desi485
10-11 01:26 PM
If spouse uses EAD for employment, what I heard is that the H4 status is no more valid.
In this case for any reason, if the 485 is cancelled, spouse will be out of status.
Primary can transfer h1b (if possible) & still be legal, but spouse is illegal to stay any more. There is no legal provision that once on EAD, spouse can switch back to H4. Is this true? I am worried and don't know whats really true.
Gurus Please guide.:confused:
In this case for any reason, if the 485 is cancelled, spouse will be out of status.
Primary can transfer h1b (if possible) & still be legal, but spouse is illegal to stay any more. There is no legal provision that once on EAD, spouse can switch back to H4. Is this true? I am worried and don't know whats really true.
Gurus Please guide.:confused:
wallpaper en el 112 de Ocean Avenue,
salai007
07-17 06:09 PM
Thanks to Rep Lofgren.
I will be sending a Thank card to her soon.
I will be sending a Thank card to her soon.
Steve Mitchell
March 28th, 2004, 11:33 PM
I am sooo happy I'm almost always on the other side of the lens. Caught me with a mouth full of gum as well. I look like I have a broken jaw.
Here was my shot from this evening's game..
Staring off into space, Steve wonders about life, the future, and the outcome of the game.
Here was my shot from this evening's game..
Staring off into space, Steve wonders about life, the future, and the outcome of the game.
2011 (1301 OCEAN AVENUE, SANTA
ras
05-28 01:57 PM
If the fee is reduced then it will have impact on the number of personnel that USCIS can employ which inturn delays the whole application process. So rather with the fee let the USCIS have enough personnel to dispose of the cases.
And of course as mentioned above it is good idea that the attorneys take less fee so the burden is less on the applicant. And may be USCIS could simplify and come up with application procedures such that there is not much of an attorney intervention to comply with the law.
And of course as mentioned above it is good idea that the attorneys take less fee so the burden is less on the applicant. And may be USCIS could simplify and come up with application procedures such that there is not much of an attorney intervention to comply with the law.
more...
saint_2010
08-13 11:26 AM
looks like they will make us wait till 17th and accept/reject case from July 2nd...and most of the rejected cases might not be eligible to refile :mad:...this is my guess!
jyothu
07-18 04:19 AM
The only way he can get more H1B is by staying out for 1 year, especially since he is already in India. In order to take advantage of the 485 filing, he MUST be on a legal status in the U.S. His legal status does include being your dependent, i.e L2 or H4 (if you are on H1B). Basically, in order to do that, he has less than a month to obtain a dependent visa and move to the U.S. This would mean that he would have to trade the possibility of getting an H1 with that of receiving an EAD in a few months.
Also note that the H1 visa quota is full for 2007 and 20008 as of now. So, it is not a guarantee that he can get an H1 visa even for next year. Perhaps he could fly here on a dependent visa, not work for a few months until he gets an EAD and then resume his career in the U.S.
In any case, I would strongly urge you to consult an attorney immediately.
Also note that the H1 visa quota is full for 2007 and 20008 as of now. So, it is not a guarantee that he can get an H1 visa even for next year. Perhaps he could fly here on a dependent visa, not work for a few months until he gets an EAD and then resume his career in the U.S.
In any case, I would strongly urge you to consult an attorney immediately.
more...
mavrick
06-03 11:01 AM
That is disappointing. But I guess we don't have a choice.
2010 112 Ocean Avenue,
delhirocks
06-17 04:13 PM
Labor process through PERM can take anywhere from 3 weeks to more than a year (after filing). Most time consuming part is (if you are just initaing the process with your employer) the pre-filing documentation.
If you have a masters or better, and your current job does not REQUIRE a Masters degree, then you might want to ask HR to change/tweak your job profile. If thats an option and they are willing to do it, might take some time, but in the longer run, you will be better off under EB2 than EB3.
You will need letters from all your previous employers, verifying the job discription
Once that is in hand, your company will have to post your job in a newspaper/internal company website/job board and also in a visible place in your company premises for a month (X + 30 days)
After that 30 day period, you wait for any responses for an addidtional 30 days (X+60 days)
After that, your company/HR/Lawyer would need some time to put everything together before filing (X + 70 days)
Bear in mind this is the best case scenario. I started the process in December mid...filed for Labor in 1st week of June.
On your second point (dates being current), Iam very doubtfull that by the time Iam ready to file for 140/485, the dates will be current.
And ofcourse, if this ain't too daunting, THE CIR might put a wrench in your best laid plans, There is a talk about May 15th being the deadline for this process, untill Oct-08 when the new point system comes into play...good luck
If you have a masters or better, and your current job does not REQUIRE a Masters degree, then you might want to ask HR to change/tweak your job profile. If thats an option and they are willing to do it, might take some time, but in the longer run, you will be better off under EB2 than EB3.
You will need letters from all your previous employers, verifying the job discription
Once that is in hand, your company will have to post your job in a newspaper/internal company website/job board and also in a visible place in your company premises for a month (X + 30 days)
After that 30 day period, you wait for any responses for an addidtional 30 days (X+60 days)
After that, your company/HR/Lawyer would need some time to put everything together before filing (X + 70 days)
Bear in mind this is the best case scenario. I started the process in December mid...filed for Labor in 1st week of June.
On your second point (dates being current), Iam very doubtfull that by the time Iam ready to file for 140/485, the dates will be current.
And ofcourse, if this ain't too daunting, THE CIR might put a wrench in your best laid plans, There is a talk about May 15th being the deadline for this process, untill Oct-08 when the new point system comes into play...good luck
more...
BharatPremi
03-12 04:00 PM
I am in ROW, EB2 if they processed the interfiling, EB3 if not, with a PD of Dec 2002, and receipt date of 5 May 2007.
My application was filed with Nebraska Service center, they moved to Texas (with SRC* receipt number), they moved back to Nebraska in October 2007.
Even on EB3 my PD is now current.
When they passed 60 days late according to processing times I raised a service request. They claim that they have 45 days to respond. Their 45 days will be up on Thursday, and I still have no response.
So here is my plan...
On Thursday call again. Raise another service request?
Make an Info pass appointment ? - not sure IO could tell me more in person than over phone.
On Thursday go see Congressman's office.
Come May 2008 (one year since filing I485) if there is still no suitable reply to service request file WOM. Their lack of response to service request should annoy the judge hopefully.
When I last spoke with an IO she thought that the notice date on the transfer notice was the processing date to use (Oct 2007) not the receipt date on it (May 2007). I believe she is plain wrong, and she was silent when I asserted that I believed she was wrong, and that's why the original receipt date is kept on the transfer notice. If someone has a link to the USCIS rule on this it would be helpful.
Any comments please?
Mark,
Being ROW, I do not think your case might have been stuck in Name Check. But it could be the possibility. I would take one more infopas and ask IO regarding name check status. If case is still rotting in name check then fighting strategy would be different, I guess. As far as WOm is concerned, all stories what I have gone through on different immigration boards, most advise to wait for 2 years before thinking about WOM route.. I do not know how far that argument is valid..
My application was filed with Nebraska Service center, they moved to Texas (with SRC* receipt number), they moved back to Nebraska in October 2007.
Even on EB3 my PD is now current.
When they passed 60 days late according to processing times I raised a service request. They claim that they have 45 days to respond. Their 45 days will be up on Thursday, and I still have no response.
So here is my plan...
On Thursday call again. Raise another service request?
Make an Info pass appointment ? - not sure IO could tell me more in person than over phone.
On Thursday go see Congressman's office.
Come May 2008 (one year since filing I485) if there is still no suitable reply to service request file WOM. Their lack of response to service request should annoy the judge hopefully.
When I last spoke with an IO she thought that the notice date on the transfer notice was the processing date to use (Oct 2007) not the receipt date on it (May 2007). I believe she is plain wrong, and she was silent when I asserted that I believed she was wrong, and that's why the original receipt date is kept on the transfer notice. If someone has a link to the USCIS rule on this it would be helpful.
Any comments please?
Mark,
Being ROW, I do not think your case might have been stuck in Name Check. But it could be the possibility. I would take one more infopas and ask IO regarding name check status. If case is still rotting in name check then fighting strategy would be different, I guess. As far as WOm is concerned, all stories what I have gone through on different immigration boards, most advise to wait for 2 years before thinking about WOM route.. I do not know how far that argument is valid..
hair du 112 Ocean avenue : six
drirshad
03-13 04:31 PM
03/13/2009: Senate Bill, S. 577 to Punish Immigration Sharks Defrauding and Victimizing Immigrants and Related Parties
Senate Dianne Feinstine from California, cosponsored by Senator Ted Kennedy, introduced this bill in the Senate yesterday. The full text of the bill is as follows:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Immigration Fraud Prevention Act of 2009''.
SEC. 2. SCHEMES TO DEFRAUD ALIENS.
(a) Amendments to Title 18.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Chapter 47 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:``�1041. Schemes to defraud aliens
``(a) In General.--Any person who willfully and knowingly executes a scheme or artifice, in connection with any matter that is authorized by or arises under Federal immigration laws or any matter the offender willfully and knowingly claims or represents is authorized by or arises under Federal immigration laws, to--
``(1) defraud any person; or
``(2) obtain or receive money or anything else of value from any person by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, promises, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
Here is the background for this bill: The Immigration Fraud Prevention Act would prevent and punish fraud and misrepresentation in the context of immigration proceedings. The act would create a new Federal crime to penalize those who engage in schemes to defraud aliens in connection with Federal immigration laws. Specifically, the act would make it a Federal crime to wilfully and knowingly defraud or obtain or receive money or anything else of value from any person by false or fraudulent pretences, representations, or promises; and to wilfully, knowingly, and falsely represent that an individual is an attorney or accredited representative in any matter arising under Federal immigration law. Violations of these crimes would result in a fine, imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both. The bill would also authorize the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to use task forces currently in existence to detect and investigate individuals who are in violation of the immigration fraud crimes as created by the bill. The act would also work to prevent immigration fraud by requiring that Immigration Judges issue warnings about unauthorized practice of immigration law to immigrants in removal proceedings, similar to the current law that requires notification of pro bono legal services to these immigrants; requiring the Attorney General to provide outreach to the immigrant community to help prevent fraud; providing that any materials used to carry out notification on immigration law fraud is done in the appropriate language for that community; and requiring the distribution of the disciplinary list of individuals not authorized to appear before the immigration courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals, BIA, currently maintained by the Executive Office of Immigration Review, EOIR. Unfortunately, the need for Federal action to prevent and prosecute immigration fraud has escalated in recent years as citizens and non-citizens attempt to navigate the immigration legal system. Thus far, only States have sought to regulate the unauthorized practice of immigration law. Since immigration law is a federal matter, I believe the solution to such misrepresentation and fraud should be addressed by Congress. By enacting this bill, Congress would help prevent more victims like Vincent Smith, a Mexican national who has resided in California since 1975. His wife is an American citizen, and they live with their 6 U.S. citizen children in Palmdale, CA. Mr. Smith would likely have received a green card at least two different times during his stay in California. However, in attempting to get legal counsel, Mr. Smith hired someone whom he thought was an attorney, but was not. As a result, Mr. Smith was charged more than $10,000 for processing his immigration paperwork, which was never filed. Mr. Smith now has no legal status and faces removal proceedings. Another victim of immigration fraud is Raul, a Mexican national, who came to the United States in 2000. He also married a U.S. citizen, Loraina, making him eligible to apply for a green card. Raul and his wife went to Jose for legal help. Jose's business card said he had a ``law office'' and that he was an ``immigration specialist.'' But Jose was not a specialist and charged Raul $4,000 to file a frivolous asylum petition. While Raul thought he was going to receive a green card, he was instead placed into removal proceedings. From California to New York, there are hundreds of stories like these. Many immigrants are preyed on because of their fears--others on their hope of realizing the American dream. They are charged exorbitant fees for the filing of frivolous paperwork that clog our immigration courts and keep families and businesses waiting in limbo for years. Law enforcement officials say that many fraudulent ``immigration specialists'' close their businesses or move on to another part of the state or country before they can be held accountable. They can make $100,000 to $200,000 a year and the few who have been caught rarely serve more than a few months in jail. Often victims of such crimes are deported, sending them back to their home countries without accountability for the perpetrator of the fraud. Most recently, hundreds of immigrants were exploited by Victor M. Espinal, who was arrested for allegedly posing as an immigration attorney. Nearly 125 of Mr. Espinal's clients attended the New York City Bar Association's free clinic to address their legal and immigration options. According to prosecutors, Mr. Espinal falsely claimed on his business cards that he was licensed and admitted to the California bar as well as the bar in the Dominican Republic. Organizations such as the Los Angeles Country Bar Association, National Immigration Forum, American Immigration Lawyers Association, and American Bar Association have been documenting this exploitation for many years.
Senate Dianne Feinstine from California, cosponsored by Senator Ted Kennedy, introduced this bill in the Senate yesterday. The full text of the bill is as follows:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Immigration Fraud Prevention Act of 2009''.
SEC. 2. SCHEMES TO DEFRAUD ALIENS.
(a) Amendments to Title 18.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Chapter 47 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:``�1041. Schemes to defraud aliens
``(a) In General.--Any person who willfully and knowingly executes a scheme or artifice, in connection with any matter that is authorized by or arises under Federal immigration laws or any matter the offender willfully and knowingly claims or represents is authorized by or arises under Federal immigration laws, to--
``(1) defraud any person; or
``(2) obtain or receive money or anything else of value from any person by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, promises, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
Here is the background for this bill: The Immigration Fraud Prevention Act would prevent and punish fraud and misrepresentation in the context of immigration proceedings. The act would create a new Federal crime to penalize those who engage in schemes to defraud aliens in connection with Federal immigration laws. Specifically, the act would make it a Federal crime to wilfully and knowingly defraud or obtain or receive money or anything else of value from any person by false or fraudulent pretences, representations, or promises; and to wilfully, knowingly, and falsely represent that an individual is an attorney or accredited representative in any matter arising under Federal immigration law. Violations of these crimes would result in a fine, imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both. The bill would also authorize the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to use task forces currently in existence to detect and investigate individuals who are in violation of the immigration fraud crimes as created by the bill. The act would also work to prevent immigration fraud by requiring that Immigration Judges issue warnings about unauthorized practice of immigration law to immigrants in removal proceedings, similar to the current law that requires notification of pro bono legal services to these immigrants; requiring the Attorney General to provide outreach to the immigrant community to help prevent fraud; providing that any materials used to carry out notification on immigration law fraud is done in the appropriate language for that community; and requiring the distribution of the disciplinary list of individuals not authorized to appear before the immigration courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals, BIA, currently maintained by the Executive Office of Immigration Review, EOIR. Unfortunately, the need for Federal action to prevent and prosecute immigration fraud has escalated in recent years as citizens and non-citizens attempt to navigate the immigration legal system. Thus far, only States have sought to regulate the unauthorized practice of immigration law. Since immigration law is a federal matter, I believe the solution to such misrepresentation and fraud should be addressed by Congress. By enacting this bill, Congress would help prevent more victims like Vincent Smith, a Mexican national who has resided in California since 1975. His wife is an American citizen, and they live with their 6 U.S. citizen children in Palmdale, CA. Mr. Smith would likely have received a green card at least two different times during his stay in California. However, in attempting to get legal counsel, Mr. Smith hired someone whom he thought was an attorney, but was not. As a result, Mr. Smith was charged more than $10,000 for processing his immigration paperwork, which was never filed. Mr. Smith now has no legal status and faces removal proceedings. Another victim of immigration fraud is Raul, a Mexican national, who came to the United States in 2000. He also married a U.S. citizen, Loraina, making him eligible to apply for a green card. Raul and his wife went to Jose for legal help. Jose's business card said he had a ``law office'' and that he was an ``immigration specialist.'' But Jose was not a specialist and charged Raul $4,000 to file a frivolous asylum petition. While Raul thought he was going to receive a green card, he was instead placed into removal proceedings. From California to New York, there are hundreds of stories like these. Many immigrants are preyed on because of their fears--others on their hope of realizing the American dream. They are charged exorbitant fees for the filing of frivolous paperwork that clog our immigration courts and keep families and businesses waiting in limbo for years. Law enforcement officials say that many fraudulent ``immigration specialists'' close their businesses or move on to another part of the state or country before they can be held accountable. They can make $100,000 to $200,000 a year and the few who have been caught rarely serve more than a few months in jail. Often victims of such crimes are deported, sending them back to their home countries without accountability for the perpetrator of the fraud. Most recently, hundreds of immigrants were exploited by Victor M. Espinal, who was arrested for allegedly posing as an immigration attorney. Nearly 125 of Mr. Espinal's clients attended the New York City Bar Association's free clinic to address their legal and immigration options. According to prosecutors, Mr. Espinal falsely claimed on his business cards that he was licensed and admitted to the California bar as well as the bar in the Dominican Republic. Organizations such as the Los Angeles Country Bar Association, National Immigration Forum, American Immigration Lawyers Association, and American Bar Association have been documenting this exploitation for many years.
more...
krishmunn
03-02 09:21 PM
Who is the lawyer ? Our company lawyer's paralegal never replies back , forget about any communication from lawyer himself.
hot Ocean Ave
gk_2000
08-13 02:58 PM
My 485 was approved last week. Current status is Post Decison Activity. I've received Welcome Notice few days back.
It seems like USCIS automatically ported the PD.
My EB3 PD is April 2003 and working for the sponsored company.
I filed another 140 under EB2 through another company and it got approved 3 years back. I never joined in that company. I didn't port my EB3 PD when the EB2 140 was filed.
As a matter of fact, I completely forgot about this EB2 140 and this company.
All of a sudden, last week my 485 was approved with the EB2 PD which is Jan 2006.
I guess USCIS ported EB3-EB2 automatically. Is it normal?. What should I do?.
Please advice.
But when was the 485 filed? was it filed by the other company along with 140 in 2007 july fiasco?
It seems like USCIS automatically ported the PD.
My EB3 PD is April 2003 and working for the sponsored company.
I filed another 140 under EB2 through another company and it got approved 3 years back. I never joined in that company. I didn't port my EB3 PD when the EB2 140 was filed.
As a matter of fact, I completely forgot about this EB2 140 and this company.
All of a sudden, last week my 485 was approved with the EB2 PD which is Jan 2006.
I guess USCIS ported EB3-EB2 automatically. Is it normal?. What should I do?.
Please advice.
But when was the 485 filed? was it filed by the other company along with 140 in 2007 july fiasco?
more...
house 112 ocean avenue
socal117
10-30 10:00 AM
same here....July 2nd...nothing.....:mad::mad::mad:
tattoo 757 Ocean Ave # 111
jliechty
May 24th, 2005, 10:00 PM
It's hard to explain, but the first two don't really do anything for me. The third one is certainly a step in the right direction (totally fugly JPEG artifacts ignored), and I think that with a bit of post processing you could really take it in some interesting directions. My eye only notices the deer after a little while; if you wanted to focus more on the deer, you could use a masked adjustment layer to subtly (the key word is subtly - very subtly) darken everything but the animal, and another adjustment layer to add a tiny bit of contrast only to the deer. Of course, QJ will come up with many other and more creative things to try, but that's off the top of my head a few ideas to start with. :)
more...
pictures 108 Ocean Avenue (formerly
paulinasmith
08-20 08:06 PM
Whats the process to do stamping in canada ? My visa has expired since Jan' 2008 - is it same like India ? Do we still get stuck with PMIS or is it okay to go on I-94 and keep the same to re-entry if any issues ?
The procedure is same they take ur I-94 and cancel ur current visa first.Some people get their visa done within 1-2 days.Forget about re-entering US when your visa is in "administrative processing"
The procedure is same they take ur I-94 and cancel ur current visa first.Some people get their visa done within 1-2 days.Forget about re-entering US when your visa is in "administrative processing"
dresses 840 Ocean Avenue, Unit #17
chirutha
09-26 05:15 PM
Hi GC_SUCK, Congrats, can you send your details of dates in all stages, will be informative for us, thanks.
more...
makeup to bless 112 Ocean Ave.
chanduv23
02-28 08:44 AM
I am in the same boat as well. But you answer your question - am almost sure you don't need FP to renew your EAD. Having said that - why would renew your card in June? (Considering that you might not have received your EAD till Aug-Sep'07 of last year).
the fact that there were so many EAD applicants through June/July - the workload will be very high on USCIS so everyone will file at the earliest ie proposed 120 days prior to expiry.
the fact that there were so many EAD applicants through June/July - the workload will be very high on USCIS so everyone will file at the earliest ie proposed 120 days prior to expiry.
girlfriend l#39;ex 112 Ocean Avenue
kirupa
12-02 04:58 PM
Congrats Phat :) I will have these entries added to the kirupaLab sometime by the end of this week!
hairstyles dense wood on Ocean Avenue
vik352
10-20 10:34 AM
Thanks for posting this. My I-140 was applied in May 2007 and I have not heard anything. USCIS says it has processed until July 24, 2007. What a bunch of lies.
vnsriv
10-10 04:24 PM
I got my GC on 09/18/07. Now my consulting company (how sponsored my GC) is having issues with the client and client is thinking to terminate the contract.
Client want to bring me to there pay roll. In other words they are offering my permanent position.
My consulting company does not have immediate opening for me.
It is not even a month that I got my GC. And I am with the same consulting company for about 6.5 years now.
Please help me. What should I do? If I accept the offer will I get problem at citizenship stage? If I do not accept offer I will loose job and I don't know how much time I have to wait till my consulting company find job for me.
Accept the offer like I am planning to do. Job is most important.
Client want to bring me to there pay roll. In other words they are offering my permanent position.
My consulting company does not have immediate opening for me.
It is not even a month that I got my GC. And I am with the same consulting company for about 6.5 years now.
Please help me. What should I do? If I accept the offer will I get problem at citizenship stage? If I do not accept offer I will loose job and I don't know how much time I have to wait till my consulting company find job for me.
Accept the offer like I am planning to do. Job is most important.
Googler
02-14 04:24 PM
"Based on a review of the facts and bedrock principles of administrative agency law, the Court finds that USCIS�s name check requirement has
(1) never been authorized by Congress;
(2) is not mentioned or contemplated by any fair reading of the current USCIS regulations; and
(3) may not, without USCIS initiating notice and comment procedures, be used to delay action on Plaintiffs petitions..."
http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Mocanu%202-8-08.pdf
What a fabulous ruling this is.
One question for Lazycis:
# (3) actually reads "(3) may not, without USCIS initiating notice and comment procedures, be used to delay action on Plaintiffs petitions for naturalization, particularly because Plaintiffs have already undergone a name check in order to achieve LPR status and will clear the �fingerprint check� described in the Memorandum of January 25, 2008.10 The fingerprint check will show whether an LPR who is applying for naturalization has had any contact with the criminal justice system that would warrant denial of the petition."
As far as I can tell even (1) and (2) only apply to Naturalization applicants.
So the question of the hour is: are (1) and (2) true for AOS cases? I am asking this question because to argue a case for compelling recapture you need an AOS version of Baylson's ruling + the Galvez-Howerton decision (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=223315&postcount=121). Only then can you say that there was affirmative misconduct in 2003 and hence compel recapture.
(1) never been authorized by Congress;
(2) is not mentioned or contemplated by any fair reading of the current USCIS regulations; and
(3) may not, without USCIS initiating notice and comment procedures, be used to delay action on Plaintiffs petitions..."
http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Mocanu%202-8-08.pdf
What a fabulous ruling this is.
One question for Lazycis:
# (3) actually reads "(3) may not, without USCIS initiating notice and comment procedures, be used to delay action on Plaintiffs petitions for naturalization, particularly because Plaintiffs have already undergone a name check in order to achieve LPR status and will clear the �fingerprint check� described in the Memorandum of January 25, 2008.10 The fingerprint check will show whether an LPR who is applying for naturalization has had any contact with the criminal justice system that would warrant denial of the petition."
As far as I can tell even (1) and (2) only apply to Naturalization applicants.
So the question of the hour is: are (1) and (2) true for AOS cases? I am asking this question because to argue a case for compelling recapture you need an AOS version of Baylson's ruling + the Galvez-Howerton decision (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=223315&postcount=121). Only then can you say that there was affirmative misconduct in 2003 and hence compel recapture.
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق