vsc
01-31 06:31 PM
hi beuhler....if i understand your reply correctly, you meant that as long as there is proof that your marraige date(marraige certificate) is prior to gc approval notice...there is 6 months to file for the i485 for the wife even though she may be in india at the time of marraige?
wallpaper Wearing war paint, Britains
jgh_res
05-17 10:01 AM
Here is the link:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/17/dobbs.bushspeech/index.html
Posted article is below. Refer to the highlighted section :
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's address from the Oval Office on border security and illegal immigration failed to satisfy either advocates of amnesty or those demanding that the government secure our borders and ports. Whether by design or not, however, the president did manage to advance public awareness of both crises.
The president finally acknowledged the unsustainable social and economic burdens of permitting millions of illegal aliens to forge documents, pressure our public schools and hospitals, and overtax our local and state budgets.
And the president, in asking for more border patrol officers and sending 6,000 National Guardsmen to our southern border to support the Border Patrol, also acknowledged the federal government's utter failure to protect the American people by securing our borders, across which as many as three million illegal aliens enter this country each year.
President Bush's five-point plan began with the words, "First, the United States must secure its borders." But the president did not assign any urgency to the national task of doing so. Deploying as many as 6,000 members of the National Guard to help secure our broken border with Mexico is positive step.
But the president's proposal to place those National Guardsmen in some sort of adjunct support role is peculiar at best, and without question, woefully inadequate. The president sounded as if he were trying to appease Mexico's President Vicente Fox, assuring him we would not militarize the border. If there is to be appeasement at all, that should fall to the Mexican government rather than President Bush.
Not only are millions of illegal aliens entering the United States each year across that border, but so are illegal drugs. More cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana flood across the Mexican than from any other place, more than three decades into the war on drugs.
President Bush and all the open borders advocates should be held to account for not doing everything in their power to destroy the drug traffic across our borders, as well as illegal immigration.
If it is necessary to send 20,000 -- 30,000 National Guard troops to the border with Mexico to preserve our national sovereignty and protect the American people from rampant drug trafficking, illegal immigration and the threat of terrorists, than I cannot imagine why this president and this Congress would hesitate to do so.
And how can this president and this Congress begin to rationalize placing immigration reform, which has been neglected since the last amnesty 20 years ago, ahead of national security and the safety of all Americans?
President Bush went on to say that in order to secure our borders we must create a temporary guest worker program. What? Come again, Mr. President. The president knows better, and so do the American people. Control of our borders and ports is necessary to our national security and a temporary worker program is an exploitive luxury for corporate America.
The president also said we need to hold employers who hire illegal aliens accountable, but he failed to say how. What should be the penalties for these illegal employers? How large a fine should they receive? How many years in jail for the executives of such companies?
It would have been inspiring to hear the president say that he and his friend Vicente Fox had discussed illegal immigration and drug trafficking and reached an agreement that both our country's militaries would be used to create a joint border security force, one that working together would ensure the integrity of the Untied States/Mexico border.
Wouldn't it have been nice as well for this president to suggest that the U.S. government would also take seriously its responsibilities to create a new and efficient immigration system to accommodate the backlog of millions of people trying to do the right thing? The same agency that would have to oversee Mr. Bush's amnesty program could not begin to do so because the Citizenship and Immigration Services already faces a backlog of millions of people who are trying to enter this country lawfully.
Aside from the fact that both political parties are complicit with corporate America and special interests in placing so-called immigration reform ahead of border and port security speaks volumes about our elected officials' commitment to the national interest and the weight and influence of corporate America over both parties.
Mr. President, I don't think the American people will tolerate this much longer.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/17/dobbs.bushspeech/index.html
Posted article is below. Refer to the highlighted section :
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's address from the Oval Office on border security and illegal immigration failed to satisfy either advocates of amnesty or those demanding that the government secure our borders and ports. Whether by design or not, however, the president did manage to advance public awareness of both crises.
The president finally acknowledged the unsustainable social and economic burdens of permitting millions of illegal aliens to forge documents, pressure our public schools and hospitals, and overtax our local and state budgets.
And the president, in asking for more border patrol officers and sending 6,000 National Guardsmen to our southern border to support the Border Patrol, also acknowledged the federal government's utter failure to protect the American people by securing our borders, across which as many as three million illegal aliens enter this country each year.
President Bush's five-point plan began with the words, "First, the United States must secure its borders." But the president did not assign any urgency to the national task of doing so. Deploying as many as 6,000 members of the National Guard to help secure our broken border with Mexico is positive step.
But the president's proposal to place those National Guardsmen in some sort of adjunct support role is peculiar at best, and without question, woefully inadequate. The president sounded as if he were trying to appease Mexico's President Vicente Fox, assuring him we would not militarize the border. If there is to be appeasement at all, that should fall to the Mexican government rather than President Bush.
Not only are millions of illegal aliens entering the United States each year across that border, but so are illegal drugs. More cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana flood across the Mexican than from any other place, more than three decades into the war on drugs.
President Bush and all the open borders advocates should be held to account for not doing everything in their power to destroy the drug traffic across our borders, as well as illegal immigration.
If it is necessary to send 20,000 -- 30,000 National Guard troops to the border with Mexico to preserve our national sovereignty and protect the American people from rampant drug trafficking, illegal immigration and the threat of terrorists, than I cannot imagine why this president and this Congress would hesitate to do so.
And how can this president and this Congress begin to rationalize placing immigration reform, which has been neglected since the last amnesty 20 years ago, ahead of national security and the safety of all Americans?
President Bush went on to say that in order to secure our borders we must create a temporary guest worker program. What? Come again, Mr. President. The president knows better, and so do the American people. Control of our borders and ports is necessary to our national security and a temporary worker program is an exploitive luxury for corporate America.
The president also said we need to hold employers who hire illegal aliens accountable, but he failed to say how. What should be the penalties for these illegal employers? How large a fine should they receive? How many years in jail for the executives of such companies?
It would have been inspiring to hear the president say that he and his friend Vicente Fox had discussed illegal immigration and drug trafficking and reached an agreement that both our country's militaries would be used to create a joint border security force, one that working together would ensure the integrity of the Untied States/Mexico border.
Wouldn't it have been nice as well for this president to suggest that the U.S. government would also take seriously its responsibilities to create a new and efficient immigration system to accommodate the backlog of millions of people trying to do the right thing? The same agency that would have to oversee Mr. Bush's amnesty program could not begin to do so because the Citizenship and Immigration Services already faces a backlog of millions of people who are trying to enter this country lawfully.
Aside from the fact that both political parties are complicit with corporate America and special interests in placing so-called immigration reform ahead of border and port security speaks volumes about our elected officials' commitment to the national interest and the weight and influence of corporate America over both parties.
Mr. President, I don't think the American people will tolerate this much longer.
CCC
07-05 06:33 PM
First off, thanks for the response guys.
So how do i get the copy of the I-140 from the company. Is it my legal right to get this or do i have to beg :) ? Also, company B is a startup and they are willing to file a new Perm application. Is there a big risk of Perm applications being reject from these type of small startup companies?
So how do i get the copy of the I-140 from the company. Is it my legal right to get this or do i have to beg :) ? Also, company B is a startup and they are willing to file a new Perm application. Is there a big risk of Perm applications being reject from these type of small startup companies?
2011 hot Painting of Prince Harry
americandesi
06-17 12:05 AM
I am planning to apply for both Canadian Permanent Residency and US green card next month. Assuming that I get my Canadian Permanent Residency and US Greencard after two years, what options do I have to maintain the permanent resident status in both countries, so that I am eligible to apply for citizenship in both countries.
Some say that showing proof of residence in both countries, commuting between the countries for work (Windsor-Canada and Detroit-US) and paying taxes in both countries would suffice.
Please guide me on this.
Some say that showing proof of residence in both countries, commuting between the countries for work (Windsor-Canada and Detroit-US) and paying taxes in both countries would suffice.
Please guide me on this.
more...
santb1975
02-17 11:13 PM
Thanks to everyone who participated today. We are looking to have another signing event next week. A big Thankyou to everyone who drove from SanDiego to Artesia to take part in this.
hopefulgc
07-31 04:10 PM
interested in charter/car pool
more...
permfiling
01-19 09:59 AM
All the written agreements are valid in most of the states. but you can argue on the terms of agreement. He cannot ask her to stay in the company for 4 years. If she works in that company for 1 year, her employer should recover all the money he spent on her.
The best way is to work there for 1 or 2 years and walk out without paying anything. Or just pay the filing fee and get out right away.
You are right Chris, last year few folks left the company and the company downsized as well. The only way to retain ppl and make them sweat is to hire H1's with the promise of GC who will be obliged to work.
The best way is to work there for 1 or 2 years and walk out without paying anything. Or just pay the filing fee and get out right away.
You are right Chris, last year few folks left the company and the company downsized as well. The only way to retain ppl and make them sweat is to hire H1's with the promise of GC who will be obliged to work.
2010 images Prince William, Prince Harry prince harry and william painting.
perm2gc
12-22 06:08 PM
Efren Hernandez III, Director of the Business and Trade Services Branch at INS in Washington, D.C. announced in late December 2001 that the INS does not recognize or provide any "grace period" for maintaining status after employment termination. Mr. Hernandez explained this strict interpretation by reasoning that there is no difference between H1B holders and other non-immigrants, like students, to justify a stay in the U.S. beyond the explicit purpose of their admission. Mr. Hernandez admits that this may cause hardship to some terminated or laid off H1B workers, but believes that the INS position is legally justified.
Although the INS' strict interpretation of the law may have legal justification, the result to others seems harsh and unreasonable, considering the fact that the lay off or termination is completely beyond the control of the H1B worker. This strict INS position may also appear to be contrary to the purpose of allowing H1B workers admission to the U.S. since they helped to fill a critical need in our economy when the U.S. was suffering acute shortages of qualified, skilled workers. Perhaps, it would be more fair if the INS were to allow a reasonable grace period, perhaps 60 days, as mentioned in the June 19, 2001 INS Memo.
H1B workers should not be equated to other non-immigrants. For example, H1Bs can be distinguished from students. Students, in most cases, have exclusive control over whether they can maintain their status. Generally they determine whether they remain in school and satisfy the purpose of their admission to the U.S. If they choose not to remain in school, or they do not maintain certain passing grades or do not have sufficient funds, then they are no longer considered to be students maintaining their status and should return to their home countries. On the other hand, H1B workers enter the U.S. to engage in professional employment based on the needs of U.S. employers. They do not have exclusive control over whether they are laid off.
Although we are in a soft economy with massive employee cutbacks in a variety of fields, many of these H1B workers are able to find new employment within reasonable timeframes. Some companies, at least, are in need of these workers. Salaries have dropped in many cases and recruitment of workers from outside the U.S. has significantly slowed; but, to a large extent, the need for these existing workers remains. It would benefit U.S. companies and suit the purpose of the H1B visa program to allow a reasonable grace period for these laid-off H1B workers to seek new employment within a realistic time frame.
Adding to the woes of H1B workers, Mr. Hernandez addressed the issue of extensions of stay following brief status lapses. In short, the regulations require that an individual be in status at the time an extension of status is requested. Failure to maintain status will result in the H1B petition being granted, if appropriate, without an extension of stay. No I-94 card will be attached to the approval notice. Instead, the beneficiary will be directed to obtain a visa at a U.S. consulate in a foreign country and, only afterward, will return to lawful H1B status by re-entering the U.S. Although INS has a regulation that allows the Service to overlook brief lapses in status, extraordinary circumstances are required. Mr. Hernandez stated that even very short lapses in status are not justified in the context of terminated H1B workers, absent extraordinary circumstances.
Mr. Hernandez specifically negated the existence of a ten-day grace period following employment termination. There are ten-day grace periods allowed in three other instances. These are (a) the H1B worker can be admitted to the U.S. up to 10 days prior to the validity of his/her petition; (b) the H1B worker has a ten-day grace period following the expiration of the period of admission; and (c) in the case of denials of extensions, the H1B worker is given up to ten days to depart the U.S. Unfortunately, termination of employment is not covered by any of these exceptions. Some find it hard to see why a terminated H1B worker should be treated any differently from the H1B worker whose period of H1B admission has expired. There is far less warning and predictability in cases of layoffs or of other terminations.
Rumors are also circulating about a 30-day grace period should INS deny an H1B petition or extension of status and require the person to depart the U.S. There is also a 60-day time frame, proposed by the INS itself in the June 19, 2001 Memo, analyzing the American Competitiveness in the Twenty First Century Act (AC21). In this memo, the INS discussed the law allowing a person to be eligible for H1B extensions beyond 6 years if the person previously held either H1B status or had an H1B visa. The INS surmised that the law envisioned that one who previously held H1B status should be entitled, possibly up to 60 days, to the benefits of that section of AC21. Efren Hernandez clarified that none of these grace periods applies in the case of an H1B worker who is terminated or laid off
Although the INS' strict interpretation of the law may have legal justification, the result to others seems harsh and unreasonable, considering the fact that the lay off or termination is completely beyond the control of the H1B worker. This strict INS position may also appear to be contrary to the purpose of allowing H1B workers admission to the U.S. since they helped to fill a critical need in our economy when the U.S. was suffering acute shortages of qualified, skilled workers. Perhaps, it would be more fair if the INS were to allow a reasonable grace period, perhaps 60 days, as mentioned in the June 19, 2001 INS Memo.
H1B workers should not be equated to other non-immigrants. For example, H1Bs can be distinguished from students. Students, in most cases, have exclusive control over whether they can maintain their status. Generally they determine whether they remain in school and satisfy the purpose of their admission to the U.S. If they choose not to remain in school, or they do not maintain certain passing grades or do not have sufficient funds, then they are no longer considered to be students maintaining their status and should return to their home countries. On the other hand, H1B workers enter the U.S. to engage in professional employment based on the needs of U.S. employers. They do not have exclusive control over whether they are laid off.
Although we are in a soft economy with massive employee cutbacks in a variety of fields, many of these H1B workers are able to find new employment within reasonable timeframes. Some companies, at least, are in need of these workers. Salaries have dropped in many cases and recruitment of workers from outside the U.S. has significantly slowed; but, to a large extent, the need for these existing workers remains. It would benefit U.S. companies and suit the purpose of the H1B visa program to allow a reasonable grace period for these laid-off H1B workers to seek new employment within a realistic time frame.
Adding to the woes of H1B workers, Mr. Hernandez addressed the issue of extensions of stay following brief status lapses. In short, the regulations require that an individual be in status at the time an extension of status is requested. Failure to maintain status will result in the H1B petition being granted, if appropriate, without an extension of stay. No I-94 card will be attached to the approval notice. Instead, the beneficiary will be directed to obtain a visa at a U.S. consulate in a foreign country and, only afterward, will return to lawful H1B status by re-entering the U.S. Although INS has a regulation that allows the Service to overlook brief lapses in status, extraordinary circumstances are required. Mr. Hernandez stated that even very short lapses in status are not justified in the context of terminated H1B workers, absent extraordinary circumstances.
Mr. Hernandez specifically negated the existence of a ten-day grace period following employment termination. There are ten-day grace periods allowed in three other instances. These are (a) the H1B worker can be admitted to the U.S. up to 10 days prior to the validity of his/her petition; (b) the H1B worker has a ten-day grace period following the expiration of the period of admission; and (c) in the case of denials of extensions, the H1B worker is given up to ten days to depart the U.S. Unfortunately, termination of employment is not covered by any of these exceptions. Some find it hard to see why a terminated H1B worker should be treated any differently from the H1B worker whose period of H1B admission has expired. There is far less warning and predictability in cases of layoffs or of other terminations.
Rumors are also circulating about a 30-day grace period should INS deny an H1B petition or extension of status and require the person to depart the U.S. There is also a 60-day time frame, proposed by the INS itself in the June 19, 2001 Memo, analyzing the American Competitiveness in the Twenty First Century Act (AC21). In this memo, the INS discussed the law allowing a person to be eligible for H1B extensions beyond 6 years if the person previously held either H1B status or had an H1B visa. The INS surmised that the law envisioned that one who previously held H1B status should be entitled, possibly up to 60 days, to the benefits of that section of AC21. Efren Hernandez clarified that none of these grace periods applies in the case of an H1B worker who is terminated or laid off
more...
anilsal
08-21 02:04 PM
not only that you got GC but also you made a one time contribution to IV.
hair prince harry and william painting. prince harry and william painting. prince
baburob2
02-16 01:17 PM
Hi Logiclife
The 2004-2005 more usuage of EB visas for Indians is done because those were approved through AC21's unused visas i believe between 1999-2000 which are quota independent and not just from the annual quota of 140K. Hence in 2004-2005 there were more usuage. Starting from 2006 only thing left is the annual quota of 140K with per country quota of 7% at the max which has to be split among several EB categories in some proportions (roughly 1/3 among EB1, EB2, Eb3).The spillovers within 7% alone can be redistributed within a country's EB quota in the final quarter of the year. Hence the max India can get is 7% no matter how much gets spilled over from the rest of the world. THe only way to get the spillover back into the picture is another law enactment everytime it happens to get it back which is slow and painful process. Hence in nutshell to remove retrogression the easiest way is to remove country cap is or increase it . Else it is always going to stay even if annual quota is increased or through anyother measures. Hence I would recommend positively IV to focus on doing it and not mere increasing the quota.
The 2004-2005 more usuage of EB visas for Indians is done because those were approved through AC21's unused visas i believe between 1999-2000 which are quota independent and not just from the annual quota of 140K. Hence in 2004-2005 there were more usuage. Starting from 2006 only thing left is the annual quota of 140K with per country quota of 7% at the max which has to be split among several EB categories in some proportions (roughly 1/3 among EB1, EB2, Eb3).The spillovers within 7% alone can be redistributed within a country's EB quota in the final quarter of the year. Hence the max India can get is 7% no matter how much gets spilled over from the rest of the world. THe only way to get the spillover back into the picture is another law enactment everytime it happens to get it back which is slow and painful process. Hence in nutshell to remove retrogression the easiest way is to remove country cap is or increase it . Else it is always going to stay even if annual quota is increased or through anyother measures. Hence I would recommend positively IV to focus on doing it and not mere increasing the quota.
more...
Jerry2121
07-06 09:26 PM
Hello ,
Here is a run down on my case:
First I-485 applied in 6/2002,
Fingerprint done, EAD obtained in 2/03
Application withdrawn by spouse due to conviction
Second I-485 applied by my 2nd DW in 7/05
Interview granted in 5/06
Case still pending due name check
GC? till date
Anyone with a similar case and any advice on this case? I've spent about 30K USD on this case on Lawyers and still have NOT got any decision from the USCIS. Now , I'm considering filing a WOM. Whats your take on this? Thanks !
Here is a run down on my case:
First I-485 applied in 6/2002,
Fingerprint done, EAD obtained in 2/03
Application withdrawn by spouse due to conviction
Second I-485 applied by my 2nd DW in 7/05
Interview granted in 5/06
Case still pending due name check
GC? till date
Anyone with a similar case and any advice on this case? I've spent about 30K USD on this case on Lawyers and still have NOT got any decision from the USCIS. Now , I'm considering filing a WOM. Whats your take on this? Thanks !
hot prince harry and william
sledge_hammer
05-14 05:57 PM
^^^^
more...
house Prince Harry - Princes William
royus77
07-12 06:58 PM
fellow legal immigrations - this is my first posting on immigrationvoice.
i have been following this site very closely and first of all let me congratulate the IV team - you are all doing a terrific job!
now, i have read a lot of threads where employees say their employers do not give them the I-140 receipt numbers or the approved I-140s. this is sick! this is worse than bonded labor. employers with good ethics do not play such dirty tricks. this just plain sucks :mad:
clearly, there are rules from the uscis itself that you can port your priority date to another firm as long as your labor + 140 have been approved. so NOBODY has the moral right to withhold your 140 or labor approvals. i keep hearing that "140 belongs to the company" .. good.. but what the heck does that mean ? does that mean there are laws that permit PD porting but in a way you cannot really do that coz certain companies are not willing to give u the approved 140s?... is this FAIR ? or is it time to put this as another ACTION ITEM to make it illegal for companies to withold 140 from their employees especially if they want to switch jobs ??? something to chew on...
peace!
You are trying to fight against Business Lobby ...It wont work
i have been following this site very closely and first of all let me congratulate the IV team - you are all doing a terrific job!
now, i have read a lot of threads where employees say their employers do not give them the I-140 receipt numbers or the approved I-140s. this is sick! this is worse than bonded labor. employers with good ethics do not play such dirty tricks. this just plain sucks :mad:
clearly, there are rules from the uscis itself that you can port your priority date to another firm as long as your labor + 140 have been approved. so NOBODY has the moral right to withhold your 140 or labor approvals. i keep hearing that "140 belongs to the company" .. good.. but what the heck does that mean ? does that mean there are laws that permit PD porting but in a way you cannot really do that coz certain companies are not willing to give u the approved 140s?... is this FAIR ? or is it time to put this as another ACTION ITEM to make it illegal for companies to withold 140 from their employees especially if they want to switch jobs ??? something to chew on...
peace!
You are trying to fight against Business Lobby ...It wont work
tattoo prince harry and william
mirage41
06-13 05:43 PM
Going through a bill, usually in subcommittee, section by section, revising language, amending sections etc and reach a consensus
Does that mean the bills could be changed further?
Does that mean the bills could be changed further?
more...
pictures 2011 prince harry and william and prince harry and william painting. prince
americandesi
06-18 01:10 PM
All EB priority dates for July 2007 is current. Hence everyone can go for concurrent filing right away.
The scenario I have given explains how to maintain the status after getting permanent residency from both countries, so that you are eligible to apply for citizenship in both countries.
But here is the catch. Some Canadian immigration officers might not consider the commuting days towards the day count for citizenship. It solely depends on the discretion of the officer during Canadian citizenship interview.
The scenario I have given explains how to maintain the status after getting permanent residency from both countries, so that you are eligible to apply for citizenship in both countries.
But here is the catch. Some Canadian immigration officers might not consider the commuting days towards the day count for citizenship. It solely depends on the discretion of the officer during Canadian citizenship interview.
dresses images prince william and prince prince harry and william painting.
chanduv23
03-14 02:43 PM
Not much idea about Australia but you don't want to go Down Under. It's very racist and discriminatory in every aspect. Besides, the accent.... OMG... simply unbearable :mad:
You can get some info from a forum for British expats in oz:
http://britishexpats.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=32
All in all Oz is a bigger hell. The only thing good there is the 3 Bs - Beer, Beaches and the Babes. But you better stay away from them because they are not very approachable for the people of color.
I work with a lot of people from OZ, they tell me it is not as bad as it sounds, but then, if we enter their space, the treatment would be different I guess.
Thanks for all the info.
You can get some info from a forum for British expats in oz:
http://britishexpats.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=32
All in all Oz is a bigger hell. The only thing good there is the 3 Bs - Beer, Beaches and the Babes. But you better stay away from them because they are not very approachable for the people of color.
I work with a lot of people from OZ, they tell me it is not as bad as it sounds, but then, if we enter their space, the treatment would be different I guess.
Thanks for all the info.
more...
makeup prince harry and william
pappu
04-25 11:23 AM
Could you please update your profile so that it helps people tracking cases on IV tracker.
Thanks
Thanks
girlfriend prince harry and william
nlalchandani
05-29 11:09 AM
Is there any specific time the appointments show available..IST or CST..Maybe they have a batch job that runs and makes appt available ..
hairstyles prince harry and william
sapota
02-27 01:51 PM
From March 05 to Sep 06 data can be found at :
http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/OFLC_Report_v11_8-23-07.pdf
This is the kind of transparency people are looking for. USCIS does publish statisics too. Hoping that they take all this data & propose legislation and or administrative solutions to address bottleneck issues.
http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/OFLC_Report_v11_8-23-07.pdf
This is the kind of transparency people are looking for. USCIS does publish statisics too. Hoping that they take all this data & propose legislation and or administrative solutions to address bottleneck issues.
TheCanadian
11-25 03:16 AM
You probably noticed, but that's what he is doing. :dilbert:
No I sure didn`t :thumb2:
No I sure didn`t :thumb2:
dipmay2002
03-06 12:49 PM
Me and my wife applied for EAD on July 2nd, 2007 and got EAD in first week of OCT with error on both cards; they swap our A#s; My card has my wife's number and my wife card had my A #; I talked to CR; asked me to send both cards back; waited for 3 months for new cards, took infopass in DEC...created atleast 5 SR ..resend 765 applications 3 time to TSC....keep calling them ....and at the end we got corrected cards last week....
I appreciate the information you provided. It is a pleasure to read your blog. I appreciate your efforts. It has helped me, and I hope it helps others as well. 60 day grace period h1b
ReplyDelete