gc_on_demand
08-21 10:54 AM
I tend to agree with both.
You need strong arguments and they need to have legal basis. Laws cannot be changed by an agency that only follows laws.
If you are eligible for EB2 and cannot file in Eb2 and your employer filed in Eb3, it is not a strong argument. Likewise you cannot change the spillover rule without strong legal justification. You need change of law.
Visa recapture is the best option.
Any big action iteam coming for VISA RECAPTURE FROM IV CORE ?
should't we start aggressive calling campaign for HR 5882 ? like one we did for sub committe hearing.. or may be big event like rally in DC ..
You need strong arguments and they need to have legal basis. Laws cannot be changed by an agency that only follows laws.
If you are eligible for EB2 and cannot file in Eb2 and your employer filed in Eb3, it is not a strong argument. Likewise you cannot change the spillover rule without strong legal justification. You need change of law.
Visa recapture is the best option.
Any big action iteam coming for VISA RECAPTURE FROM IV CORE ?
should't we start aggressive calling campaign for HR 5882 ? like one we did for sub committe hearing.. or may be big event like rally in DC ..
wallpaper World of Warcraft, often
imv116
06-12 11:14 AM
U.S. Department of Labor can be a good place to start with the first complaint.
Link: http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/america2.htm
Link: http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/america2.htm
nosightofgc
09-11 05:23 PM
I am just curious. If a person has an arrest record, will name check triggers a hit or the FP check? I suspect FP check, but not sure.
2011 hair images hd wallpaper
boldm28
09-20 04:41 PM
Called them, the lady said there is a huge backlog. my entry does not show in database also..bummer
can you just also tell us when your application was sent
that would be really heplful
can you just also tell us when your application was sent
that would be really heplful
more...
nuke
09-24 04:18 PM
According to the report Mexico EB3 has 2240 pending cases till the end of 2001
and India EB3 has 1630 pending cases till the end of 2001
Then according to current visa bulletin why does PD for India way behind Mexico???
and even China is behind Mexico when they have only 108 pending cases till end of 2001.
Something is wrong with the numbers or they mean something else??
and India EB3 has 1630 pending cases till the end of 2001
Then according to current visa bulletin why does PD for India way behind Mexico???
and even China is behind Mexico when they have only 108 pending cases till end of 2001.
Something is wrong with the numbers or they mean something else??
abhijitp
06-29 04:31 PM
How about, they are expecting so many application 140 plus 485...that THEY DO NOT WANT TO PROCESS ANY APPLICATION...like always - THEY WILL SIT and EAT BURGERS and dont WANT TO DO ANY WORK...nothing new here folks...
On Monday I upgraded my I-140 at NSC to Premium Processing category. It got approved in just 3 days. It is not as if they are not doing any work. In fact I checked that the TSC I-140 dates (my successor in interest I-140 is pending here) have moved forward too.
I think they stopped premium processing I-140's now as they know there will be a flurry of AOS apps, which they would want to look at.
For the same reason, I think the AILA thing about a new interim bulletin is also a rumour.
Given a chance though, I would want to file ASAP... who won't?
On Monday I upgraded my I-140 at NSC to Premium Processing category. It got approved in just 3 days. It is not as if they are not doing any work. In fact I checked that the TSC I-140 dates (my successor in interest I-140 is pending here) have moved forward too.
I think they stopped premium processing I-140's now as they know there will be a flurry of AOS apps, which they would want to look at.
For the same reason, I think the AILA thing about a new interim bulletin is also a rumour.
Given a chance though, I would want to file ASAP... who won't?
more...
abhis0
09-27 04:43 PM
Right now checked my bank account and all 6 checks (for me and wife) cashed. All receipt numbers are at the back of the check. AsI was expecting the package was transferred to Texas.
All receipt numbers start with SRC******
This is the happiest day since July 17 for us....
I am very very hopeful that you guys will get it. Check your bacnk too today.
Do you think USCIS came to know about your "List compilation" activity and hence your receipt......I think I should take over list compilation now :p
Happy for you man...
All receipt numbers start with SRC******
This is the happiest day since July 17 for us....
I am very very hopeful that you guys will get it. Check your bacnk too today.
Do you think USCIS came to know about your "List compilation" activity and hence your receipt......I think I should take over list compilation now :p
Happy for you man...
2010 Description: World of Warcraft
PD_Dec2002
06-29 04:32 PM
My receipt date is June 20 and my PD is Oct 2002. If the July visa bulletin does retrogress, will I still be affected with regards to I-765?
No. Since USCIS accepted your application when your PD was current, then you are fine.
Thanks,
Jayant
No. Since USCIS accepted your application when your PD was current, then you are fine.
Thanks,
Jayant
more...
aadimanav
01-03 12:56 AM
Part 2 continued....
USCIS delays have become so excessive in this arena that many foreign nationals have sought relief in federal court. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA), which governs federal agency actions and decisions, requires that an agency resolve a matter presented to it within a "reasonable" time frame. See 8 U.S.C. 555(b). Using the APA, foreign nationals have argued that waiting for two or more years for a decision on an immigration application is "unreasonable" under the statute. The cases are divided, but a majority of courts have agreed that making a foreign national wait years and years just for a decision on his or her application is unreasonable. As a result, many judges have ordered the FBI and USCIS to complete pending name check cases within 60 or 90 days where a foreign national has been waiting for two or more years. Some judges have noted that security concerns are not to be taken lightly, but this only reinforces the fact that such issues should be resolved in a matter of weeks as opposed to years.
The success or failure of litigation in this arena ultimately turns on the court's reading of a jurisdiction-stripping provision embedded in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Real ID Act of 2005. The INA precludes judicial review of any "decision or action" of the USCIS that is "specified [under INA] to be in the discretion" of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). In defending challenges to delayed applications, the U.S. Attorney's office has argued that the adjudication of a green card application, including the pace of adjudication, is committed to the sole discretion of the USCIS, because the INA specifies that a decision to approve or deny a green card application is within the discretion of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1255(a).
None of the circuit courts have ruled on this issue, but the relationship between USCIS delay and the role of the judiciary has become a "national judicial debate" at the district court level. See Saleem v. Keisler , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80044 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 26, 2007). Some courts have bought the government's argument, holding that a discretionary "action" includes every interim action taken along the way leading up to an ultimate decision on an application. See Safadi v. Howard , 466 F.Supp. 2d 696, 699 (E.D. Vir. 2006). Under this theory, a stalled name check is simply action along the way to a final decision. The majority of courts have rejected this reading of the statute, holding that USCIS' discretion only applies to the ultimate decision on an application, not the pace of its adjudication. As one court stated, "it would require Orwellian twisting of the word ["action"] to conclude that it means a failure to adjudicate." Saleem v. Keisler, supra. Similarly, U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell recognized that the INA grants discretion to the USCIS to grant or deny a green card application, but "national security does not require that it also have absolute discretion to delay such an application to Dickensian lengths." Cao v. Upchurch , 496 F.Supp. 2d 569, 574 (E.D. Pa 2007). Put simply, "there is a difference between the [USCIS'] discretion over how to resolve an application and the [USCIS'] discretion over whether it resolves an application." Singh v. Still , 470 F. Supp. 2d 1064, 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
The U.S. Attorney's office has also argued that the USCIS is not required to make a decision on green card or naturalization applications since the INA does not specify a time frame for the agency's decision. See Assadzadeh v. Mueller , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80915 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2007). The government's argument is based on Norton v. So. Utah Wilderness Alliance , 542 U.S. 55 (2004), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that a plaintiff can succeed in compelling an agency to act under the APA if and only if the action sought to be compelled is a "discrete action" that the agency is "legally required" to take. Under the government's theory, the USCIS cannot be compelled to act where its organic statute fails to require it to make a decision. But, under Norton , an agency's regulation with the force of law can create a legal duty. Arguably, the USCIS is legally required to act on applications presented to it, as its own regulations provide that it inform applicants of its decisions. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (green card applications); 8 C.F.R. 316.14(b)(1) (naturalization applications). Most judges in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania appear to accept this argument. For example, in Kaplan v. Chertoff , 481 F. Supp. 2d 370, 399 (E.D. Pa. 2007), Judge Eduardo Robreno held that the USCIS has a duty to adjudicate green card and naturalization applications, based, in part, on the agency's own regulations.
Once a court determines that its jurisdiction is not stripped under the INA, it usually faces little difficulty finding a cause of action under the APA. Of course, determining whether an agency has acted unreasonably is a fact-intensive inquiry, but the government's position does not look promising where the USCIS has failed to perform three distinct background checks for two or more years without any indication of special circumstances. See, e.g., Saleem v. Keisler, supra . The government has argued that flagging agency resources are to blame, but many courts find little sympathy for such posturing. In addressing the issue of agency resources, one court stated that the USCIS should take its complaints up with Congress. See Liang v. Attorney General , 07-cv-2349-CW (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2007). "The executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those duties have been met." Id . Even factoring in flagging appropriations, the court held that a two-and-a-half-year delay is unreasonable as a matter of law. Id .
With more than 340,000 cases in the name check backlog, it is not clear when some foreign nationals will ever have their cases resolved at the agency level. At least with the advantageous decisions handed down from the federal district courts, foreign nationals have the hope of going into court to request an expeditious resolution to their name checks. In the majority of situations, it appears that litigation is the only option, but at least an option exists.
Please email the author at gforney@wolfblock.com with questions about this article.
USCIS delays have become so excessive in this arena that many foreign nationals have sought relief in federal court. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA), which governs federal agency actions and decisions, requires that an agency resolve a matter presented to it within a "reasonable" time frame. See 8 U.S.C. 555(b). Using the APA, foreign nationals have argued that waiting for two or more years for a decision on an immigration application is "unreasonable" under the statute. The cases are divided, but a majority of courts have agreed that making a foreign national wait years and years just for a decision on his or her application is unreasonable. As a result, many judges have ordered the FBI and USCIS to complete pending name check cases within 60 or 90 days where a foreign national has been waiting for two or more years. Some judges have noted that security concerns are not to be taken lightly, but this only reinforces the fact that such issues should be resolved in a matter of weeks as opposed to years.
The success or failure of litigation in this arena ultimately turns on the court's reading of a jurisdiction-stripping provision embedded in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Real ID Act of 2005. The INA precludes judicial review of any "decision or action" of the USCIS that is "specified [under INA] to be in the discretion" of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). In defending challenges to delayed applications, the U.S. Attorney's office has argued that the adjudication of a green card application, including the pace of adjudication, is committed to the sole discretion of the USCIS, because the INA specifies that a decision to approve or deny a green card application is within the discretion of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1255(a).
None of the circuit courts have ruled on this issue, but the relationship between USCIS delay and the role of the judiciary has become a "national judicial debate" at the district court level. See Saleem v. Keisler , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80044 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 26, 2007). Some courts have bought the government's argument, holding that a discretionary "action" includes every interim action taken along the way leading up to an ultimate decision on an application. See Safadi v. Howard , 466 F.Supp. 2d 696, 699 (E.D. Vir. 2006). Under this theory, a stalled name check is simply action along the way to a final decision. The majority of courts have rejected this reading of the statute, holding that USCIS' discretion only applies to the ultimate decision on an application, not the pace of its adjudication. As one court stated, "it would require Orwellian twisting of the word ["action"] to conclude that it means a failure to adjudicate." Saleem v. Keisler, supra. Similarly, U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell recognized that the INA grants discretion to the USCIS to grant or deny a green card application, but "national security does not require that it also have absolute discretion to delay such an application to Dickensian lengths." Cao v. Upchurch , 496 F.Supp. 2d 569, 574 (E.D. Pa 2007). Put simply, "there is a difference between the [USCIS'] discretion over how to resolve an application and the [USCIS'] discretion over whether it resolves an application." Singh v. Still , 470 F. Supp. 2d 1064, 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
The U.S. Attorney's office has also argued that the USCIS is not required to make a decision on green card or naturalization applications since the INA does not specify a time frame for the agency's decision. See Assadzadeh v. Mueller , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80915 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2007). The government's argument is based on Norton v. So. Utah Wilderness Alliance , 542 U.S. 55 (2004), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that a plaintiff can succeed in compelling an agency to act under the APA if and only if the action sought to be compelled is a "discrete action" that the agency is "legally required" to take. Under the government's theory, the USCIS cannot be compelled to act where its organic statute fails to require it to make a decision. But, under Norton , an agency's regulation with the force of law can create a legal duty. Arguably, the USCIS is legally required to act on applications presented to it, as its own regulations provide that it inform applicants of its decisions. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (green card applications); 8 C.F.R. 316.14(b)(1) (naturalization applications). Most judges in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania appear to accept this argument. For example, in Kaplan v. Chertoff , 481 F. Supp. 2d 370, 399 (E.D. Pa. 2007), Judge Eduardo Robreno held that the USCIS has a duty to adjudicate green card and naturalization applications, based, in part, on the agency's own regulations.
Once a court determines that its jurisdiction is not stripped under the INA, it usually faces little difficulty finding a cause of action under the APA. Of course, determining whether an agency has acted unreasonably is a fact-intensive inquiry, but the government's position does not look promising where the USCIS has failed to perform three distinct background checks for two or more years without any indication of special circumstances. See, e.g., Saleem v. Keisler, supra . The government has argued that flagging agency resources are to blame, but many courts find little sympathy for such posturing. In addressing the issue of agency resources, one court stated that the USCIS should take its complaints up with Congress. See Liang v. Attorney General , 07-cv-2349-CW (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2007). "The executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those duties have been met." Id . Even factoring in flagging appropriations, the court held that a two-and-a-half-year delay is unreasonable as a matter of law. Id .
With more than 340,000 cases in the name check backlog, it is not clear when some foreign nationals will ever have their cases resolved at the agency level. At least with the advantageous decisions handed down from the federal district courts, foreign nationals have the hope of going into court to request an expeditious resolution to their name checks. In the majority of situations, it appears that litigation is the only option, but at least an option exists.
Please email the author at gforney@wolfblock.com with questions about this article.
hair Note: The Cars, Space and WoW
BharatPremi
09-24 12:18 PM
So per your theory 8008 people who filed in Eb3 should get approved which should bring it to 2003? for EB3-I by end of year? :rolleyes:
Next september 2010 EB3-I PD will be still stuck at September 2002, at the most October 2002.
Next september 2010 EB3-I PD will be still stuck at September 2002, at the most October 2002.
more...
nrk
08-17 02:05 PM
congrats.....
Your Case Status: Decision
On August 17, 2010, we mailed you a notice that we had registered this customer's new permanent resident status. Please follow any instructions on the notice. Your new permanent resident card should be mailed within 60 days following this registration or after you complete any ADIT processing referred to in the welcome notice, whichever is later. If you move before receiving your card, please call our customer service center at 1-800-375-5283.
During this step the formal decision (approved/denied) is written and the decision notice is mailed and/or emailed to the applicant/petitioner. You can use our current processing time to gauge when you can expect to receive a final decision.
Case Status changed to Decision..with the above message today.
After 2 failed marriages (i mean with 2 different companies)...some risk-taking ..coz, i left my second employer after crossing 200 days since filing I-485 , Used EAD and took up full-time employment with an awesome organization , and then later 2nd employer revoking I-140 that lead to an RFE ...and USCIS keeping the status Response received since Jan 2009 ...and now this ...after opening an SR on 08/10..Looks like it took an exact week since the SR was created.
Of course, my roller-coaster was a small one compared to the rest of the friends in this forum.. Good luck to all and thanks to one and everyone.
Cheers..
Your Case Status: Decision
On August 17, 2010, we mailed you a notice that we had registered this customer's new permanent resident status. Please follow any instructions on the notice. Your new permanent resident card should be mailed within 60 days following this registration or after you complete any ADIT processing referred to in the welcome notice, whichever is later. If you move before receiving your card, please call our customer service center at 1-800-375-5283.
During this step the formal decision (approved/denied) is written and the decision notice is mailed and/or emailed to the applicant/petitioner. You can use our current processing time to gauge when you can expect to receive a final decision.
Case Status changed to Decision..with the above message today.
After 2 failed marriages (i mean with 2 different companies)...some risk-taking ..coz, i left my second employer after crossing 200 days since filing I-485 , Used EAD and took up full-time employment with an awesome organization , and then later 2nd employer revoking I-140 that lead to an RFE ...and USCIS keeping the status Response received since Jan 2009 ...and now this ...after opening an SR on 08/10..Looks like it took an exact week since the SR was created.
Of course, my roller-coaster was a small one compared to the rest of the friends in this forum.. Good luck to all and thanks to one and everyone.
Cheers..
hot tattoo upcoming WoW: Cataclysm
nkavjs
11-09 02:13 PM
On the Receipt notice. it says application received on 4 August. Processed on Oct 1, 2007.
more...
house hot się o World of Warcraft:
sledge_hammer
11-20 03:27 PM
Worst advice I have seen so far. It is morons w/ no scruples like you that have brought us into the mess we are in...
Shame on you!
Do things in this order -
1. Find a job first.
2. Secure a good apartment at new job's location.
3. If you need a better car buy one right now.
4. Get some credit cards.
5. Let your home go to foreclosure.
It is a financial decision. Every once in a while, most of us go to different stores and ask them to match the price for the item that we had purchased earlier. If they do not match the price then we return that item. Don't we? Do not get sentimental. Just walk off! Your credit history would get screwed but if you plan it the way I said above, you will be fine. Good luck.
And it won't affect your GC.
Shame on you!
Do things in this order -
1. Find a job first.
2. Secure a good apartment at new job's location.
3. If you need a better car buy one right now.
4. Get some credit cards.
5. Let your home go to foreclosure.
It is a financial decision. Every once in a while, most of us go to different stores and ask them to match the price for the item that we had purchased earlier. If they do not match the price then we return that item. Don't we? Do not get sentimental. Just walk off! Your credit history would get screwed but if you plan it the way I said above, you will be fine. Good luck.
And it won't affect your GC.
tattoo world of warcraft iphone
admin
01-04 05:11 PM
I have filed my green card with her. But in all our discussions she has sided with my company's interest over mine. In fact in one of our FYI meetings, she said that getting the green card faster would not be good for companies as people would quit after that. So I am not sure whether she will take up the cause but we can try.
more...
pictures Wow-wallpaper
gc28262
06-13 10:36 PM
The L1 visas done by the outsourcing companies are the main reason for the employment problem. These companies like TCS, Wipro etc.. bring people in L1A, L1B blamket visas to do the common development/Business Analysis/Project Management job in the client site.
There is no quota for L1 Visas. They can bring any # of people they want. Per law the L1A s should be of senior managerial position with at least 4 subordinates working under them in US and L1B should be of specific skill very important for the project and not available in US. But the most of the L1As from these companies are just programmers/BAsor small PMs. They are directly controlled by their client manager.
The main intent of these our sourcing companies is to send the employees on L1 and the employees are constantly told to somehow transfer the project to offshore.
The L1 frauds should defenitely be reported. I totally support this initiative to report the L1 frauds committed by these outrsourcing companies.
I understand your point. But this is exactly what anti-immigrants complain about H1Bs. ( depressing wages, outsourcing etc)
It is interesting that we are using anti-immigrant's arguments to pin L1s.
There is no quota for L1 Visas. They can bring any # of people they want. Per law the L1A s should be of senior managerial position with at least 4 subordinates working under them in US and L1B should be of specific skill very important for the project and not available in US. But the most of the L1As from these companies are just programmers/BAsor small PMs. They are directly controlled by their client manager.
The main intent of these our sourcing companies is to send the employees on L1 and the employees are constantly told to somehow transfer the project to offshore.
The L1 frauds should defenitely be reported. I totally support this initiative to report the L1 frauds committed by these outrsourcing companies.
I understand your point. But this is exactly what anti-immigrants complain about H1Bs. ( depressing wages, outsourcing etc)
It is interesting that we are using anti-immigrant's arguments to pin L1s.
dresses World of Warcraft - 140 HD
satishku_2000
07-09 09:03 PM
Hello all
I am a silent visitor of this website.
Just my 2 cents... Don't think USA is like India where you can do something forcefully. Why don't you guys understand the real problem of USCIS.
Do you think that by sending flower to USCIS will force them to make EB2/EB3 current for 2005/2006/2007 guys??
Please try to understand their problem.
Also India is the great. Why don't you guys just think that India is your home country where you are born and brought up. Why you people can't just wait and watch?? If nothing happens to the so called GC, then why don't you think to pack up and go back to India???????
My sincere request, please don't do rally, you might be arrested......you never know what they can do..... Don't you think that, it is better to go back to India rather than being embarrassed here in US???
Isn't it a shame on us to go for Rally to get GC?????:D
Just think that you will get it when time comes, otherwise pack up.
Please don't take much tension as life is very short. I am assuring you all, nothing will happen with law suit and flower campaign.Don't irritate USCIS by doing all this please.
EB2 India
PD-2005-May
I140 approved-Sept 2006
You definitely sound like my mother , who gets scared by the news that gets published in telugu news papers about gas station shootings in USA. Otherday she asked me not to goto "that gas station in Kentucky" .. I live in CA.
There is no shame in protesting injustice. Nobody who sent flowers is foolish enough to think that they will get their GC just because they sent flowers.
Can you please explain what is the real problem of USCIS?
I am a silent visitor of this website.
Just my 2 cents... Don't think USA is like India where you can do something forcefully. Why don't you guys understand the real problem of USCIS.
Do you think that by sending flower to USCIS will force them to make EB2/EB3 current for 2005/2006/2007 guys??
Please try to understand their problem.
Also India is the great. Why don't you guys just think that India is your home country where you are born and brought up. Why you people can't just wait and watch?? If nothing happens to the so called GC, then why don't you think to pack up and go back to India???????
My sincere request, please don't do rally, you might be arrested......you never know what they can do..... Don't you think that, it is better to go back to India rather than being embarrassed here in US???
Isn't it a shame on us to go for Rally to get GC?????:D
Just think that you will get it when time comes, otherwise pack up.
Please don't take much tension as life is very short. I am assuring you all, nothing will happen with law suit and flower campaign.Don't irritate USCIS by doing all this please.
EB2 India
PD-2005-May
I140 approved-Sept 2006
You definitely sound like my mother , who gets scared by the news that gets published in telugu news papers about gas station shootings in USA. Otherday she asked me not to goto "that gas station in Kentucky" .. I live in CA.
There is no shame in protesting injustice. Nobody who sent flowers is foolish enough to think that they will get their GC just because they sent flowers.
Can you please explain what is the real problem of USCIS?
more...
makeup of warcraft wallpaper hd,
sundarpn
01-02 12:27 AM
This is useful info. But scary :(:mad:
I was planning to get my h1b visa revalidation done at Chennai end of Jan '08.
Can anyone who goes for H1b revalidation post their experiences?
is this showing any signs of improvement?
I was planning to get my h1b visa revalidation done at Chennai end of Jan '08.
Can anyone who goes for H1b revalidation post their experiences?
is this showing any signs of improvement?
girlfriend World Of Warcraft Worgen
webm
10-01 12:49 PM
Got 485-approval emails for me and my wife.
Congratulations!!
Can you elaborate on your EB/Category,Service center details etc..?
Congratulations!!
Can you elaborate on your EB/Category,Service center details etc..?
hairstyles a great wallpaper for your
snathan
11-27 11:07 PM
Well, whether a merchandise can be returned after using, depands on the nature of the merchandise and the level of customer service provided by the seller.
If you are buying a TV or a home theater, you don't know if it is functioning properly until you use it. And returning it within stipulated "return period" is not only legal but also ethical.
Some high-end sellers will even guarantee customer satisfaction by allowing a return any time, yes any time if the customer is not fully satisfied with their product. There is nothing unethical about this. That is why these high-end stores charge you a premium in the first place.
Not allowing return of merchandise reflects the low level of customer service we used to get back home. Obviously that level of service expectaion has been engrained in us so much that we believe returning used merchandise, even when the customer is not satisfied, is unethical.
If its not working, its called 'Defective'. Otherwise its called unethical. Understand the difference.
If you are buying a TV or a home theater, you don't know if it is functioning properly until you use it. And returning it within stipulated "return period" is not only legal but also ethical.
Some high-end sellers will even guarantee customer satisfaction by allowing a return any time, yes any time if the customer is not fully satisfied with their product. There is nothing unethical about this. That is why these high-end stores charge you a premium in the first place.
Not allowing return of merchandise reflects the low level of customer service we used to get back home. Obviously that level of service expectaion has been engrained in us so much that we believe returning used merchandise, even when the customer is not satisfied, is unethical.
If its not working, its called 'Defective'. Otherwise its called unethical. Understand the difference.
pani_6
09-09 05:22 PM
:)
chanduv23
05-16 02:32 PM
Thanks a lot for clarifying that. thats what i had in mind. but just wanted to confirm it.
Your job description can have a clause like 'Work location, Atlanta, but beneficiary will travel to various client locations within the country and outisde the country.' This is not an issue
Your job description can have a clause like 'Work location, Atlanta, but beneficiary will travel to various client locations within the country and outisde the country.' This is not an issue
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar