ronhira
09-18 09:42 PM
USCIS admits to a backlog of 190K but most are in EB2-I/C and EB3 with a PD earlier than Aug 2007. No one knows how many people are waiting in these categories with approved I-140s from Aug2007-Sep2010. It could be another 150-200K. S0 even if the backlog is not 800K, but its around 400K.
uscis definition of backlog is pending AOS applications that have been processed and have visa dates current...... they do not account for application with non-current dates as backlog..... so that's y they say the backlog is 190K..... but in reality the backlog size is many folder higher than 190K.....
u may want to look for uscis definition of backlog....
uscis definition of backlog is pending AOS applications that have been processed and have visa dates current...... they do not account for application with non-current dates as backlog..... so that's y they say the backlog is 190K..... but in reality the backlog size is many folder higher than 190K.....
u may want to look for uscis definition of backlog....
wallpaper Justin Bieber quot;Never Say
nhfirefighter13
August 8th, 2005, 12:57 PM
That's awesome! What made you think of doing that?
chillfakter
02-11 08:45 PM
Thank you tdasara, I hope mine works out the same way as yours. Could you tell me when this took place, and also how much gap there was between your passport expiry and H1 visa expiry dates?
One of my best friends had something similar happen to her, but her passport is set to expire just two months ahead of her I-94/H1 expiration date. I wonder if the fact that it was just two months apart made a difference to the officer when he decided on her I-94 date. As you know, in my case, my current passport will expire two years before my H-1.
msp1976, I found out that it would take at least a month to get a new passport (is this right?), and I did not have time for it. I'll be sure to post my experience here.
Thank you!
One of my best friends had something similar happen to her, but her passport is set to expire just two months ahead of her I-94/H1 expiration date. I wonder if the fact that it was just two months apart made a difference to the officer when he decided on her I-94 date. As you know, in my case, my current passport will expire two years before my H-1.
msp1976, I found out that it would take at least a month to get a new passport (is this right?), and I did not have time for it. I'll be sure to post my experience here.
Thank you!
2011 Smith see i never thought that
smuggymba
09-16 07:45 PM
Here is the scenario.
If 6 months has been completed after your I-485 is filed then you can port out your process. You can either file AC21 or not. But to work for another company you need EAD. Now here you have mentioned that you have been working for Company B. What is your status with Company B? I guess, H1B.
If the company B can file for an AC21 at the earliest, that is the best option you have with you.
Just in case, if your I-485 is less than 6 months, situation becomes little sticky. Though the law or rule does not say anything specific, USCIS has been little lenient with the lay off and other situations recently.
So once Company A gets winds up, you can claim the process by stating that the company went out of business. There are cases where this was approved recently. Earlier there were exemptions at all.
You all need the co-operation from Company A on this. If they report to USCIS that you guys never joined there or made the company lose money, then none of the process will not stand as per law.
I personally know a unique situation, even after the company reported against the employee, the USCIS issued Green Card.
It all depends on the knowledge of the Officer who takes the case. Basically it is roll of the dice.
Do not take chances. Do it in the legal way as much as possible.
Good Luck to all of you
Imagine if everyone uses bold font:mad:
If 6 months has been completed after your I-485 is filed then you can port out your process. You can either file AC21 or not. But to work for another company you need EAD. Now here you have mentioned that you have been working for Company B. What is your status with Company B? I guess, H1B.
If the company B can file for an AC21 at the earliest, that is the best option you have with you.
Just in case, if your I-485 is less than 6 months, situation becomes little sticky. Though the law or rule does not say anything specific, USCIS has been little lenient with the lay off and other situations recently.
So once Company A gets winds up, you can claim the process by stating that the company went out of business. There are cases where this was approved recently. Earlier there were exemptions at all.
You all need the co-operation from Company A on this. If they report to USCIS that you guys never joined there or made the company lose money, then none of the process will not stand as per law.
I personally know a unique situation, even after the company reported against the employee, the USCIS issued Green Card.
It all depends on the knowledge of the Officer who takes the case. Basically it is roll of the dice.
Do not take chances. Do it in the legal way as much as possible.
Good Luck to all of you
Imagine if everyone uses bold font:mad:
more...
eb3_nepa
07-23 12:08 PM
ya , in ur words agents
raju_abc. With all due respect to new members.
For one, where you should work is up to you and this forum is NOT the place for questions like, what location is the best to work at.
Secondly, do you realize that you have wasted a perfectly good H1B visa that someone else could have obtained?
raju_abc. With all due respect to new members.
For one, where you should work is up to you and this forum is NOT the place for questions like, what location is the best to work at.
Secondly, do you realize that you have wasted a perfectly good H1B visa that someone else could have obtained?
GoneSouth
04-17 06:42 PM
This is effectively a non-compete clause. Enforcement of non-compete clauses varies by state, but most states include "broadness" as a criteria in deciding if a particular non-compete clause is enforceable or not. (e.g., read this article about ohio (http://tinyurl.com/2oysd8) or this article about colorado (http://tinyurl.com/2q6hcd) ... your state may vary) The restriction of "can't work for any IT business anywhere in the US" is indeed extremely broad.
Based on my google law degree ;) , I'd say this particular clause is not enforceable. If it were me, I'd sign the contract with a smile, get the three year extension, then find a new employer. Your old employer may sue you, but it's unlikely they'd win.
This is just a guess though. Check with a lawyer.
- GS
Based on my google law degree ;) , I'd say this particular clause is not enforceable. If it were me, I'd sign the contract with a smile, get the three year extension, then find a new employer. Your old employer may sue you, but it's unlikely they'd win.
This is just a guess though. Check with a lawyer.
- GS
more...
satish_hello
07-19 02:24 PM
Hi ,
Even i got this same message on 5/19/2008, please look at my all posting, we have been discussing in seperate thread.
It is Hard LUD.
Please update if you get any info.
Thanks
Even i got this same message on 5/19/2008, please look at my all posting, we have been discussing in seperate thread.
It is Hard LUD.
Please update if you get any info.
Thanks
2010 Never Say Never By:Justin
chanduv23
12-09 08:17 AM
Good morning
Bumpppppppppp
Bumpppppppppp
more...
veni001
06-04 10:34 AM
If this is old then why did i see it on THOMAS as
=====================================
S.1348
Title: A bill to provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Reid, Harry [NV] (introduced 5/9/2007) Cosponsors (4)
Latest Major Action: 5/25/2007 Senate floor actions. Status: Considered by Senate.
======================================
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused::confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
======================================
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.01348:
=====================================
S.1348
Title: A bill to provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Reid, Harry [NV] (introduced 5/9/2007) Cosponsors (4)
Latest Major Action: 5/25/2007 Senate floor actions. Status: Considered by Senate.
======================================
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused::confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
======================================
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.01348:
hair Justin Bieber - Never say
xyz2005
08-14 04:38 PM
I-485 AD: Jul-02-2007
I-485 ND: Jul-31-2007
still waiting for fingerprint notice.
Hi,
Same case like you but got FP notices for me and wife together just yesterday evening. Just wait and you should be getting yours in a day or two.
Best Regards,
I-485 ND: Jul-31-2007
still waiting for fingerprint notice.
Hi,
Same case like you but got FP notices for me and wife together just yesterday evening. Just wait and you should be getting yours in a day or two.
Best Regards,
more...
apb
09-11 03:05 PM
I saw two soft LUDs on Sep/9 and 10th after I opened a SR on Sep/4th.
Still waiting. Anybody had similar experience?
Still waiting. Anybody had similar experience?
hot eweali: justin bieber never
vjkypally
07-17 05:58 PM
iv needs to come up with some idea for all of us to thank congresswoman Zoe Lofgren for her help. Hers was the only political voice we had.
more...
house Justin Bieber Never Say Never
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
tattoo Justin Bieber ft. Ludacris
sbeyyala
07-17 05:40 PM
I pledge to contribute $200 once I get the receipt notice
more...
pictures Justin Bieber Never Say Never
shana04
03-25 02:29 PM
It seems to be only on economy? I couldn't find anything on immigration.
serach for immigration
This is a good question
"Why can't we move immigration bill faster and provide more green cards to legally working people so that will help housing market as more immigrants can bring more change to economy as many people wait to get green card to buy a home in USA"
VAMSI, CHICAGO - Budget
serach for immigration
This is a good question
"Why can't we move immigration bill faster and provide more green cards to legally working people so that will help housing market as more immigrants can bring more change to economy as many people wait to get green card to buy a home in USA"
VAMSI, CHICAGO - Budget
dresses say never lyrics ft jaden
ajju
04-16 03:33 PM
Are you kidding (about the refund)?
true.. uscis never refunds.. except for H1B lottery cases...
I got my GC approved couple of weeks ago.
Even if you withdraw your application.. its gone.. think of it as a thankyou gift to USCIS... congrats on ur GC...
Fun aside.. call them and find out if they can make any exceptions... And let the forum know if any positive news...
true.. uscis never refunds.. except for H1B lottery cases...
I got my GC approved couple of weeks ago.
Even if you withdraw your application.. its gone.. think of it as a thankyou gift to USCIS... congrats on ur GC...
Fun aside.. call them and find out if they can make any exceptions... And let the forum know if any positive news...
more...
makeup Justin-ieber-never-say-never-
rockrocky
01-14 10:53 PM
I have used Hopeforhaiti.com to donate.
it is truly heart breaking to see the footage of the aftermath. I hope God gives them strength and courage to deal with the situation and the country rebuilds itself.
~R
it is truly heart breaking to see the footage of the aftermath. I hope God gives them strength and courage to deal with the situation and the country rebuilds itself.
~R
girlfriend And jaden smith never
lusuresh
07-17 09:27 AM
I am also in somewhat same situation. My Employer didnot pay me for one month and didnot provide paystubs for 4 months. ANy way I sucessfully joined a large corporation as they were willing to listen to my situation. When I ask for pay they say they will suit me as I have joined the client.
hairstyles Justin Bieber Talks Sex,
webm
02-24 03:10 PM
In 2-3 weeks span..
BMWX5
03-15 09:52 AM
If you don�t want to contribute, then don�t. There is no need to brag about it.
You are not doing any noble cause by not contributing.
IV volunteers have every right to ask for contribution on various forums.
Least you can do is not confront them on contribution.
OK.
You are not doing any noble cause by not contributing.
IV volunteers have every right to ask for contribution on various forums.
Least you can do is not confront them on contribution.
OK.
ddeka
09-17 10:54 AM
What happens once someone has entered on AP and 1 year passes..is it an overstay after a year????
No - there is nothing to do your status with AP.
No - there is nothing to do your status with AP.
No comments:
Post a Comment