 in the AGI and it was then accepted.
we had a similar issue,
what happens is that when you efile with IRS, They dont have data that your wife had SSN last year, and they have just the ITIN number. thats the reason efile gets rejected. you need to manually file this year and next year it should be OK to efile.
I am not sure which pacakge you are using to Efile, I had similar problem with HR blocks tax cut software.
Hope this information helps
Thanks
My wife has ITIN till last year and we filed jointly. This year she has a social security number and we filed using social security number. Return was rejected by IRS saying that my wife's last year's AGI is wrong. Has anyone run into this ? What was the resolution ?
more...
GCBy3000
05-03 09:24 PM
Admin,
I was eagerly looking from May 1st for the contribution update. Today is May 3rd and it still shows the contribution as of April 28. Could you please update so that all of us can know the acheivement as of May 1st.
I was eagerly looking from May 1st for the contribution update. Today is May 3rd and it still shows the contribution as of April 28. Could you please update so that all of us can know the acheivement as of May 1st.
bp333
11-13 05:03 PM
That is GREAT!
I can understand what you have gone through and it must be a big relief for you !
Can you tell us when did you resubmit your application and what fee did they accept..old or new. A friend of mine resubmitted his application a few days ago with new fee... his original app was rejected earlier because his attorney sent thre wrong fee amount...(neither new nor old..)
Good luck and enjoy the feleing now
Thanks. When refiling we submitted checks to cover old fee and an additional check to cover the difference for new fee. I don't know at this point what checks they cashed. For sure, USCIS us being very lenient and cooperative given the volume of cases, July fiasco etc..
I am very positive that your friends filing will get through as well.
I can understand what you have gone through and it must be a big relief for you !
Can you tell us when did you resubmit your application and what fee did they accept..old or new. A friend of mine resubmitted his application a few days ago with new fee... his original app was rejected earlier because his attorney sent thre wrong fee amount...(neither new nor old..)
Good luck and enjoy the feleing now
Thanks. When refiling we submitted checks to cover old fee and an additional check to cover the difference for new fee. I don't know at this point what checks they cashed. For sure, USCIS us being very lenient and cooperative given the volume of cases, July fiasco etc..
I am very positive that your friends filing will get through as well.
GCAmigo
07-09 09:46 AM
title translated..
sarasuva
01-30 12:37 AM
My employer says that USCIS confused with another employer with the same name who is not funcioning from 2003(Or this guys would have given their old Licence number of 2003 to USCIS while applying I140 which was overlooked by USCIS while approval). On this confusion they 'Intent to revoke'.My employer has sent the current licence they have to USCIS. So we are waiting for the decision. But I did not see the 'Intent to Revoke' letter myself. They are not sending it too. So i am nervous and thinking of other options.
USCIS site says that additional documents has been received and they will make a decision soon.
USCIS site says that additional documents has been received and they will make a decision soon.
fshah
07-13 10:20 AM
Done
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario