smohan
08-27 05:11 PM
My and my family I-140 is approved. Based upon this approval I got three years H1B visa extension too. By the way this is my 13th year in the USA.
As a plan B, if I move my family to Canada, as we have Canadian residency, to continue their lives there. And in the mean time say after 1 year of their going there, say here in the USA our priority dates become current. At such a juncture will there be any way that I delay filing their I485 so they may get their Canada citizenship without creating any conflict between US and Canada residency status.
As a plan B, if I move my family to Canada, as we have Canadian residency, to continue their lives there. And in the mean time say after 1 year of their going there, say here in the USA our priority dates become current. At such a juncture will there be any way that I delay filing their I485 so they may get their Canada citizenship without creating any conflict between US and Canada residency status.
wallpaper Dianna Agron Actress Dianna
immigration.matters10
07-18 07:50 AM
I work for company A. I am on a project actively with an end client from last one year. My company A stopped paying me from past 5 months in spite of them getting paid from the vendor. I have requested my company to release all my payments pending from last 5 months repeatedly. But they don't seem to bother. I am planning to change my employer now.
My question is Am i out of status since I am not getting paid from last 5 months? I have luckily all the copies of pay stubs till a month ago. Only thing is that I haven;t received them yet. Please let me know
My question is Am i out of status since I am not getting paid from last 5 months? I have luckily all the copies of pay stubs till a month ago. Only thing is that I haven;t received them yet. Please let me know
Macaca
06-14 08:33 PM
For Democratic Leaders, a Fear That the Focus on the War Has Blurred (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/14/washington/14cong.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) By JEFF ZELENY (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html), June 14, 2007
WASHINGTON, June 13 � President Bush had barely left the Capitol after immigration talks there on Tuesday when Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, walked onto the Senate floor to call for a moment of silence. It was time, Mr. Reid said, to pay tribute to American soldiers in Iraq as their death toll reached 3,500.
A short time earlier, Mr. Reid convened a conference call with liberal bloggers, offering assurances that Democrats would revive debate over the Iraq war. And he pledged to revive it soon, ending the silence that followed the White House�s outmaneuvering of Democrats last month to win more money for the war without a timeline to end it.
�They�ve been driving this debate very well,� Mr. Reid said later, speaking of the bloggers who have been pushing for Congress to end the war. �I understand their disappointment. We raised the bar too high.�
It has been nearly three weeks since Democrats have held a formal Iraq debate or voted on an Iraq proposal in the House or Senate. Not since they assumed the majority in January has there been such a lull. During the three weeks, Congressional approval ratings have fallen, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she knew why.
�It�s the war, I believe so, it�s the war,� Ms. Pelosi said in a brief interview on Wednesday. �In terms of the issue that the American people want to have resolved, the war is three or four times higher than any other issue.�
Some Democrats argue that it is high time for the party to turn its attention to domestic issues � energy legislation, immigration overhaul and lobbying reform � to allay concerns that Democrats have not achieved enough significant accomplishments during the first six months of their majority. But other Democrats are demanding a return to the Iraq debate, which Mr. Reid has now pledged to do this month.
The proposals will not be new. Rather, Democrats intend to reprise at least four ideas when the Senate considers the Defense Department policy bill: a measure to reverse the authorization for the Iraq war, set a deadline for troop withdrawal, block money for major combat operations after March 31, 2008, and increase readiness requirements for troops to be sent back to Iraq. �On Iraq,� Mr. Reid said, �we�re going to hold the president�s feet to the fire.�
Democratic Congressional leaders have been stung by the decline in Congressional job approval ratings.
A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg nationwide telephone poll released this week found that 27 percent of Americans approve of the way Congress is handling its job, while 65 percent disapprove. And 29 percent of the more than 1,100 poll respondents, all registered voters, said Democrats were working to change how government is run, compared to 63 percent who said Democrats are governing in a business-as-usual manner. The margin of error was plus or minus four percentage points.
Ms. Pelosi said it had been difficult to convince some Democrats that despite their majority, they are limited in how they can change the president�s Iraq policy.
�Some Democrats understand that we don�t have the signature and we can only do so much,� she said. �Others are just very unhappy. I include myself among them, being very unhappy that we have not been able to bring the war to an end.�
With September being highlighted as a critical review period for Iraq policy � Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander, is to report to Congress on the progress of the current troop buildup � Democratic leaders had initially hoped to tackle their domestic priorities in late spring and early summer. But on Wednesday, Democratic leaders said they would not wait.
�The American people cannot and should not have to wait until later this year for changes in your flawed Iraq policy,� Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid wrote Wednesday in a letter to the White House.
Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the chairman of the Democratic conference, said Democrats could not be drawn into focusing solely on Iraq. �We have to do Iraq and change the priorities of Washington,� he said. �You can�t become a one-trick pony.�
The war has been the underlying theme of the new Democratic Congress, with barely a week going by without legislators embroiling themselves in committee hearings, a floor debate or symbolic resolutions for and against the war. Democrats have walked a careful line, trying to keep their criticism alive, but lowering expectations that they alone can influence war policy.
The month of June, though, has so far unfolded with barely a word being uttered about Iraq. And lawmakers said they were hearing about it.
Senator Amy Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat who was elected last fall, said constituents were seeking reassurance that Democratic efforts to challenge the administration have not fallen off. She said voters had little interest in being schooled in the intricate rules of the Senate, where 60 votes are required for debate to proceed on legislation.
�I share their frustration, answering them with procedural answers, �Well, we need 60 votes,� � she said. �People are dying over there, so that isn�t always helpful.�
While Congress must accomplish domestic priorities, she said, Iraq remains the chief issue for most voters. �I think that�s one of the things we�ve struggled with, is finding that balance,� she said, welcoming the news that the Senate intends to revive the debate before month�s end. �It�s very important to me. I don�t want to go home until we do it.�
WASHINGTON, June 13 � President Bush had barely left the Capitol after immigration talks there on Tuesday when Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, walked onto the Senate floor to call for a moment of silence. It was time, Mr. Reid said, to pay tribute to American soldiers in Iraq as their death toll reached 3,500.
A short time earlier, Mr. Reid convened a conference call with liberal bloggers, offering assurances that Democrats would revive debate over the Iraq war. And he pledged to revive it soon, ending the silence that followed the White House�s outmaneuvering of Democrats last month to win more money for the war without a timeline to end it.
�They�ve been driving this debate very well,� Mr. Reid said later, speaking of the bloggers who have been pushing for Congress to end the war. �I understand their disappointment. We raised the bar too high.�
It has been nearly three weeks since Democrats have held a formal Iraq debate or voted on an Iraq proposal in the House or Senate. Not since they assumed the majority in January has there been such a lull. During the three weeks, Congressional approval ratings have fallen, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she knew why.
�It�s the war, I believe so, it�s the war,� Ms. Pelosi said in a brief interview on Wednesday. �In terms of the issue that the American people want to have resolved, the war is three or four times higher than any other issue.�
Some Democrats argue that it is high time for the party to turn its attention to domestic issues � energy legislation, immigration overhaul and lobbying reform � to allay concerns that Democrats have not achieved enough significant accomplishments during the first six months of their majority. But other Democrats are demanding a return to the Iraq debate, which Mr. Reid has now pledged to do this month.
The proposals will not be new. Rather, Democrats intend to reprise at least four ideas when the Senate considers the Defense Department policy bill: a measure to reverse the authorization for the Iraq war, set a deadline for troop withdrawal, block money for major combat operations after March 31, 2008, and increase readiness requirements for troops to be sent back to Iraq. �On Iraq,� Mr. Reid said, �we�re going to hold the president�s feet to the fire.�
Democratic Congressional leaders have been stung by the decline in Congressional job approval ratings.
A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg nationwide telephone poll released this week found that 27 percent of Americans approve of the way Congress is handling its job, while 65 percent disapprove. And 29 percent of the more than 1,100 poll respondents, all registered voters, said Democrats were working to change how government is run, compared to 63 percent who said Democrats are governing in a business-as-usual manner. The margin of error was plus or minus four percentage points.
Ms. Pelosi said it had been difficult to convince some Democrats that despite their majority, they are limited in how they can change the president�s Iraq policy.
�Some Democrats understand that we don�t have the signature and we can only do so much,� she said. �Others are just very unhappy. I include myself among them, being very unhappy that we have not been able to bring the war to an end.�
With September being highlighted as a critical review period for Iraq policy � Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander, is to report to Congress on the progress of the current troop buildup � Democratic leaders had initially hoped to tackle their domestic priorities in late spring and early summer. But on Wednesday, Democratic leaders said they would not wait.
�The American people cannot and should not have to wait until later this year for changes in your flawed Iraq policy,� Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid wrote Wednesday in a letter to the White House.
Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the chairman of the Democratic conference, said Democrats could not be drawn into focusing solely on Iraq. �We have to do Iraq and change the priorities of Washington,� he said. �You can�t become a one-trick pony.�
The war has been the underlying theme of the new Democratic Congress, with barely a week going by without legislators embroiling themselves in committee hearings, a floor debate or symbolic resolutions for and against the war. Democrats have walked a careful line, trying to keep their criticism alive, but lowering expectations that they alone can influence war policy.
The month of June, though, has so far unfolded with barely a word being uttered about Iraq. And lawmakers said they were hearing about it.
Senator Amy Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat who was elected last fall, said constituents were seeking reassurance that Democratic efforts to challenge the administration have not fallen off. She said voters had little interest in being schooled in the intricate rules of the Senate, where 60 votes are required for debate to proceed on legislation.
�I share their frustration, answering them with procedural answers, �Well, we need 60 votes,� � she said. �People are dying over there, so that isn�t always helpful.�
While Congress must accomplish domestic priorities, she said, Iraq remains the chief issue for most voters. �I think that�s one of the things we�ve struggled with, is finding that balance,� she said, welcoming the news that the Senate intends to revive the debate before month�s end. �It�s very important to me. I don�t want to go home until we do it.�
2011 alex pettyfer engaged,
dontcareaboutGC
03-24 08:16 AM
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/120962.pdf
more...
salvador marley
05-01 10:18 PM
lets forget that one then :)
gesfox
03-24 09:57 PM
yup, everything here is done in flash... vectorized.. tnx for the comments dude!
more...
buehler
01-21 04:25 PM
I am an analyst under H1B and I am involved in a sales process by developing a prototype for a client. My company wants me to give a percentage of total deal as commission. It will show in the pay stub as commission. Is it legal to get commission under H1B (please remember I am a programmer analyst) ?
As long as the payment comes from/through the company that is sponsoring your H1B, you're fine.
As long as the payment comes from/through the company that is sponsoring your H1B, you're fine.
2010 +and+alex+pettyfer+engaged
kirupa
04-11 05:06 PM
Hey vibedesign,
Create and animate the text that you wish to have "wireframed" in Swift 3D. When exporting the SWF, make sure you select the No Fill option. Consequently, make sure you select the Outline option with Entire Mesh or another setting selected! That should export your animation without the fill but with the outlines instead. That will look like a wireframe text effect!
Create and animate the text that you wish to have "wireframed" in Swift 3D. When exporting the SWF, make sure you select the No Fill option. Consequently, make sure you select the Outline option with Entire Mesh or another setting selected! That should export your animation without the fill but with the outlines instead. That will look like a wireframe text effect!
more...
imm_pro
06-19 03:57 PM
atlast..it was long due..
hair +and+dianna+agron+engaged
ragz4u
01-24 04:11 PM
610-955-8290
phillyag
his email id is black_logs@yahoo.com
phillyag
his email id is black_logs@yahoo.com
more...
Macaca
04-27 09:43 AM
Sen. Luddite Strikes Again (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/26/AR2007042602257.html) -- Once more, a mystery Republican blocks electronic filing for Senate candidates, Friday, April 27, 2007
JUST AS she did on April 17, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) went to the Senate floor to call for unanimous consent on a common-sense bill that would require candidates to file their campaign finance reports electronically. And just as he or she did on April 17, Sen. Ima Luddite (R-Who Knows Where) voiced opposition. This time the mouthpiece was Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.). "On behalf of the Republican side," he said, "I object." We object to the obstruction.
Honestly, what is the big deal here? Filing campaign finance reports electronically has been standard operating procedure for candidates for the House of Representatives and the White House for years -- as it has been for political parties, political action committees and "527" groups. Yet Senate candidates are still trudging down to the Senate Office of Public Records with paper copies of their reports, which are then passed along to the Federal Election Commission, which sends them to a vendor that punches in the information and zaps it back to the FEC electronically. That finally makes them widely available, sometimes too late for voters to see who's donating to whom and how the money is being spent. With this seeming fear of modernity, it's a wonder the Senate isn't calculating budgets with an abacus. Or is it a fear of disclosure?
After the bill was blocked, Ms. Feinstein, chairman of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, said, "It is very hard for me to understand who could oppose this and what their reason for opposing it could be." It is very hard for us, too. Sen. Luddite -- whoever he or she may be -- should come out of the shadows and explain the irrational fear that is keeping the Senate from joining the rest of us in the 21st century. Senator anonymous -- Another Day, Another Hold On Finance Bill (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/26/AR2007042602249.html) By Matthew Mosk (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/matthew+mosk/), Washington Post Staff Writer, Friday, April 27, 2007
Sen. Anonymous struck again yesterday.
The infamous unnamed senator (or senators) has for more than a week blocked passage of legislation that would require Senate candidates to file campaign finance reports electronically.
Electronic filings would make the names of campaign donors readily available -- it's how members of the House and presidential candidates have been doing it for years. When Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) first brought the bill to the floor last week, though, he was told that an unnamed lawmaker objected.
Long-standing Senate custom allows the objection of a single senator to stop a bill in its tracks -- it's known as a secret hold. A measure that passed the Senate earlier this year, and awaits a House vote, would eliminate the practice.
The hold unleashed a torrent of activity on the Internet, as bloggers tried to flush out the identity of the senator responsible for the hold. But after an onslaught of phone calls to Senate offices, the bloggers have no answer. No one owned up to being the culprit.
Yesterday, the bill's sponsor tried again. And again, the Republican floor leader objected. A spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said he is sure the name of the secret senator is known "in the cloakroom," but he said that misses the point.
"A hold can't stop something from coming to the floor," Don Stewart said. "It can only stop it from being pushed through without a full and open debate on the bill."
That's true -- sponsors had been trying to pass the bill by unanimous consent, which does not permit amendment or debate. But Feingold told the liberal blog Daily Kos that the path was typical for a bill with 35 bipartisan co-sponsors that did not elicit a single objection in committee.
Writing on the blog yesterday, Feingold said: "The fact is that someone anonymously blocked the bill, . . . that person has made no effort to resolve his or her concerns with us, and the Republican leadership won't even tell us who that person is."
JUST AS she did on April 17, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) went to the Senate floor to call for unanimous consent on a common-sense bill that would require candidates to file their campaign finance reports electronically. And just as he or she did on April 17, Sen. Ima Luddite (R-Who Knows Where) voiced opposition. This time the mouthpiece was Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.). "On behalf of the Republican side," he said, "I object." We object to the obstruction.
Honestly, what is the big deal here? Filing campaign finance reports electronically has been standard operating procedure for candidates for the House of Representatives and the White House for years -- as it has been for political parties, political action committees and "527" groups. Yet Senate candidates are still trudging down to the Senate Office of Public Records with paper copies of their reports, which are then passed along to the Federal Election Commission, which sends them to a vendor that punches in the information and zaps it back to the FEC electronically. That finally makes them widely available, sometimes too late for voters to see who's donating to whom and how the money is being spent. With this seeming fear of modernity, it's a wonder the Senate isn't calculating budgets with an abacus. Or is it a fear of disclosure?
After the bill was blocked, Ms. Feinstein, chairman of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, said, "It is very hard for me to understand who could oppose this and what their reason for opposing it could be." It is very hard for us, too. Sen. Luddite -- whoever he or she may be -- should come out of the shadows and explain the irrational fear that is keeping the Senate from joining the rest of us in the 21st century. Senator anonymous -- Another Day, Another Hold On Finance Bill (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/26/AR2007042602249.html) By Matthew Mosk (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/matthew+mosk/), Washington Post Staff Writer, Friday, April 27, 2007
Sen. Anonymous struck again yesterday.
The infamous unnamed senator (or senators) has for more than a week blocked passage of legislation that would require Senate candidates to file campaign finance reports electronically.
Electronic filings would make the names of campaign donors readily available -- it's how members of the House and presidential candidates have been doing it for years. When Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) first brought the bill to the floor last week, though, he was told that an unnamed lawmaker objected.
Long-standing Senate custom allows the objection of a single senator to stop a bill in its tracks -- it's known as a secret hold. A measure that passed the Senate earlier this year, and awaits a House vote, would eliminate the practice.
The hold unleashed a torrent of activity on the Internet, as bloggers tried to flush out the identity of the senator responsible for the hold. But after an onslaught of phone calls to Senate offices, the bloggers have no answer. No one owned up to being the culprit.
Yesterday, the bill's sponsor tried again. And again, the Republican floor leader objected. A spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said he is sure the name of the secret senator is known "in the cloakroom," but he said that misses the point.
"A hold can't stop something from coming to the floor," Don Stewart said. "It can only stop it from being pushed through without a full and open debate on the bill."
That's true -- sponsors had been trying to pass the bill by unanimous consent, which does not permit amendment or debate. But Feingold told the liberal blog Daily Kos that the path was typical for a bill with 35 bipartisan co-sponsors that did not elicit a single objection in committee.
Writing on the blog yesterday, Feingold said: "The fact is that someone anonymously blocked the bill, . . . that person has made no effort to resolve his or her concerns with us, and the Republican leadership won't even tell us who that person is."
hot Alex Pettyfer and Dianna Agron
jaunty91
10-27 09:18 AM
Can some one please reference me any attorney besides Murthy and Rajiv Khanna for taking over the 485 case? Please feel free me directly at jaunty91@gmail.com
more...
house NEWS: ALEX PETTYFER amp; DIANNA
ritesh.noronha
07-14 02:17 PM
Hello gurus,
I have a few questions about my case.
I have a 3year degree in Bachelors of Science (Maths) and a 1 year degree in BS in Computer Information systems from Golden Gate University in (San Francisco, CA). However at the time of my GC filing, my lawyer advised me that i cannot file for EB2 but for EB3, since my bachelors degree does not evaluate to a 4 year US degree (based on the single source rule). So i had to file my I-140 in EB3.
Recently i read an article on murthy.com http://www.murthy.com/news/n_combdg.html this article clearly mentions that the person I-140 was denied by USCIS but the AAO overturned the case. I asked my lawyer about this, she says that even thought the person had two degree, they were from the same university, but from my understanding ethiraj college is an autonomous university.
I have a feeling my case is similar, what do you'll think i should do..
-Ritesh
I have a few questions about my case.
I have a 3year degree in Bachelors of Science (Maths) and a 1 year degree in BS in Computer Information systems from Golden Gate University in (San Francisco, CA). However at the time of my GC filing, my lawyer advised me that i cannot file for EB2 but for EB3, since my bachelors degree does not evaluate to a 4 year US degree (based on the single source rule). So i had to file my I-140 in EB3.
Recently i read an article on murthy.com http://www.murthy.com/news/n_combdg.html this article clearly mentions that the person I-140 was denied by USCIS but the AAO overturned the case. I asked my lawyer about this, she says that even thought the person had two degree, they were from the same university, but from my understanding ethiraj college is an autonomous university.
I have a feeling my case is similar, what do you'll think i should do..
-Ritesh
tattoo but alex pettyfer, dianna
Blog Feeds
08-05 08:00 AM
Wingnut Alan Keyes says repealing the 14th Amendment is going too far. And lest wingnut readers of this blog (you know who you are) wave public opinion polls that seem to support this, I would remind you that the whole point of enshrining civil rights protections in the Constitution is precisely to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. If you would have put segregation up for a vote in my part of the world back in the 1950s, you would have found overwhelming support. The judge who tossed out the Proposition 8 referendum on same sex marriages in...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/08/another-shark-jumping-sign.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/08/another-shark-jumping-sign.html)
more...
pictures DIANNA AGRON AND ALEX PETTYFER
mattrock23
08-05 01:16 AM
That's got to be somewhere around Jackson and Montgomery. Am I right?
dresses Ringfeb alexpettyferand nov
gc_in_30_yrs
09-23 09:16 PM
thats good news and bad news.
good news because, who waited for years for LC will be very happy.
bad news because, the PD will go back even more!
:D
good news because, who waited for years for LC will be very happy.
bad news because, the PD will go back even more!
:D
more...
makeup ALEX PETTYFER AND DIANNA AGRON
yahoo1234
09-14 04:02 PM
I am kind of confused about my situation. Will try to detail it; any help is greatly appreciated!
I was working with company A until July 2009. They had filed my F1 to H1 COS Application in April 2009, which got approved. I have the receipt for that. I lost my job in July 2009 and found another one. My new employer, Company B, filed a NEW COS Application (which they said is subject to the H-1B cap, which is confusing cuz they could have used the receipt number from my previous approval I think)
Anyway, I contacted the attorney from Company B and they said I should call company A and have them cancel my H-1 COS Application. I called the attorney from Company A and she said she would cancel the H-1 Application. She also mentioned about ME having to send a letter to USCIS. Why do I have to send this letter? Is it so that I can go back to my F1 status? What should it say?? Please help!
I was working with company A until July 2009. They had filed my F1 to H1 COS Application in April 2009, which got approved. I have the receipt for that. I lost my job in July 2009 and found another one. My new employer, Company B, filed a NEW COS Application (which they said is subject to the H-1B cap, which is confusing cuz they could have used the receipt number from my previous approval I think)
Anyway, I contacted the attorney from Company B and they said I should call company A and have them cancel my H-1 COS Application. I called the attorney from Company A and she said she would cancel the H-1 Application. She also mentioned about ME having to send a letter to USCIS. Why do I have to send this letter? Is it so that I can go back to my F1 status? What should it say?? Please help!
girlfriend Dianna+agron+alex+pettyfer
buehler
01-21 04:25 PM
I am an analyst under H1B and I am involved in a sales process by developing a prototype for a client. My company wants me to give a percentage of total deal as commission. It will show in the pay stub as commission. Is it legal to get commission under H1B (please remember I am a programmer analyst) ?
As long as the payment comes from/through the company that is sponsoring your H1B, you're fine.
As long as the payment comes from/through the company that is sponsoring your H1B, you're fine.
hairstyles Claims that glee star still Are+dianna+agron+and+alex+pettyfer+engaged
askreddy
06-25 03:07 PM
Hi
Iam getting a permanent offer fron the client (County Gov). Iam on EAD.In my labor role and place are written like below.
systems analyst --- Various unanticipated client sites in Illinois,Texas and elsewhere
Duties - analyze design develop test integrate and implement software applications databases and systems using Oracle and oracle Applications,C.
My new role is Sr Operations System Analyst -- place CA
Role will be assistinginstall design test implement and integrate systems/applications with oracle and Oracle applications.
Can I go ahead with this job? Or this will not fall under AC21.
Pls advise.
Thanks
Iam getting a permanent offer fron the client (County Gov). Iam on EAD.In my labor role and place are written like below.
systems analyst --- Various unanticipated client sites in Illinois,Texas and elsewhere
Duties - analyze design develop test integrate and implement software applications databases and systems using Oracle and oracle Applications,C.
My new role is Sr Operations System Analyst -- place CA
Role will be assistinginstall design test implement and integrate systems/applications with oracle and Oracle applications.
Can I go ahead with this job? Or this will not fall under AC21.
Pls advise.
Thanks
ChainReaction
09-28 07:44 AM
Hi gurus,
I need your help, I am due for my H1b first time extension and I have requested my employer for the 1500 dollars "Education and training fee" , I got an email from the New HR personal to show me why the employer have to pay for it , I am trying to find a link to USCIC website where it clearly states the employer has to pay for it.But I am unable to find any thing relating to $1500 education and training fee, I did google search and it shows links from some schools and law firms. I would rather send a UCSIC link to the HR personal. By the way i am filing my H1B via Visa Kit.
I need your help, I am due for my H1b first time extension and I have requested my employer for the 1500 dollars "Education and training fee" , I got an email from the New HR personal to show me why the employer have to pay for it , I am trying to find a link to USCIC website where it clearly states the employer has to pay for it.But I am unable to find any thing relating to $1500 education and training fee, I did google search and it shows links from some schools and law firms. I would rather send a UCSIC link to the HR personal. By the way i am filing my H1B via Visa Kit.
njdude26
07-07 08:19 AM
please...
No comments:
Post a Comment