gc_lover
06-20 12:24 PM
Hi gc_lover,
Did u get this information from your attorney? My attorney has a different view and tells me we cannot proceed without the actual papers of certification from PBEC.
Also can u check for me what is required if we do not have the certification papers from DOL(like a print out of CERTIFIED status from DOL website) to file
for 140/485. I will try to pursue with my attorney if I get this info.
Thanks.
Case Details
TR PBEC Priority Date : 03/2003 Stauts : CERTIFIED since last week
Waiting for Certification docs. to file 140/485.
Hello,
I got this from immigration-law.com website
=======================================
06/05/2007: I-140 Petitions Ineligible for Premium Processing
Under the regulation, the USCIS is authorized to suspend certain types of I-140 petitions for the premium processing on its website notice. As of now, the following I-140 petitions are not eligible for the premium processing:
1. A second filing of a Form I-140 petition while an initial Form I-140 remains pending;
2. Labor Certification substitution requests; and
3. Duplicate Labor Certification requests (i.e., cases filed without an original labor certification from the Department of labor).
It appears that the third category includes any I-140 petitions filed without the original labor certification regardless of whether they should obtain a duplicate labor certification from the DOL. It also appears that they refuse to process on the premium processing basis the I-140 petitions to request the priority date transfer unless the original labor certification application is filed with the request.
===============================================
You can apply for 140/485 but you cannot go for premium processing. I also know a case who has done this. You do not need any extra documents to file without LC. My lawyer had confirmed this thing. However, I am planning to send print out of website and email I have from BEC.
Yes, you can file without actual LC papers, so don't wait!
Did u get this information from your attorney? My attorney has a different view and tells me we cannot proceed without the actual papers of certification from PBEC.
Also can u check for me what is required if we do not have the certification papers from DOL(like a print out of CERTIFIED status from DOL website) to file
for 140/485. I will try to pursue with my attorney if I get this info.
Thanks.
Case Details
TR PBEC Priority Date : 03/2003 Stauts : CERTIFIED since last week
Waiting for Certification docs. to file 140/485.
Hello,
I got this from immigration-law.com website
=======================================
06/05/2007: I-140 Petitions Ineligible for Premium Processing
Under the regulation, the USCIS is authorized to suspend certain types of I-140 petitions for the premium processing on its website notice. As of now, the following I-140 petitions are not eligible for the premium processing:
1. A second filing of a Form I-140 petition while an initial Form I-140 remains pending;
2. Labor Certification substitution requests; and
3. Duplicate Labor Certification requests (i.e., cases filed without an original labor certification from the Department of labor).
It appears that the third category includes any I-140 petitions filed without the original labor certification regardless of whether they should obtain a duplicate labor certification from the DOL. It also appears that they refuse to process on the premium processing basis the I-140 petitions to request the priority date transfer unless the original labor certification application is filed with the request.
===============================================
You can apply for 140/485 but you cannot go for premium processing. I also know a case who has done this. You do not need any extra documents to file without LC. My lawyer had confirmed this thing. However, I am planning to send print out of website and email I have from BEC.
Yes, you can file without actual LC papers, so don't wait!
wallpaper Kendall Jenner, who is a
ram04
02-03 06:14 PM
Infopass confirmed approved and I got it by mail after 30 days.
After on line status change it is 14 days.
After on line status change it is 14 days.
H1B-GC
06-29 03:13 PM
Talk to your own Health Insurance Company that your Company is Providing and ask for a quote.Even better is through your HR.Ask them to contact the company for adding your Wife. It shouldn't be too difficult i guess.
2011 kendall-jenner
chanduv23
10-09 08:04 PM
Wow we have
TexanMom and now Amma - two moms trying to reqruit all the highly skilled cry babies of Texas to join the group.
We are with Moms :)
TexanMom and now Amma - two moms trying to reqruit all the highly skilled cry babies of Texas to join the group.
We are with Moms :)
more...
Libra
08-15 01:26 PM
Thank you nrakkati, i hope your signature and your no. of posts inspire many in this organization.
Sure...Just contributed $100, will do more in coming months.
Sure...Just contributed $100, will do more in coming months.
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
more...
paskal
07-20 08:33 PM
a link that says 485 filing needs tax returns.
please see the official instructions with the 485 form and note what is actually asked for- it's not much- and no W2 or tax returns are mentioned.
please see the official instructions with the 485 form and note what is actually asked for- it's not much- and no W2 or tax returns are mentioned.
2010 Courtesy Forever 21
eb3retro
08-31 01:14 PM
Before voting, I saw the poll results, it said total number of votes = 9345. Then I voted "yes". The total no of votes still stands at 9345.
try voting no, and it will increase by 500 votes.:D:D:D
try voting no, and it will increase by 500 votes.:D:D:D
more...
backtoschool
12-28 08:10 AM
All the gurus on this forum,
I have this questions and I have feeling some of you are considering doijng this;;;;
My I-140 and 485 was concurrently filed in Dec2002. I-140 got approved. 485 is pending.
As i decided that this GC process should not hold me captive i went ahead made plans for my MBA education. Now I have an admission from europe for classes starting 2007.
IF my employer gives me Pesonal Leave of Abscene for one year....without pay
can I take off for studies without impacting the GCprocess?
Since I will be moving out of my residenec should I inform the INS of a new address friends) so that they can send EAD/AP etc..
I would love to connect to anyone who is similar situation......
PLEASE respond
:(
I have this questions and I have feeling some of you are considering doijng this;;;;
My I-140 and 485 was concurrently filed in Dec2002. I-140 got approved. 485 is pending.
As i decided that this GC process should not hold me captive i went ahead made plans for my MBA education. Now I have an admission from europe for classes starting 2007.
IF my employer gives me Pesonal Leave of Abscene for one year....without pay
can I take off for studies without impacting the GCprocess?
Since I will be moving out of my residenec should I inform the INS of a new address friends) so that they can send EAD/AP etc..
I would love to connect to anyone who is similar situation......
PLEASE respond
:(
hair kendall jenner forever 21.
abandookwala63
10-26 04:53 PM
Hi ,
Cna someone give me the customer Servcie #s to call For TSC
Are they by service center?
Wat is Second Level Support and what is the # to call them?
Tel # 1-8003755283 and then press # 1-2-2-6-2-2-1
Cna someone give me the customer Servcie #s to call For TSC
Are they by service center?
Wat is Second Level Support and what is the # to call them?
Tel # 1-8003755283 and then press # 1-2-2-6-2-2-1
more...
andy garcia
03-17 08:18 AM
My I-485 Receipt Notice does not have any PD on it either.
ALl I-485, repeat ALL do not have PD date on it. Only the I-140 approval notices have a date filled in.
ALl I-485, repeat ALL do not have PD date on it. Only the I-140 approval notices have a date filled in.
hot Kendall Jenner fue
fromnaija
07-20 11:24 AM
File for her as CP. Whenever she is ready to move here have her get an H4 visa and then change CP to AOS when she gets here.
Caveat: I am not an attorney so ask your lawyer if this is a feasible option.
Caveat: I am not an attorney so ask your lawyer if this is a feasible option.
more...
house kendall jenner forever 21. 15-year-old Kendall Jenner
shishya
09-02 11:13 AM
When i called last time when my wife EAD got approved, they told me the address on the application. So they should know.
Did you get Soft LUD after you filed change of address? If yes, then it's probably updated.
I did not get any soft LUD. Will all the updates happening, folks getting second FP, I wanted to make sure my case is not getting delayed due to some mistake either on their or my part. If nothing else, upon changing the address using online means, USCIS should have sent me a notice in mail at my new address to confirm the change, which I did not get. Hence the query.
Did you get Soft LUD after you filed change of address? If yes, then it's probably updated.
I did not get any soft LUD. Will all the updates happening, folks getting second FP, I wanted to make sure my case is not getting delayed due to some mistake either on their or my part. If nothing else, upon changing the address using online means, USCIS should have sent me a notice in mail at my new address to confirm the change, which I did not get. Hence the query.
tattoo kendall jenner forever 21
smidreb
07-30 01:13 PM
Hi all,
One of my friend is separated (not divorced) from her husband.
can she file 485 by herself. Does she needs anything latest doc from her husband. She does have all the copies of his documents.
She is thinking she can work if she gets EAD. She does not have anybody here are back home except her mom. Please suggest a solution
One of my friend is separated (not divorced) from her husband.
can she file 485 by herself. Does she needs anything latest doc from her husband. She does have all the copies of his documents.
She is thinking she can work if she gets EAD. She does not have anybody here are back home except her mom. Please suggest a solution
more...
pictures kendall jenner forever 21.
pointlesswait
02-13 01:10 PM
> American Dream or Pipe Dream!!!
;-)
;-)
dresses Kylie Jenner
whattodo
07-27 02:01 PM
If NSC had put all applications from July 2nd to July 17th on hold.
Did they open and timestamp it ? for received date ??????
If they did not , then I may be lucky.
Because my package had signatures and all other dates of June 29th . The day when we were planning to ship the package, but for july fiasco.
Do you guys think ? they might see this and enter it as received date ?
How stupid a person has to be to even ask a question like this???
Did they open and timestamp it ? for received date ??????
If they did not , then I may be lucky.
Because my package had signatures and all other dates of June 29th . The day when we were planning to ship the package, but for july fiasco.
Do you guys think ? they might see this and enter it as received date ?
How stupid a person has to be to even ask a question like this???
more...
makeup Forever 21
ivgclive
04-13 04:56 PM
It is not a joke.
It happens to one guy last week.
My friend knows it for SURE.
He is working for a software company and that was the first time he traveled to US on a H1B visa.
As soon as he landed in JFK, the immigration officers (4 of them) went to him and gave him "Green Card".
No PERM :rolleyes:, No I-140 :rolleyes: and No-I-485 :rolleyes:.
How is that?
PS: On the same day they ordered "Expedited Removal and 50 Years Bar" and sent him back. He left US happy with his "Green Card".
It happens to one guy last week.
My friend knows it for SURE.
He is working for a software company and that was the first time he traveled to US on a H1B visa.
As soon as he landed in JFK, the immigration officers (4 of them) went to him and gave him "Green Card".
No PERM :rolleyes:, No I-140 :rolleyes: and No-I-485 :rolleyes:.
How is that?
PS: On the same day they ordered "Expedited Removal and 50 Years Bar" and sent him back. He left US happy with his "Green Card".
girlfriend A jan series of forever and
dassumi
12-23 03:00 PM
You can use your AP with no issues. That's the exact intent of that document.
Hi Guys,
My wife was on a H1B visa with a company until June 2010. She is no longer working and her Her H1B visa is now expired.
I am in the final stage of my green card process and we have both EAD and Advance parole. Since we have valid EADs and Advance Parole documents, we didn�t bother to pursue a H4 dependent visa for her. We are planning to go to Thailand next week for a 10 day vacation. I just want to confirm that she will be able to come back into the US with her Advance Parole document which is valid until June 2011.
I would really appreciate your quick response since we are looking to purchase tickets in the next couple hours.
Thanks and have a great weekend,
Hi Guys,
My wife was on a H1B visa with a company until June 2010. She is no longer working and her Her H1B visa is now expired.
I am in the final stage of my green card process and we have both EAD and Advance parole. Since we have valid EADs and Advance Parole documents, we didn�t bother to pursue a H4 dependent visa for her. We are planning to go to Thailand next week for a 10 day vacation. I just want to confirm that she will be able to come back into the US with her Advance Parole document which is valid until June 2011.
I would really appreciate your quick response since we are looking to purchase tickets in the next couple hours.
Thanks and have a great weekend,
hairstyles Courtesy Forever 21
jazzy2
05-25 08:50 AM
Hi
directly spoke with the staff of Sen. larry craig....
directly spoke with the staff of Sen. larry craig....
ayazali17
12-18 01:25 PM
Hello i am new to this forum, i am looking for some answers involving stock trading? My question is: Can i invest in stocks, mutual fund, etc. while having only a EAD(work Permit)? Do i need get permission from IRS? What do i need to do invest legally? I was thinking of investing with Scottrader.
Thanks in advance for all the replies.
Thanks in advance for all the replies.
gc28262
12-19 12:03 PM
Not before you give yours back. you are a temp anyways. you don't even have to surrender your gc.
Practice what you preach.
BTW myself and majority of members on this forum hasn't replaced any American worker.
Practice what you preach.
BTW myself and majority of members on this forum hasn't replaced any American worker.
No comments:
Post a Comment