radhagd
02-22 09:54 AM
Hi Guys i need some advice/help on my I-140 denial.
I have US masters and 4+years of US job experience and My I-140 was filed in EB2 using a Substitution labor which as the education/experience requirements of (14) Masters+1years experience or (15) Bachelors + 3Years Experience and it was denied without RFE saying the Labor certfication used is not suitable for EB2 as they say EB2 labor should be requiring "Masters or BS+5Years Exp", which makes sense.
So what are my options now
1. Can my attorney file an MTR and request the USCIS to consider mine as a EB3 case, if requested what are the chances of USCIS approving my I-140.
2. Once the MTR is filed to convert from EB2 to EB3, what is the present status of my 485/EAD/AP/FP
3. If the USCIS is okay converting from EB2 to EB3, will the same application's applied ealier for 485/EAD/AP/FP are valid or not?
4. My wife has used her EAD and she is doing a full time job, so now as my I-140 is denied and if an MTR is filed in next few days can she still continue the same job until the decision is made on the I-140 and 485.
5. My wife has an H1 also, so as she used her EAD(which came as my dependent) not with the company which hold's her H1, in this case what would be the status of her H1, can she quit her present job and do another job using her H1, is that H1 still valid.
Thank you all for your advices and help.
Same thing happened to my friend, in his case II40 is not denied but got Intent to deny they contacted sheila murthy and requested to consider in EB3and they got approved in 3 weeks. So I think in your case you apply Motion to reopen/appeal and request them to consider in EB3. I hope yours will be approved in EB3.
I have US masters and 4+years of US job experience and My I-140 was filed in EB2 using a Substitution labor which as the education/experience requirements of (14) Masters+1years experience or (15) Bachelors + 3Years Experience and it was denied without RFE saying the Labor certfication used is not suitable for EB2 as they say EB2 labor should be requiring "Masters or BS+5Years Exp", which makes sense.
So what are my options now
1. Can my attorney file an MTR and request the USCIS to consider mine as a EB3 case, if requested what are the chances of USCIS approving my I-140.
2. Once the MTR is filed to convert from EB2 to EB3, what is the present status of my 485/EAD/AP/FP
3. If the USCIS is okay converting from EB2 to EB3, will the same application's applied ealier for 485/EAD/AP/FP are valid or not?
4. My wife has used her EAD and she is doing a full time job, so now as my I-140 is denied and if an MTR is filed in next few days can she still continue the same job until the decision is made on the I-140 and 485.
5. My wife has an H1 also, so as she used her EAD(which came as my dependent) not with the company which hold's her H1, in this case what would be the status of her H1, can she quit her present job and do another job using her H1, is that H1 still valid.
Thank you all for your advices and help.
Same thing happened to my friend, in his case II40 is not denied but got Intent to deny they contacted sheila murthy and requested to consider in EB3and they got approved in 3 weeks. So I think in your case you apply Motion to reopen/appeal and request them to consider in EB3. I hope yours will be approved in EB3.
wallpaper Wallpapers Naruto Shippuden en
jazzy2
10-22 11:17 AM
EB2 RIR - india, PD MARCH 2003
BEC, philly. LC approved April 2007, June 1st filer
thanks
BEC, philly. LC approved April 2007, June 1st filer
thanks
colors
09-04 11:47 PM
I received RFEs from my attorney and mine is on BC and my wife's is on Marriage Certificate + marriage photo and USCIS requested me to submit non avialability ceritifcate. I do have a BC with all the details but registered date is oct,2007 (That's when i applied for BC) instead of old date.
Is it a problem ? Do i have to submit anything more
Please advise
Thanks in advance
Is it a problem ? Do i have to submit anything more
Please advise
Thanks in advance
2011 wallpaper naruto shippuden.
saps
01-09 12:19 PM
Gave you a green :)
more...
franklin
07-27 08:45 PM
Based on my recent experience - H1 B 1 year extension, not 3 years, was based on the approval date, not receipt date of the application. :o
However, to be safe, I guess after Aug 17th is a pretty good bet
However, to be safe, I guess after Aug 17th is a pretty good bet
WeldonSprings
05-01 09:22 PM
Hi,
When did you apply the card. Was it NSC or TSC and did you e-file.
Thanks.
They are just mistaking his EAD card for PR card. My EAD was approved on April 27 and the status says
"Card production ordered/Oath Document sent".
It is just misleadig for a lot of people they can misread it as the PR card.
When did you apply the card. Was it NSC or TSC and did you e-file.
Thanks.
They are just mistaking his EAD card for PR card. My EAD was approved on April 27 and the status says
"Card production ordered/Oath Document sent".
It is just misleadig for a lot of people they can misread it as the PR card.
more...
sk.aggarwal
08-15 11:10 AM
If this allows people to get EAD soon after getting approval for I140 I guess it should be good. Once a person gets EAD after 180 days he will be eligible to change employer. Also spouse will be able to work all the time we are waiting 5-7 years for PD to become current. Looks good to me.
I feel scenario that dates become accidentally current is quite rare. Am I missing something?
I feel scenario that dates become accidentally current is quite rare. Am I missing something?
2010 Naruto Shippuden Kyuubi by
lord_labaku
06-13 11:46 AM
Isnt your case within USCIS processing range within the 30 day range? Did you file at NSC or TSC.
My case is similar..but I filed in late July 07....I feel the pain.....but having waited sooooooo long...whats a few more months.
Right now, in the employment category EB2 India with PD < Apr 04 are the only ones they can process...hopefully USCIS officers can scratch their asses half the time and still approve atleast a few cases.
Lets just wait. (nothing new there right !!!!)
My case is similar..but I filed in late July 07....I feel the pain.....but having waited sooooooo long...whats a few more months.
Right now, in the employment category EB2 India with PD < Apr 04 are the only ones they can process...hopefully USCIS officers can scratch their asses half the time and still approve atleast a few cases.
Lets just wait. (nothing new there right !!!!)
more...
alien2006
07-21 02:56 PM
Isn't Murthy in the DC Area?
hair naruto vs sasuke wallpaper.
arc
10-03 02:36 PM
Idea and Placard message... Plain and Simple... Hey Jamie did I miss you at the Rally?
more...
pa_arora
03-02 01:15 PM
I have heard many ppl say that its okie to go back before the kid is 10 yrs...and with this statement heard many examples...so I would guess its before when the kid is in 5 grade.
-p
-p
hot Naruto-shippuden-wallpaper-7
rheoretro
11-07 01:20 PM
Friends,
Can you all post the names of good consulting companies to work for. Let's create a list here.
Thanks,
And what would that list of "good consulting companies" have to do with IV? Or Employment-Based LEGAL IMMIGRATION?
Can you all post the names of good consulting companies to work for. Let's create a list here.
Thanks,
And what would that list of "good consulting companies" have to do with IV? Or Employment-Based LEGAL IMMIGRATION?
more...
house naruto shippuden wallpapers. naruto shippuden wallpapers. AJsAWiz.
ivar
04-29 04:35 PM
Filing the application to port as seperate after the 140 is approved assures the attorney & the employer of of 2 things:
1. The attorney gets more money for filing a seperate application.
2. The employer gets to keep you tied down longer since its likely that the USCIS wont know what to do when a seperate application is filed just to port the date. Its not a documented procedure (that I am aware of) in that you have to file Form I-xxx or whatever.
Best to port the PD at the time of filing the 140.
Disclaimer: I am EB3 and I havent tried porting my date to EB2. Just using my basic common sense.
Crazyghoda,
I am still waiting for my PERM but i had talked to my attorney regarding porting of my old priority date he says i will have to wait till i get my new I-140 approved. I am not sure how should i convince him to file I-140 and priority porting application together once i get my PERM approval. I need some strong documentation to support my statement if he denies doing both together. I tried googling but yet to find some document related to this.
Thank you.
1. The attorney gets more money for filing a seperate application.
2. The employer gets to keep you tied down longer since its likely that the USCIS wont know what to do when a seperate application is filed just to port the date. Its not a documented procedure (that I am aware of) in that you have to file Form I-xxx or whatever.
Best to port the PD at the time of filing the 140.
Disclaimer: I am EB3 and I havent tried porting my date to EB2. Just using my basic common sense.
Crazyghoda,
I am still waiting for my PERM but i had talked to my attorney regarding porting of my old priority date he says i will have to wait till i get my new I-140 approved. I am not sure how should i convince him to file I-140 and priority porting application together once i get my PERM approval. I need some strong documentation to support my statement if he denies doing both together. I tried googling but yet to find some document related to this.
Thank you.
tattoo Wallpapers Naruto Shippuden
pointlesswait
05-01 09:28 AM
if u change ur job using H1 transfer..so does it mean ...he has to restart his GC all over again?? ok i am little confused here..
> if he choses to use EAD..his wife will be oout of status..so its bad
> if he chooses to transfer using H1..what happens to his EAD???
I believe AC21 is for shifting employers on EAD after 180 days of I-485.
> if he choses to use EAD..his wife will be oout of status..so its bad
> if he chooses to transfer using H1..what happens to his EAD???
I believe AC21 is for shifting employers on EAD after 180 days of I-485.
more...
pictures wallpaper naruto hd. naruto
gc28262
07-28 01:48 PM
Judge blocks parts of Arizona immigration law - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_arizona_immigration;_ylt=AgcIIY.ht_GJNzOqM3G8sH 6s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNta2N1b3FnBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNz I4L3VzX2FyaXpvbmFfaW1taWdyYXRpb24EY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBv cHVsYXIEY3BvcwMyBHBvcwM3BHB0A2hvbWVfY29rZQRzZWMDeW 5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNqdWRnZWJsb2Nrc3A-)
PHOENIX – A federal judge dealt a serious rebuke to Arizona's immigration law on Wednesday when she put most of the crackdown on hold just hours before it was to take effect.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton sets up a lengthy legal battle as Arizona fights to enact the nation's toughest-in-the-nation law. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer said the state likely appeal the ruling and seek to get the judge's order overturned.
But for now, opponents of the law have prevailed: The provisions that angered opponents will not take effect, including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.
The judge also delayed parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places — a move aimed at day laborers. In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.
"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," Bolton, a Clinton appointee, said in her decision.
She said the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues. Other provisions of the law, many of them procedural and slight revisions to existing Arizona immigration statute, will go into effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday.
The law was signed by Brewer in April and immediately revived the national debate on immigration, making it a hot-button issue in the midterm elections. The law has inspired similar law elsewhere, prompted a boycott against the state and led an unknown number of illegal immigrants to leave the state.
Lawyers for the state contend the law was a constitutionally sound attempt by Arizona to assist federal immigration agents and lessen border woes such as the heavy costs for educating, jailing and providing health care for illegal immigrants. Arizona is the busiest gateway into the country for illegal immigrants, and the border is awash in drugs and smugglers that the state badly wants to stop.
"It's a temporary bump in the road, we will move forward, and I'm sure that after consultation with our counsel we will appeal," Brewer told the Associated Press. "The bottom line is we've known all along that it is The responsibility of the feds and they haven't done their job so we were going to help them do that."
The ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations to begin enforcement of the law and protesters were planning large demonstrations against the measure. At least one group planned to block access to federal offices, daring officers to ask them about their immigration status.
In a sign of the international interest in the law, about 100 protesters in Mexico City who had gathered in front of the U.S. Embassy broke into cheers when speakers told them about the federal judge's ruling. The demonstrators had been monitoring the news on a laptop computer on the stage.
The crowed clapped and started chanting, "Migrants, hang on, the people are rising up!"
Gisela and Eduardo Diaz went to the Mexican consulate in Phoenix on Wednesday seeking advice because they were worried about what would happen to their 3-year-old granddaughter if they were pulled over by police and taken to a detention center.
"I knew the judge would say that part of the law was just not right," said Diaz, a 50-year-old from Mexico City who came to Arizona on a since-expired tourist visa in 1989. "It's the part we were worried about. This is a big relief for us."
Opponents argued the law would lead to racial profiling, conflict with federal immigration law and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes. The U.S. Justice Department, civil rights groups and a Phoenix police officer had asked the judge for an injunction to prevent the law from being enforced.
"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law)," Bolton ruled. She added that a requirement of the law that police determine the immigration status of all arrested people will prompt legal immigrants to be "swept up by this requirement."
Federal authorities who are trying to overturn the law have argued that letting the Arizona law stand would create a patchwork of immigration laws nationwide that would needlessly complicate the foreign relations of the United States. Federal lawyers said the law is disrupting U.S. relations with Mexico and other countries and would burden the agency that responds to immigration-status inquiries.
Bolton noted that the expected increase in immigration checks from Arizona will divert federal resources away from other priorities and said the federal government has shown that it's likely to succeed on its claim that such mandatory checks under the Arizona law would be trumped by federal law.
Responding to the ruling, Justice Department spokeswoman Hannah August said that the agency understands the frustration of Arizona residents with the immigration system. She added that a wide range of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement.
Brewer's lawyers said Arizona shouldn't have to suffer from America's broken immigration system when it has 15,000 police officers who can arrest illegal immigrants.
Brewer is running for another term in November and has seen her political fortunes rise because of the law's popularity among conservatives. It's not yet clear how the ruling will affect her campaign, but her opponent was quick to pounce.
"Jan Brewer played politics with immigration, and she lost," Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat. "It is time to look beyond election year grandstanding and begin to repair the damage to Arizona's image and economy."
Republican Rep. John Kavanagh, one of the law's top supporters, said he was disappointed by the ruling and that he expects it to ultimately end up being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I don't think the judge's statements in the hearings justify this ruling," Kavanagh said. "I don't think the law justified her injunction."
PHOENIX – A federal judge dealt a serious rebuke to Arizona's immigration law on Wednesday when she put most of the crackdown on hold just hours before it was to take effect.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton sets up a lengthy legal battle as Arizona fights to enact the nation's toughest-in-the-nation law. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer said the state likely appeal the ruling and seek to get the judge's order overturned.
But for now, opponents of the law have prevailed: The provisions that angered opponents will not take effect, including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.
The judge also delayed parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places — a move aimed at day laborers. In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.
"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," Bolton, a Clinton appointee, said in her decision.
She said the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues. Other provisions of the law, many of them procedural and slight revisions to existing Arizona immigration statute, will go into effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday.
The law was signed by Brewer in April and immediately revived the national debate on immigration, making it a hot-button issue in the midterm elections. The law has inspired similar law elsewhere, prompted a boycott against the state and led an unknown number of illegal immigrants to leave the state.
Lawyers for the state contend the law was a constitutionally sound attempt by Arizona to assist federal immigration agents and lessen border woes such as the heavy costs for educating, jailing and providing health care for illegal immigrants. Arizona is the busiest gateway into the country for illegal immigrants, and the border is awash in drugs and smugglers that the state badly wants to stop.
"It's a temporary bump in the road, we will move forward, and I'm sure that after consultation with our counsel we will appeal," Brewer told the Associated Press. "The bottom line is we've known all along that it is The responsibility of the feds and they haven't done their job so we were going to help them do that."
The ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations to begin enforcement of the law and protesters were planning large demonstrations against the measure. At least one group planned to block access to federal offices, daring officers to ask them about their immigration status.
In a sign of the international interest in the law, about 100 protesters in Mexico City who had gathered in front of the U.S. Embassy broke into cheers when speakers told them about the federal judge's ruling. The demonstrators had been monitoring the news on a laptop computer on the stage.
The crowed clapped and started chanting, "Migrants, hang on, the people are rising up!"
Gisela and Eduardo Diaz went to the Mexican consulate in Phoenix on Wednesday seeking advice because they were worried about what would happen to their 3-year-old granddaughter if they were pulled over by police and taken to a detention center.
"I knew the judge would say that part of the law was just not right," said Diaz, a 50-year-old from Mexico City who came to Arizona on a since-expired tourist visa in 1989. "It's the part we were worried about. This is a big relief for us."
Opponents argued the law would lead to racial profiling, conflict with federal immigration law and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes. The U.S. Justice Department, civil rights groups and a Phoenix police officer had asked the judge for an injunction to prevent the law from being enforced.
"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law)," Bolton ruled. She added that a requirement of the law that police determine the immigration status of all arrested people will prompt legal immigrants to be "swept up by this requirement."
Federal authorities who are trying to overturn the law have argued that letting the Arizona law stand would create a patchwork of immigration laws nationwide that would needlessly complicate the foreign relations of the United States. Federal lawyers said the law is disrupting U.S. relations with Mexico and other countries and would burden the agency that responds to immigration-status inquiries.
Bolton noted that the expected increase in immigration checks from Arizona will divert federal resources away from other priorities and said the federal government has shown that it's likely to succeed on its claim that such mandatory checks under the Arizona law would be trumped by federal law.
Responding to the ruling, Justice Department spokeswoman Hannah August said that the agency understands the frustration of Arizona residents with the immigration system. She added that a wide range of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement.
Brewer's lawyers said Arizona shouldn't have to suffer from America's broken immigration system when it has 15,000 police officers who can arrest illegal immigrants.
Brewer is running for another term in November and has seen her political fortunes rise because of the law's popularity among conservatives. It's not yet clear how the ruling will affect her campaign, but her opponent was quick to pounce.
"Jan Brewer played politics with immigration, and she lost," Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat. "It is time to look beyond election year grandstanding and begin to repair the damage to Arizona's image and economy."
Republican Rep. John Kavanagh, one of the law's top supporters, said he was disappointed by the ruling and that he expects it to ultimately end up being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I don't think the judge's statements in the hearings justify this ruling," Kavanagh said. "I don't think the law justified her injunction."
dresses Naruto Shippuuden
amitjoey
05-02 07:25 PM
Guys, this is the time to show the core group that we are a bunch of people thankful that there is IV to help us fight this fight.
We need to stand united and raise awareness and sign up for the $20minimum a month recurring contribution.
I understand that some of you do intend to contribute and have contributed generously in the past,
But here are some mindsets, All of us fall in these 4 mindsets.
1) you probably think "why should I sign up for a monthly recurring contribution program". I am a generous contributor and I contribute almost monthly anyways.
2) I have contributed enough.
3) I will contribute if I feel like, when I see something comming out of this effort.
4) I do not have to contribute.
If you are in category 1).I can tell you, I understand because I have been a generous contributer in the past. But guys, the reason I signed up for a monthly recurring contribution is that it helps IV know that 'X' amount of funds are guaranted every month, this way they can better plan.
Category 2) Contributed enough - Okay why dont just sign up for a minimum amount of $20/month once more. What is enough is not enough.
Category 3) This has been discussed, I do not want to talk about this category of members.
Category 4) Again - No Comments-
Lets show the core team that all of us fall in the first 2 categories.
The last thing we want the core to do is bite their fingers over funds. We do not want the core to get stressed out over funds. They have enough real work to do already.
Inspite of being a serious team player, and a generous contributor it took me some time (few days) to sign up for the recurring monthly contribution program back in Jan. so I give all of the ones that have not set up a monthly recurring contribution benefit of doubt. But this is our last chance, I urge you to be one of the 1000 people we need for this effort.
We need to stand united and raise awareness and sign up for the $20minimum a month recurring contribution.
I understand that some of you do intend to contribute and have contributed generously in the past,
But here are some mindsets, All of us fall in these 4 mindsets.
1) you probably think "why should I sign up for a monthly recurring contribution program". I am a generous contributor and I contribute almost monthly anyways.
2) I have contributed enough.
3) I will contribute if I feel like, when I see something comming out of this effort.
4) I do not have to contribute.
If you are in category 1).I can tell you, I understand because I have been a generous contributer in the past. But guys, the reason I signed up for a monthly recurring contribution is that it helps IV know that 'X' amount of funds are guaranted every month, this way they can better plan.
Category 2) Contributed enough - Okay why dont just sign up for a minimum amount of $20/month once more. What is enough is not enough.
Category 3) This has been discussed, I do not want to talk about this category of members.
Category 4) Again - No Comments-
Lets show the core team that all of us fall in the first 2 categories.
The last thing we want the core to do is bite their fingers over funds. We do not want the core to get stressed out over funds. They have enough real work to do already.
Inspite of being a serious team player, and a generous contributor it took me some time (few days) to sign up for the recurring monthly contribution program back in Jan. so I give all of the ones that have not set up a monthly recurring contribution benefit of doubt. But this is our last chance, I urge you to be one of the 1000 people we need for this effort.
more...
makeup Naruto Shippuden Wallpaper
nogc_noproblem
06-27 04:02 PM
Yes, it is frustrating to miss it just by one day, I don't think we can appeal against it, let us wait for the original card to see whether we have any luck. I also filed at NSC.
I got the e-mail that card prodn. is ordered. Not sure if i'll get one year or 2 years EAD renewal now. I filed in Nebraska center. I called USCIS and asked them but they are not sure either.. I hate to miss out of 2 yr EAD just 'cos it got approved today but not Monday. Is there any way to appeal for a 2 yr EAD ????
I got the e-mail that card prodn. is ordered. Not sure if i'll get one year or 2 years EAD renewal now. I filed in Nebraska center. I called USCIS and asked them but they are not sure either.. I hate to miss out of 2 yr EAD just 'cos it got approved today but not Monday. Is there any way to appeal for a 2 yr EAD ????
girlfriend naruto shippuden wallpaper.
laksmi
07-19 05:03 PM
Is it possible to verify PIMS name check clearance before we attend the consulate in india.
hairstyles wallpapers naruto shippuden.
zerosine
06-25 02:59 PM
Thank you all for your responses.
Thanks glus, I'll try filing the I 102 - hopefully they had computerized records back in the dark ages when I arrived. Also I'm hoping there's a record somewhere of the visa extension filed by my lawyer - do you think the same form might dig that up?
Shatunup, what's a CIR? I'm intrigued....
I have spoken to an attorney and the overstay is not really the issue - because I'm legitimately married (we have a two year old!) and if we can prove it's not a green card marriage I believe I just have to pay a fine.... however they do require proof of legal entry, which I don't have. You can adjust your status in the US if you are married to a US citizen - in fact I have to because if I leave the country I'm subject to the 10 year ban and they won't let me back in married or not.
I have a new passport but without the visa and entry stamp it doesn't really help!
Thanks again - by the way I'm a she :o
Thanks glus, I'll try filing the I 102 - hopefully they had computerized records back in the dark ages when I arrived. Also I'm hoping there's a record somewhere of the visa extension filed by my lawyer - do you think the same form might dig that up?
Shatunup, what's a CIR? I'm intrigued....
I have spoken to an attorney and the overstay is not really the issue - because I'm legitimately married (we have a two year old!) and if we can prove it's not a green card marriage I believe I just have to pay a fine.... however they do require proof of legal entry, which I don't have. You can adjust your status in the US if you are married to a US citizen - in fact I have to because if I leave the country I'm subject to the 10 year ban and they won't let me back in married or not.
I have a new passport but without the visa and entry stamp it doesn't really help!
Thanks again - by the way I'm a she :o
scabal12
06-12 06:59 PM
Also my H1-B is valid till 2011.
trueguy
08-11 10:53 AM
Hi WillWin,
Can you add 2002,2003,2004 also, so that its easy to estimate for the later dates and count how many are ahead of us..
Please vote here for prior to 2004 cases;
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20768
Can you add 2002,2003,2004 also, so that its easy to estimate for the later dates and count how many are ahead of us..
Please vote here for prior to 2004 cases;
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20768
No comments:
Post a Comment