VivekAhuja
11-25 11:27 PM
CIR must be defeated. It has no benefits for legal immigrants but only for illegal immigrants. Worksite enforcement must be increased to make it impossible for illegal immigrants to make a living in the USA. If not, USA will become like Mexico and USA will lose it's magnet for attracting the world's best!
The economic basis for CIR is stupid. Illegals can still pay taxes using a TIN number. Most illegals make minimum wage - some might not even fall under the preview of the US tax law.
CIR is only a way for hispanic politicians to gain ground in the US. 90% of US problems are because of illegal immigration. Imagine if we have 15 million illegals legal - now, they are no longer doing jobs tha Americans want to do but they feel (and are probably going get fast track) like they are American citizens and demand non-farm American jobs. The whole cycle is stupid.
The economic basis for CIR is stupid. Illegals can still pay taxes using a TIN number. Most illegals make minimum wage - some might not even fall under the preview of the US tax law.
CIR is only a way for hispanic politicians to gain ground in the US. 90% of US problems are because of illegal immigration. Imagine if we have 15 million illegals legal - now, they are no longer doing jobs tha Americans want to do but they feel (and are probably going get fast track) like they are American citizens and demand non-farm American jobs. The whole cycle is stupid.
wallpaper justin bieber album cover.
Redeye
12-19 08:26 PM
Abhjitp thanks for your reply.
mk26
03-31 03:29 PM
Thanks all for your help and great inputs. IV has helped me a lot.
I wish you all the best ...
TKs, GG
Hey Congrats..!! don't forget to login IV and let us know the life with GC
I wish you all the best ...
TKs, GG
Hey Congrats..!! don't forget to login IV and let us know the life with GC
2011 hot 2011 Justin Bieber#39;s “My justin bieber album my world 20. justin
msyedy
12-13 01:29 PM
I like your thoughts
I would want a faster GC for many things
a) Spouse can work in any field. People can be talented in many other skills but cannot work because of EAD factor.
b) I can go out of country any time. There are lot of checks at embassy and I am with them that they need to check all about me or anyone, but it takes months to get clearance and I cannot leave my job. Nor the job would keep me with 4 month vacation .Many of my friends have gone through this.
my two cents
I would want a faster GC for many things
a) Spouse can work in any field. People can be talented in many other skills but cannot work because of EAD factor.
b) I can go out of country any time. There are lot of checks at embassy and I am with them that they need to check all about me or anyone, but it takes months to get clearance and I cannot leave my job. Nor the job would keep me with 4 month vacation .Many of my friends have gone through this.
my two cents
more...
yetanotherguyinline
01-18 01:48 PM
Great initiative Gopal :)
americandesi
12-12 06:27 PM
Now that dates for EB2 have moved to Jan 2000 PD, it might be interesting to see if we have folks in here with EB2 PD in or before Jan 2000.
I know a friend whose EB2-PD was in 2000. Guess what? He's a US citizen now :)
I know a friend whose EB2-PD was in 2000. Guess what? He's a US citizen now :)
more...
glus
05-31 09:00 AM
Guys,
Pappu just posted an important message here: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=72997#post72997
Please read and contribute now, as it is a critical time for us.
Pappu just posted an important message here: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=72997#post72997
Please read and contribute now, as it is a critical time for us.
2010 justin bieber world tour
dpp
10-27 12:16 PM
See you Saturday, please see the previous reply to USIRIT as I suggest we meet outside.
I have searched for US 31 and 146st intersection for 1 1/2 hours, it is very confusing. Actually, there is no 146st and US 31 intersection as such. It is actually Greyshound pass and 146 st intersection. Finally i went to one Starbucks at 11:45, but nobody was there. Also there are so many Starbucks in and around that area. Please post the exact location with address next time onwards.
I have searched for US 31 and 146st intersection for 1 1/2 hours, it is very confusing. Actually, there is no 146st and US 31 intersection as such. It is actually Greyshound pass and 146 st intersection. Finally i went to one Starbucks at 11:45, but nobody was there. Also there are so many Starbucks in and around that area. Please post the exact location with address next time onwards.
more...
ak27
06-17 02:59 PM
I have been to Infopass at least four times in last two years. It depends on service rep on the window. Some of them are very cooperative and will try to answer most of your questions but others may not answer anything. I has an appointment yesterday to figure out about Background check which has been pending for last six months. Service rep on window only told me that it is still pending, she won't say when was it ordered which part of it is pending.. I tried to impress upon her but, she got up and walk away. It was such a waste of my time...
It is pure luck.. Couple of times, I got a rep who had helped me with AP stuff...
It is pure luck.. Couple of times, I got a rep who had helped me with AP stuff...
hair Justin Bieber Manchester World
sundar99
05-01 01:39 PM
Does - Emergency Appoinment include - people already working in US ? are you sure ?
more...
chvramana
04-23 01:57 PM
I�m in EB2 and My I-140 was approved September 2008 through Employer A. My priority date is March 2008. I moved to Employer B. My old Employer A will not revoke my I-140. He is ready to hire me again, If I want to go back. I am completing 5 years in January 2011.
It would be great if I get answer the below my Question:
1. Do I need to go back to my old employer A to apply my I-485. If yes is there any specific time period to go back to my old employer A.
2. If I stay with my current Employer B. will I get 6th extension and will my old priority date will be considered with new processs.
3. which one is best choice, like staying with employer B or going back to Employer A.
Thanks for your help.
Ram
It would be great if I get answer the below my Question:
1. Do I need to go back to my old employer A to apply my I-485. If yes is there any specific time period to go back to my old employer A.
2. If I stay with my current Employer B. will I get 6th extension and will my old priority date will be considered with new processs.
3. which one is best choice, like staying with employer B or going back to Employer A.
Thanks for your help.
Ram
hot album justin bieber my world
manishcp
12-28 10:05 AM
I am still waiting.
EB-3 India, LC: Dec 2003
I-140, Rec. date: Dec 27, 2006
EB-3 India, LC: Dec 2003
I-140, Rec. date: Dec 27, 2006
more...
house Justin Bieber My World Tour
tikka
05-31 02:32 PM
Contributed $350 so far. Will contribute another $100 today.
Awesome!!
Thank you !
Awesome!!
Thank you !
tattoo Justin Bieber My World Album
alkg
08-13 08:41 PM
see the paragraph in bold letters.................
Greenspan Sees Bottom
In Housing, Criticizes Bailout
August 14, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Alan Greenspan usually surrounds his opinions with caveats and convoluted clauses. But ask his view of the government's response to problems confronting mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and he offers one word: "Bad."
In a conversation this week, the former Federal Reserve chairman also said he expects that U.S. house prices, a key factor in the outlook for the economy and financial markets, will begin to stabilize in the first half of next year.
"Home prices in the U.S. are likely to start to stabilize or touch bottom sometime in the first half of 2009," he said in an interview. Tracing a jagged curve with his finger on a tabletop to underscore the difficulty in pinpointing the precise trough, he cautioned that even at a bottom, "prices could continue to drift lower through 2009 and beyond."
A long-time student of housing markets, Mr. Greenspan now works out of a well-windowed, oval-shaped office that is evidence of his fascination with the housing market. His desk, couch, coffee table and conference table are strewn with print-outs of spreadsheets and multicolored charts of housing starts, foreclosures and population trends siphoned from government and trade association sources.
An end to the decline in house prices, he explained, matters not only to American homeowners but is "a necessary condition for an end to the current global financial crisis" he said.
"Stable home prices will clarify the level of equity in homes, the ultimate collateral support for much of the financial world's mortgage-backed securities. We won't really know the market value of the asset side of the banking system's balance sheet -- and hence banks' capital -- until then."
At 82 years old, Mr. Greenspan remains sharp and his fascination with the workings of the economy undiminished. But his star no longer shines as brightly as it did when he retired from the Fed in January 2006.
Mr. Greenspan has been criticized for contributing to today's woes by keeping interest rates too low too long and by regulating too lightly. He has been aggressively defending his record -- in interviews, in op-ed pieces and in a new chapter in his recent book, included in the paperback version to be published next month. Mr. Greenspan attributes the rise in house prices to a historically unusual period in which world markets pushed interest rates down and even sophisticated investors misjudged the risks they were taking.
His views remain widely watched, however. Mr. Greenspan's housing forecast rests on two pillars of data. One is the supply of vacant, single-family homes for sale, both newly completed homes and existing homes owned by investors and lenders. He sees that "excess supply" -- roughly 800,000 units above normal -- diminishing soon. The other is a comparison of the current price of houses -- he prefers the quarterly S&P Case Shiller National Home Price Index because it includes both urban and rural areas -- with the government's estimate of what it costs to rent a single-family house. As other economists do, Mr. Greenspan essentially seeks to gauge when it is rational to own a house and when it is rational to sell the house, invest the money elsewhere and rent an identical house next door.
"It's the imbalance of supply and demand which causes prices to go down, but it's ultimately the valuation process of the use of the commodity...which tells you where the bottom is," Mr. Greenspan said, recalling his days trading copper a half century ago. "For example, the grain markets can have a huge excess of corn or wheat, but the price never goes to zero. It'll stabilize at some level of prices where people are willing to hold the excess inventory. We have little history, but the same thing is surely true in housing as well. We will get to the point where there will be willing holders of vacant single-family dwellings, and that will no longer act to depress the price level."
The collapse in home prices, of course, is a major threat to the stability of Fannie and Freddie. At the Fed, Mr. Greenspan warned for years that the two mortgage giants' business model threatened the nation's financial stability. He acknowledges that a government backstop for the shareholder-owned, government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs, was unavoidable. Not only are they crucial to the ailing mortgage market now, but the Fed-financed takeover of investment bank Bear Stearns Cos. also made government backing of Fannie and Freddie debt "inevitable," he said. "There's no credible argument for bailing out Bear Stearns and not the GSEs."
His quarrel is with the approach the Bush administration sold to Congress. "They should have wiped out the shareholders, nationalized the institutions with legislation that they are to be reconstituted -- with necessary taxpayer support to make them financially viable -- as five or 10 individual privately held units," which the government would eventually auction off to private investors, he said.
Instead, Congress granted Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson temporary authority to use an unlimited amount of taxpayer money to lend to or invest in the companies. In response to the Greenspan critique, Mr. Paulson's spokeswoman, Michele Davis, said, "This legislation accomplished two important goals -- providing confidence in the immediate term as these institutions play a critical role in weathering the housing correction, and putting in place a new regulator with all the authorities necessary to address systemic risk posed by the GSEs."
But a similar critique has been raised by several other prominent observers. "If they are too big to fail, make them smaller," former Nixon Treasury Secretary George Shultz said. Some say the Paulson approach, even if the government never spends a nickel, entrenches current management and offers shareholders the upside if the government's reassurance allows the companies to weather the current storm. The Treasury hasn't said what conditions it would impose if it offers Fannie and Freddie taxpayer money.
Fear that financial markets would react poorly if the U.S. government nationalized the companies and assumed their approximately $5 trillion debt is unfounded, Mr. Greenspan said. "The law that stipulates that GSEs are not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government is disbelieved. The market believes the government guarantee is there. Foreigners believe the guarantee is there. The only fiscal change is for someone to change the bookkeeping."
In the past, to be sure, Mr. Greenspan's crystal ball has been cloudy. He didn't foresee the sharp national decline in home prices. Recently released transcripts of Fed meetings do record him warning in November 2002: "It's hard to escape the conclusion that at some point our extraordinary housing boom...cannot continue indefinitely into the future."
Publicly, he was more reassuring. "While local economies may experience significant speculative price imbalances, a national severe price distortion seems most unlikely in the United States, given its size and diversity," he said in October 2004. Eight months later, he said if home prices did decline, that "likely would not have substantial macroeconomic implications." And in a speech in October 2006, nine months after leaving the Fed, he told an audience that, though housing prices were likely to be lower than the year before, "I think the worst of this may well be over." Housing prices, by his preferred gauge, have fallen nearly 19% since then. He says he was referring not to prices but to the downward drag on economic growth from weakening housing construction.
Mr. Greenspan urges the government to avoid tax or other policies that increase the construction of new homes because that would delay the much-desired day when home prices find a bottom.
He did offer one suggestion: "The most effective initiative, though politically difficult, would be a major expansion in quotas for skilled immigrants," he said. The only sustainable way to increase demand for vacant houses is to spur the formation of new households. Admitting more skilled immigrants, who tend to earn enough to buy homes, would accomplish that while paying other dividends to the U.S. economy.
He estimates the number of new households in the U.S. currently is increasing at an annual rate of about 800,000, of whom about one third are immigrants. "Perhaps 150,000 of those are loosely classified as skilled," he said. "A double or tripling of this number would markedly accelerate the absorption of unsold housing inventory for sale -- and hence help stabilize prices."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121865515167837815.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news
Greenspan Sees Bottom
In Housing, Criticizes Bailout
August 14, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Alan Greenspan usually surrounds his opinions with caveats and convoluted clauses. But ask his view of the government's response to problems confronting mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and he offers one word: "Bad."
In a conversation this week, the former Federal Reserve chairman also said he expects that U.S. house prices, a key factor in the outlook for the economy and financial markets, will begin to stabilize in the first half of next year.
"Home prices in the U.S. are likely to start to stabilize or touch bottom sometime in the first half of 2009," he said in an interview. Tracing a jagged curve with his finger on a tabletop to underscore the difficulty in pinpointing the precise trough, he cautioned that even at a bottom, "prices could continue to drift lower through 2009 and beyond."
A long-time student of housing markets, Mr. Greenspan now works out of a well-windowed, oval-shaped office that is evidence of his fascination with the housing market. His desk, couch, coffee table and conference table are strewn with print-outs of spreadsheets and multicolored charts of housing starts, foreclosures and population trends siphoned from government and trade association sources.
An end to the decline in house prices, he explained, matters not only to American homeowners but is "a necessary condition for an end to the current global financial crisis" he said.
"Stable home prices will clarify the level of equity in homes, the ultimate collateral support for much of the financial world's mortgage-backed securities. We won't really know the market value of the asset side of the banking system's balance sheet -- and hence banks' capital -- until then."
At 82 years old, Mr. Greenspan remains sharp and his fascination with the workings of the economy undiminished. But his star no longer shines as brightly as it did when he retired from the Fed in January 2006.
Mr. Greenspan has been criticized for contributing to today's woes by keeping interest rates too low too long and by regulating too lightly. He has been aggressively defending his record -- in interviews, in op-ed pieces and in a new chapter in his recent book, included in the paperback version to be published next month. Mr. Greenspan attributes the rise in house prices to a historically unusual period in which world markets pushed interest rates down and even sophisticated investors misjudged the risks they were taking.
His views remain widely watched, however. Mr. Greenspan's housing forecast rests on two pillars of data. One is the supply of vacant, single-family homes for sale, both newly completed homes and existing homes owned by investors and lenders. He sees that "excess supply" -- roughly 800,000 units above normal -- diminishing soon. The other is a comparison of the current price of houses -- he prefers the quarterly S&P Case Shiller National Home Price Index because it includes both urban and rural areas -- with the government's estimate of what it costs to rent a single-family house. As other economists do, Mr. Greenspan essentially seeks to gauge when it is rational to own a house and when it is rational to sell the house, invest the money elsewhere and rent an identical house next door.
"It's the imbalance of supply and demand which causes prices to go down, but it's ultimately the valuation process of the use of the commodity...which tells you where the bottom is," Mr. Greenspan said, recalling his days trading copper a half century ago. "For example, the grain markets can have a huge excess of corn or wheat, but the price never goes to zero. It'll stabilize at some level of prices where people are willing to hold the excess inventory. We have little history, but the same thing is surely true in housing as well. We will get to the point where there will be willing holders of vacant single-family dwellings, and that will no longer act to depress the price level."
The collapse in home prices, of course, is a major threat to the stability of Fannie and Freddie. At the Fed, Mr. Greenspan warned for years that the two mortgage giants' business model threatened the nation's financial stability. He acknowledges that a government backstop for the shareholder-owned, government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs, was unavoidable. Not only are they crucial to the ailing mortgage market now, but the Fed-financed takeover of investment bank Bear Stearns Cos. also made government backing of Fannie and Freddie debt "inevitable," he said. "There's no credible argument for bailing out Bear Stearns and not the GSEs."
His quarrel is with the approach the Bush administration sold to Congress. "They should have wiped out the shareholders, nationalized the institutions with legislation that they are to be reconstituted -- with necessary taxpayer support to make them financially viable -- as five or 10 individual privately held units," which the government would eventually auction off to private investors, he said.
Instead, Congress granted Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson temporary authority to use an unlimited amount of taxpayer money to lend to or invest in the companies. In response to the Greenspan critique, Mr. Paulson's spokeswoman, Michele Davis, said, "This legislation accomplished two important goals -- providing confidence in the immediate term as these institutions play a critical role in weathering the housing correction, and putting in place a new regulator with all the authorities necessary to address systemic risk posed by the GSEs."
But a similar critique has been raised by several other prominent observers. "If they are too big to fail, make them smaller," former Nixon Treasury Secretary George Shultz said. Some say the Paulson approach, even if the government never spends a nickel, entrenches current management and offers shareholders the upside if the government's reassurance allows the companies to weather the current storm. The Treasury hasn't said what conditions it would impose if it offers Fannie and Freddie taxpayer money.
Fear that financial markets would react poorly if the U.S. government nationalized the companies and assumed their approximately $5 trillion debt is unfounded, Mr. Greenspan said. "The law that stipulates that GSEs are not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government is disbelieved. The market believes the government guarantee is there. Foreigners believe the guarantee is there. The only fiscal change is for someone to change the bookkeeping."
In the past, to be sure, Mr. Greenspan's crystal ball has been cloudy. He didn't foresee the sharp national decline in home prices. Recently released transcripts of Fed meetings do record him warning in November 2002: "It's hard to escape the conclusion that at some point our extraordinary housing boom...cannot continue indefinitely into the future."
Publicly, he was more reassuring. "While local economies may experience significant speculative price imbalances, a national severe price distortion seems most unlikely in the United States, given its size and diversity," he said in October 2004. Eight months later, he said if home prices did decline, that "likely would not have substantial macroeconomic implications." And in a speech in October 2006, nine months after leaving the Fed, he told an audience that, though housing prices were likely to be lower than the year before, "I think the worst of this may well be over." Housing prices, by his preferred gauge, have fallen nearly 19% since then. He says he was referring not to prices but to the downward drag on economic growth from weakening housing construction.
Mr. Greenspan urges the government to avoid tax or other policies that increase the construction of new homes because that would delay the much-desired day when home prices find a bottom.
He did offer one suggestion: "The most effective initiative, though politically difficult, would be a major expansion in quotas for skilled immigrants," he said. The only sustainable way to increase demand for vacant houses is to spur the formation of new households. Admitting more skilled immigrants, who tend to earn enough to buy homes, would accomplish that while paying other dividends to the U.S. economy.
He estimates the number of new households in the U.S. currently is increasing at an annual rate of about 800,000, of whom about one third are immigrants. "Perhaps 150,000 of those are loosely classified as skilled," he said. "A double or tripling of this number would markedly accelerate the absorption of unsold housing inventory for sale -- and hence help stabilize prices."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121865515167837815.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news
more...
pictures wallpaper justin bieber album
sam_hoosier
12-17 10:53 AM
I have an offer from a great company as a program manager that involves management and coordination of teams. There will be a little programming involved. This is in the software industry
The labor was filed as software engineer whose description says that this was java focussed intense programming position.
I am EB2, india, dec 2003 with more that 180 days and 140 approved, also have my ead and AP done.
I plan to move on EAD. Would this qualify as "same or similar". The industry is the same and the job is similar (it just shows normal career progression)
what do you think?
Have you checked the job codes for the two jobs ? Just given this information, the new role does look similar. However, I would run this by an attorney just to be safe.
The labor was filed as software engineer whose description says that this was java focussed intense programming position.
I am EB2, india, dec 2003 with more that 180 days and 140 approved, also have my ead and AP done.
I plan to move on EAD. Would this qualify as "same or similar". The industry is the same and the job is similar (it just shows normal career progression)
what do you think?
Have you checked the job codes for the two jobs ? Just given this information, the new role does look similar. However, I would run this by an attorney just to be safe.
dresses justin bieber my world 2.0
GotGC??
03-27 12:03 PM
And this "attorney" was actually paid for filing this PERM application?
The educational requirements specified in the PERM may give you some room to wriggle out of this.
I received my Labor Certificate with PERM process. Right now, I can't continue the process for I-140 and I-485. My lawyer just found out that my degree is Master of Business Administration, while the Labor Certificate is based on Master of Science. My current position is Software Engineer.
My questions are:
1. Is there a problem of having an MBA and working as a software engineer? As my understanding, MBA and MSc are the same level.
2. Can I continue the case since I already got my Labor Certificate?
I appreciate your feedback. Thank you.
The educational requirements specified in the PERM may give you some room to wriggle out of this.
I received my Labor Certificate with PERM process. Right now, I can't continue the process for I-140 and I-485. My lawyer just found out that my degree is Master of Business Administration, while the Labor Certificate is based on Master of Science. My current position is Software Engineer.
My questions are:
1. Is there a problem of having an MBA and working as a software engineer? As my understanding, MBA and MSc are the same level.
2. Can I continue the case since I already got my Labor Certificate?
I appreciate your feedback. Thank you.
more...
makeup Singer Justin Bieber arrives
gcwanted101
09-02 08:44 AM
I wanted both Approval notice and Application(ETA-750), please tell me how to make this request?
you can mention what all you need in your application. go to the link (http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/g-639.pdf) and www.uscis.gov/foia (http://www.uscis.gov/foia)
You can find all detail.
you can mention what all you need in your application. go to the link (http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/g-639.pdf) and www.uscis.gov/foia (http://www.uscis.gov/foia)
You can find all detail.
girlfriend Justin Bieber Musician Justin
aarzoo
02-02 06:18 PM
Thanks clockwork
@fromnaija:
Based on the regulation issued by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) that became effective July 16, 2007, a labor certification approved will expire after 180 days, unless an I-140 petition has been filed in the case.
The new rule provides a 180day validity period for approved labor certifications. All permanent labor certifications approved on or after the effective date of July 16, 2007, will expire 180 calendar days after certification, whether the original application was filed under the PERM or prePERM regulations, unless the employer uses the approved labor certification prior to expiration in support of an I140 petition with USCIS. Likewise, all labor certifications approved prior to July 16, 2007 will expire in 180 calendar days, unless filed in support of an I140 petition with USCIS prior to the expiration date. Therefore, all currently approved labor certification applications must be filed in support of an I140 petition by January 11, 2008.
If the above explaination is correct, I should be able to use the same labor.
@fromnaija:
Based on the regulation issued by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) that became effective July 16, 2007, a labor certification approved will expire after 180 days, unless an I-140 petition has been filed in the case.
The new rule provides a 180day validity period for approved labor certifications. All permanent labor certifications approved on or after the effective date of July 16, 2007, will expire 180 calendar days after certification, whether the original application was filed under the PERM or prePERM regulations, unless the employer uses the approved labor certification prior to expiration in support of an I140 petition with USCIS. Likewise, all labor certifications approved prior to July 16, 2007 will expire in 180 calendar days, unless filed in support of an I140 petition with USCIS prior to the expiration date. Therefore, all currently approved labor certification applications must be filed in support of an I140 petition by January 11, 2008.
If the above explaination is correct, I should be able to use the same labor.
hairstyles Justin Bieber Records Song
rameshk75
01-09 02:56 PM
Prediction became a timepass... take my guess.. EB2 may move back to 98 (from the experiences of last two months) !! just kidding....
Nothing to be frustrated as i think everyone got used it by this time !! Keep cool...
PD: EB2-India-Nov'06
Nothing to be frustrated as i think everyone got used it by this time !! Keep cool...
PD: EB2-India-Nov'06
shan74
10-23 07:20 AM
There is a chance that i might get laid off. I have a pending I485 filed on July 2. My I-140 was approved in June 06. Would like to know if i get laid off within how many days do i have to find a job.
really need to know this based on the market situation.
really need to know this based on the market situation.
satya1234
03-29 01:05 PM
Thanks for the reply. Yes H1 extension has been applied before I94 expires.
But by the time H1 transfer applies, I94 got expired.
Please let me know if you need any futher information.
But by the time H1 transfer applies, I94 got expired.
Please let me know if you need any futher information.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario