Student with no hopes
10-20 11:18 AM
The dream of multiple-biometric IDs may become a reality in India (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/352077/Multiple_Biometric_IDs_Dream_or_Reality_)
wallpaper Julia Roberts may be over 40
martinvisalaw
12-08 04:41 PM
No, having an approved H-1B petition should not affect the company's ability to extend your L-1.
ng123456
10-28 05:38 PM
I came in on an F1 and got transfered to a H1B without leaving the country.
My H1 was approved for 3 years ie till 2012.
Due to problems at my work place, my H1 got revoked by my employer.
I'm in the medical profession, hence, jobs are few and far between if removed form a training program such as I was in. The next cycle of jobs dont start employment till July 2011.
I am currently within the 180 day limit.
What are my options? My countrys consulate is known to be tight fisted with visas, especially as I have overstayed since I lost my job abruptly.
If my fiance and I do get married, am I eligible for for adjustment of status?
Please help!
My H1 was approved for 3 years ie till 2012.
Due to problems at my work place, my H1 got revoked by my employer.
I'm in the medical profession, hence, jobs are few and far between if removed form a training program such as I was in. The next cycle of jobs dont start employment till July 2011.
I am currently within the 180 day limit.
What are my options? My countrys consulate is known to be tight fisted with visas, especially as I have overstayed since I lost my job abruptly.
If my fiance and I do get married, am I eligible for for adjustment of status?
Please help!
2011 Pregnant Julia Roberts on set
sunny1000
06-04 06:04 PM
This is my third EAD renewal. My 485 is pending at NSC. I am in CA. All my previous EADs/APs etc were filed at NSC.
This time when my EAD renewal is filed (by my new attorney, in new company) I got receipt Number starting with MSC.
Who decides where to file MSC? What's the criteria to file at MSC? Shouldn't it be file at NSC?
Is this a mistake?
No it is not. It is the National Benefits Center receipt number. Mine got transferred from the TSC.
This time when my EAD renewal is filed (by my new attorney, in new company) I got receipt Number starting with MSC.
Who decides where to file MSC? What's the criteria to file at MSC? Shouldn't it be file at NSC?
Is this a mistake?
No it is not. It is the National Benefits Center receipt number. Mine got transferred from the TSC.
more...
India_USA
12-17 12:15 PM
We need to have prominent members of the society to take up our cause
h_shaik
10-17 12:04 PM
Hi,
I have two H1bs. I was working on first H1 till 02/2007 , i moved to second H1from 03/2007 . I am planning to go back to my first H1b which is valid till 03/2008.
Is moving back and forth on these two valid H1 is possible? If so what steps i need to follow.
Help is appritiated.
Regards.
I have two H1bs. I was working on first H1 till 02/2007 , i moved to second H1from 03/2007 . I am planning to go back to my first H1b which is valid till 03/2008.
Is moving back and forth on these two valid H1 is possible? If so what steps i need to follow.
Help is appritiated.
Regards.
more...
Macaca
05-15 10:07 AM
Congress's Start (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/12/AR2007051201099.html) -- It's time to begin recording concrete achievements, Sunday, May 13, 2007
FOUR MONTHS into the 110th Congress is too early to assign grades to the new Democratic majority -- but not too soon to remind lawmakers that most of their self-assigned tasks remain undone; that progress in the next few months on immigration, trade and lobbying reform is critical; and that this Congress will be judged on what it accomplished -- and on where it punted.
The biggest punt thus far concerns entitlement spending, an issue on which the administration, chiefly Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., has been seeking to jump-start discussions. This is an auspicious moment that Democrats seem determined to squander. First, the Democratic Congress has a lame-duck Republican president who could take, or at least share, the blame for cuts that will have to be part of any solution. Second, as members of Congress well know, the longer they wait to take on Medicare and, particularly, Social Security, the harder the problem they will face.
Democrats have seized on Vice President Cheney's comments to Fox News in January about raising payroll taxes -- "This president has been very, very clear on his position on taxes, and nothing's changed" -- as a rationale for why they can't risk bargaining with the administration. But this is an excuse, not a legitimate basis for inaction. After all, Mr. Cheney also said there would be "no preconditions."
Meanwhile, lawmakers for the most part have used their oversight powers usefully, though we wish more energy were spent examining torture policies, for instance, and less on subpoenaing the secretary of state. Although the budget process has yet to play itself out, the adoption of tough pay-as-you-go rules to constrain new mandatory spending has had a surprisingly beneficial effect in restraining demands for new programs. The Senate's passage of a measure to strengthen the Food and Drug Administration's regulatory powers is an important step.
Still unanswered is whether Democrats will deliver on their campaign promises and whether both sides will find ways to forge consensus on issues of common concern. House Democrats' "Six for '06" campaign pledge has so far amounted to "None in '07." Much of this (federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, for instance) is out of Democrats' control, given the Senate's supermajority rules and President Bush's veto pen; in some cases (having Medicare negotiate drug prices, for example), that's just as well. But even such relatively noncontroversial matters as increasing the minimum wage remain undone. Voters are starting to notice, and the coming weeks will be crucial for Democrats to put some actual accomplishments on the board.
On a matter that is within their control, it's still uncertain whether House Democrats will produce a lobbying and ethics reform package worthy of their campaign pledges to end the "culture of corruption." The key tests will be whether lawmakers require lobbyists to disclose the bundles of campaign cash they deliver (as the Senate version of the measure has done) and whether the House will create a more credible ethics process, including some kind of independent arm to assess and investigate ethics allegations.
On immigration, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) is right to bring to the floor last year's measure, which won the support of 23 Republicans. The clock is ticking on this incendiary topic, and the administration has not improved matters by pushing an unbalanced and punitive plan. If Mr. Bush is looking for a legacy issue beyond Iraq, this could be it, but he is, so far, blowing the chance.
On trade, an agreement that seems to clear the way for approval of trade pacts with Peru and Panama is a start, but only that. Much more important is the passage of deals with Colombia and South Korea, and extension of presidential trade negotiating authority, which is needed to complete a new global trade treaty. Congressional leaders should work with Mr. Bush to extend the authority -- not because they like or trust him but because doing so will be better for the economy in which they, too, have an important stake.
FOUR MONTHS into the 110th Congress is too early to assign grades to the new Democratic majority -- but not too soon to remind lawmakers that most of their self-assigned tasks remain undone; that progress in the next few months on immigration, trade and lobbying reform is critical; and that this Congress will be judged on what it accomplished -- and on where it punted.
The biggest punt thus far concerns entitlement spending, an issue on which the administration, chiefly Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., has been seeking to jump-start discussions. This is an auspicious moment that Democrats seem determined to squander. First, the Democratic Congress has a lame-duck Republican president who could take, or at least share, the blame for cuts that will have to be part of any solution. Second, as members of Congress well know, the longer they wait to take on Medicare and, particularly, Social Security, the harder the problem they will face.
Democrats have seized on Vice President Cheney's comments to Fox News in January about raising payroll taxes -- "This president has been very, very clear on his position on taxes, and nothing's changed" -- as a rationale for why they can't risk bargaining with the administration. But this is an excuse, not a legitimate basis for inaction. After all, Mr. Cheney also said there would be "no preconditions."
Meanwhile, lawmakers for the most part have used their oversight powers usefully, though we wish more energy were spent examining torture policies, for instance, and less on subpoenaing the secretary of state. Although the budget process has yet to play itself out, the adoption of tough pay-as-you-go rules to constrain new mandatory spending has had a surprisingly beneficial effect in restraining demands for new programs. The Senate's passage of a measure to strengthen the Food and Drug Administration's regulatory powers is an important step.
Still unanswered is whether Democrats will deliver on their campaign promises and whether both sides will find ways to forge consensus on issues of common concern. House Democrats' "Six for '06" campaign pledge has so far amounted to "None in '07." Much of this (federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, for instance) is out of Democrats' control, given the Senate's supermajority rules and President Bush's veto pen; in some cases (having Medicare negotiate drug prices, for example), that's just as well. But even such relatively noncontroversial matters as increasing the minimum wage remain undone. Voters are starting to notice, and the coming weeks will be crucial for Democrats to put some actual accomplishments on the board.
On a matter that is within their control, it's still uncertain whether House Democrats will produce a lobbying and ethics reform package worthy of their campaign pledges to end the "culture of corruption." The key tests will be whether lawmakers require lobbyists to disclose the bundles of campaign cash they deliver (as the Senate version of the measure has done) and whether the House will create a more credible ethics process, including some kind of independent arm to assess and investigate ethics allegations.
On immigration, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) is right to bring to the floor last year's measure, which won the support of 23 Republicans. The clock is ticking on this incendiary topic, and the administration has not improved matters by pushing an unbalanced and punitive plan. If Mr. Bush is looking for a legacy issue beyond Iraq, this could be it, but he is, so far, blowing the chance.
On trade, an agreement that seems to clear the way for approval of trade pacts with Peru and Panama is a start, but only that. Much more important is the passage of deals with Colombia and South Korea, and extension of presidential trade negotiating authority, which is needed to complete a new global trade treaty. Congressional leaders should work with Mr. Bush to extend the authority -- not because they like or trust him but because doing so will be better for the economy in which they, too, have an important stake.
2010 Readers demanded to know who
admin
02-10 05:58 PM
The House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform held a full committee hearing on February 9, 2006, to address issues important to U.S.
national interests especially with reference to the recent American Competitiveness Initiative. Here is the report on it.
national interests especially with reference to the recent American Competitiveness Initiative. Here is the report on it.
more...
SlowRoasted
05-01 10:09 PM
pretty nice, needs the alien font though
hair pictures Julia Roberts#39;s Husband Is who is julia roberts husband. public
Blog Feeds
05-25 01:30 PM
President Barack Obama will gather congressional leaders at the White House next month to launch a policy discussion on immigration, according to an administration official, but legislative action isn't likely until next year at the earliest. he June 8 meeting is meant to show the White House is moving on the issue -- which is key for Hispanic advocacy groups that helped Mr. Obama get elected in November.
Mr. Obama has embraced the general concept of creating a program to provide a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already in the U.S., while continuing to tighten the border with Mexico.
Read more (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124286885555741791.html)
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/05/obama_and_lawmakers_to_meet_on.html)
Mr. Obama has embraced the general concept of creating a program to provide a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already in the U.S., while continuing to tighten the border with Mexico.
Read more (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124286885555741791.html)
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/05/obama_and_lawmakers_to_meet_on.html)
more...
tcfannin
01-12 07:47 AM
I was on H1 visa and laid off from job on 10/30/09. I got severance pay for Nov. and have the pay stubs. I applied for COS from H4 to F1 for my spouse (already in collage) and H1 to F2 for me on 12/9/09. Meanwhile immigration performed spot check at my ex-employers on 12/3/09, so they came to know that i was not working. My employer had not revoked H1 by then. Our COS application was received by USCIS on 12/14/2009, case is currently under Initial Review.
- Will the immigration officers who did spot check inform USCIS that i was out of status?
- Will case get rejected due to delay in applying for COS?
- Will there be any complications in transferring my H1 to new employer as i was out of status for about a month before i applied for COS?
- How to stop F2 COS if i get H1 transfer approved first?
- Will the immigration officers who did spot check inform USCIS that i was out of status?
- Will case get rejected due to delay in applying for COS?
- Will there be any complications in transferring my H1 to new employer as i was out of status for about a month before i applied for COS?
- How to stop F2 COS if i get H1 transfer approved first?
hot Julia Roberts Fights for
varinder
06-07 11:15 AM
Hello,
As we know, from January 1 2010, all the prevailing wage (PW) determinations have to be sent to DOL. My PW was submitted on March 1 2010 and I still have not got the determination. Can someone tell, how long is it taking on an average?
Thanks and Best Regards.
As we know, from January 1 2010, all the prevailing wage (PW) determinations have to be sent to DOL. My PW was submitted on March 1 2010 and I still have not got the determination. Can someone tell, how long is it taking on an average?
Thanks and Best Regards.
more...
house Julia Roberts Eat Pray Love |
gk_2000
07-07 07:47 PM
Obama-speak Versus Immigration Facts (http://xelanbonn.com/2888/obama-speak-versus-immigration-facts/)
Some comments on Obama's speech
Some comments on Obama's speech
tattoo Actress Julia Roberts says she
vedicman
06-25 11:33 AM
5 more Representatives co-sponsor for CIR ASAP of 2009 bringing it to 102 sponsors.
However, unless the Senate moves on Immigration .. nothing will happen in the House.
However, unless the Senate moves on Immigration .. nothing will happen in the House.
more...
pictures Julia Roberts amp; Family At
cooldesi
04-02 07:50 PM
I dont think they'll have issues. It takes some time to gice notice and wrap up work
dresses juliaroberts
panacea
07-18 02:29 PM
I don't think you can apply for extension....
more...
makeup who is julia roberts husband. Hollywood legend Julia Roberts
Macaca
09-06 05:22 PM
Leaders Look to Protect Freshmen (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_22/news/19853-1.html) By Jennifer Yachnin | ROLL CALL STAFF, September 6, 2007 Thursday
In an attempt to dissuade the Republican minority from offering contentious procedural amendments tied to the hot-button issues such as immigration, Democratic leaders are discussing how to give their lawmakers a vote that would inoculate them against such pressure in the future.
The discussion comes as a new House select committee prepares to investigate an Aug. 2 vote that Republican leaders allege the Democratic majority mishandled, resulting in the defeat of a GOP-authored procedural measure that would have amended the fiscal 2008 Agriculture spending bill by prohibiting illegal immigrants from accessing certain federally funded programs.
House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said he has discussed the issue with House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), and leadership staff from both offices are working on a proposal.
"I'm particularly concerned that these motions to recommit are tinged with a bit of ... let's just say this whole issue of immigration, it's too serious an issue for us to ... have it used as a wedge issue," Clyburn said, and later added: "We ought not be using this very serious issue in this way."
Neither Clyburn nor Hoyer would provide details for any potential proposal, including whether the measure would be new law or a nonbinding resolution.
"We're talking about a lot of options and I don't want to prejudge what options we're going to choose," Hoyer said.
The Maryland lawmaker added that because the Republican amendment at the heart of the August incident would have restated existing law - a point the GOP refutes - Democrats could opt to ask the executive branch to enforce statutes already on the books.
"We may just reiterate the law," Hoyer said. Democrats also have pre-emptively discussed expanding the new effort to other hot-button legislative areas targeted by the GOP.
One Democratic lawmaker, who asked not to be identified, said the plan has been presented to some Members as a blanket measure that would prohibit the use of taxpayer-funded programs, such as food stamps, by immigrants in the country illegally.
"The idea is to reject them out of hand because they'll be clearly redundant," the Democrat said. "They'll come up with some other ridiculous avenue to use, but hopefully this takes that off the table."
But House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) spokesman Brian Kennedy immediately dismissed the Democrats' new plan, saying, "It's certainly a very clear indication of just how effective Republicans have been in using the motion to recommit to affect legislation."
The procedural motion is one of the few options available to the minority party that allows it to offer legislative alternatives when a bill reaches the House floor, and it is used immediately before a final vote on legislation takes place.
During the first half of the 110th Congress, the Republican minority has offered numerous motions - winning on 11 to date - that present difficult political decisions for Democrats, particularly the large number of freshman lawmakers in competitive districts.
The National Republican Congressional Committee also targeted five Democratic freshmen in their districts Wednesday over the controversial August vote, more than six weeks after the incident. In press releases, the NRCC accused Democratic Reps. Jerry McNerney (Calif.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Zack Space (Ohio), Harry Mitchell (Ariz.) and Nick Lampson (Texas) of helping to steal "a vote in the dead of night," citing the lawmakers' decision to change their votes and oppose the Republican procedural measure after initially voting in favor of it.
During the vote, three Florida GOP lawmakers, Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Lincoln Diaz-Balart and Mario Diaz-Balart, similarly switched their ballots to support the measure.
House Democrats have thus far opted against issuing a blanket edict to rank-and-file Members to oppose the Republican motions, instead instructing lawmakers in April to object only to "killer" amendments that would shelve legislation.
Despite the failure of nearly 20 Democrats to initially abide by those guidelines in early August - prompting some of the last-minute vote changes that contributed to the apparent disagreement on the House floor - Clyburn indicated that Democrats have no immediate plans to otherwise change their strategy on such motions.
"I don't think anybody on our side confuses the issue - we know these are procedural issues," he added.
But at his weekly press conference, Hoyer said he would speak with those Democrats who voted in favor of the Republican motion.
"It presented a big problem. We are working on it. I am going to continue to work on it," Hoyer said, and later added: "In terms of the Members, the consequences are [that] I'm going to talk to them."
In the meantime, the new House select committee established to investigate the disputed August vote is expected to soon hold its first meeting, following the appointment of its three Republican members Wednesday.
Republican Reps. Mike Pence (Ind.), Steven LaTourette (Ohio) and Kenny Hulshof (Mo.) will work along with Democratic Reps. Bill Delahunt (Mass.), Artur Davis (Ala.) and Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (S.D.). No meeting date was set Wednesday, but the committee is required to file an interim report Sept. 30, with a final report due in mid-September 2008.
"I'm confident we're going to be able to put our heads together and follow the facts, be judicious and take an impartial and thorough look at what happened that night," said Pence, the panel's ranking member.
Davis, noting that members of the committee have worked across the aisle, said: "The House voted for the committee and the committee will diligently do its work."
In an attempt to dissuade the Republican minority from offering contentious procedural amendments tied to the hot-button issues such as immigration, Democratic leaders are discussing how to give their lawmakers a vote that would inoculate them against such pressure in the future.
The discussion comes as a new House select committee prepares to investigate an Aug. 2 vote that Republican leaders allege the Democratic majority mishandled, resulting in the defeat of a GOP-authored procedural measure that would have amended the fiscal 2008 Agriculture spending bill by prohibiting illegal immigrants from accessing certain federally funded programs.
House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said he has discussed the issue with House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), and leadership staff from both offices are working on a proposal.
"I'm particularly concerned that these motions to recommit are tinged with a bit of ... let's just say this whole issue of immigration, it's too serious an issue for us to ... have it used as a wedge issue," Clyburn said, and later added: "We ought not be using this very serious issue in this way."
Neither Clyburn nor Hoyer would provide details for any potential proposal, including whether the measure would be new law or a nonbinding resolution.
"We're talking about a lot of options and I don't want to prejudge what options we're going to choose," Hoyer said.
The Maryland lawmaker added that because the Republican amendment at the heart of the August incident would have restated existing law - a point the GOP refutes - Democrats could opt to ask the executive branch to enforce statutes already on the books.
"We may just reiterate the law," Hoyer said. Democrats also have pre-emptively discussed expanding the new effort to other hot-button legislative areas targeted by the GOP.
One Democratic lawmaker, who asked not to be identified, said the plan has been presented to some Members as a blanket measure that would prohibit the use of taxpayer-funded programs, such as food stamps, by immigrants in the country illegally.
"The idea is to reject them out of hand because they'll be clearly redundant," the Democrat said. "They'll come up with some other ridiculous avenue to use, but hopefully this takes that off the table."
But House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) spokesman Brian Kennedy immediately dismissed the Democrats' new plan, saying, "It's certainly a very clear indication of just how effective Republicans have been in using the motion to recommit to affect legislation."
The procedural motion is one of the few options available to the minority party that allows it to offer legislative alternatives when a bill reaches the House floor, and it is used immediately before a final vote on legislation takes place.
During the first half of the 110th Congress, the Republican minority has offered numerous motions - winning on 11 to date - that present difficult political decisions for Democrats, particularly the large number of freshman lawmakers in competitive districts.
The National Republican Congressional Committee also targeted five Democratic freshmen in their districts Wednesday over the controversial August vote, more than six weeks after the incident. In press releases, the NRCC accused Democratic Reps. Jerry McNerney (Calif.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Zack Space (Ohio), Harry Mitchell (Ariz.) and Nick Lampson (Texas) of helping to steal "a vote in the dead of night," citing the lawmakers' decision to change their votes and oppose the Republican procedural measure after initially voting in favor of it.
During the vote, three Florida GOP lawmakers, Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Lincoln Diaz-Balart and Mario Diaz-Balart, similarly switched their ballots to support the measure.
House Democrats have thus far opted against issuing a blanket edict to rank-and-file Members to oppose the Republican motions, instead instructing lawmakers in April to object only to "killer" amendments that would shelve legislation.
Despite the failure of nearly 20 Democrats to initially abide by those guidelines in early August - prompting some of the last-minute vote changes that contributed to the apparent disagreement on the House floor - Clyburn indicated that Democrats have no immediate plans to otherwise change their strategy on such motions.
"I don't think anybody on our side confuses the issue - we know these are procedural issues," he added.
But at his weekly press conference, Hoyer said he would speak with those Democrats who voted in favor of the Republican motion.
"It presented a big problem. We are working on it. I am going to continue to work on it," Hoyer said, and later added: "In terms of the Members, the consequences are [that] I'm going to talk to them."
In the meantime, the new House select committee established to investigate the disputed August vote is expected to soon hold its first meeting, following the appointment of its three Republican members Wednesday.
Republican Reps. Mike Pence (Ind.), Steven LaTourette (Ohio) and Kenny Hulshof (Mo.) will work along with Democratic Reps. Bill Delahunt (Mass.), Artur Davis (Ala.) and Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (S.D.). No meeting date was set Wednesday, but the committee is required to file an interim report Sept. 30, with a final report due in mid-September 2008.
"I'm confident we're going to be able to put our heads together and follow the facts, be judicious and take an impartial and thorough look at what happened that night," said Pence, the panel's ranking member.
Davis, noting that members of the committee have worked across the aisle, said: "The House voted for the committee and the committee will diligently do its work."
girlfriend Julia Roberts
Blog Feeds
06-24 01:20 PM
Immigration Lawyers Blog Has Just Posted the Following:
On April 15, 2010, the Department of Homeland Security issued the USCIS �Annual Report on Characteristics of Specialty Occupation Workers (H-1B) for Fiscal Year 2009.� The summary reports on information including the countries of origin, occupations, education levels, and compensation paid to those who had approved H-1B petitions in FY 2009. The report includes the following facts: approximately 48 percent of all H-1B approved workers were born in India; 41 percent were for workers in computer-related occupations; and 41 percent were for workers with a bachelor�s degree and 40 percent had a master�s degree. To view the annual report, see http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Resources/Reports%20and%20Studies/H-1B/h1b-fy-09-characteristics.pdf.
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ImmigrationLawyersBlog/~4/NFGPaxGwc6c
More... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ImmigrationLawyersBlog/~3/NFGPaxGwc6c/uscis_annual_report_on_h-1b_workers.html)
On April 15, 2010, the Department of Homeland Security issued the USCIS �Annual Report on Characteristics of Specialty Occupation Workers (H-1B) for Fiscal Year 2009.� The summary reports on information including the countries of origin, occupations, education levels, and compensation paid to those who had approved H-1B petitions in FY 2009. The report includes the following facts: approximately 48 percent of all H-1B approved workers were born in India; 41 percent were for workers in computer-related occupations; and 41 percent were for workers with a bachelor�s degree and 40 percent had a master�s degree. To view the annual report, see http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Resources/Reports%20and%20Studies/H-1B/h1b-fy-09-characteristics.pdf.
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ImmigrationLawyersBlog/~4/NFGPaxGwc6c
More... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ImmigrationLawyersBlog/~3/NFGPaxGwc6c/uscis_annual_report_on_h-1b_workers.html)
hairstyles Julia Roberts
kisana
06-09 08:51 AM
Any help is highly appriciated.
issue08
04-20 09:18 AM
what if the non protonc is also denied. My case is also the same, applied non protonc but that got also denied.
crystal
01-30 11:22 AM
any idea?
No comments:
Post a Comment