cagedcactus
11-21 06:54 AM
Yes pappu, you are right.
I just sent the email explaining the proper differences between H-1B and Immigration catagories.
I just sent the email explaining the proper differences between H-1B and Immigration catagories.
wallpaper índice de masa corporal?,
mohitb272
07-16 07:24 PM
Hats off to IV :) :)
Waiting for the good news...
Waiting for the good news...
GCAmigo
12-04 10:30 AM
isn't that what is happening now?
2011 índice de masa corporal
piyu7444
04-11 12:08 AM
They did not ask for old pay stubs. Interview was in Feb 08 so asked for 07 pay stub but not for 06 05 or 04.
About job responsibility.......I actually started stating what my current job responsibility is.........for real what is on LC is a subset of what I was describing so my guess is that the officer must have concluded that it matches to LC (she was looking at the document which had LC job responsibilities) and she moved to next question. If it did not match or there was some fumbling in answering the question she might have grilled me....:)
About job responsibility.......I actually started stating what my current job responsibility is.........for real what is on LC is a subset of what I was describing so my guess is that the officer must have concluded that it matches to LC (she was looking at the document which had LC job responsibilities) and she moved to next question. If it did not match or there was some fumbling in answering the question she might have grilled me....:)
more...
jediknight
11-09 11:18 AM
Filled out. Will post this in other forums and email lists
mbartosik
01-30 04:19 PM
Tomorrow we will have something more substantial to release.
I would recommend that tomorrow when we release this that people phone up the local media, speaking with someone is better than email.
I would recommend that tomorrow when we release this that people phone up the local media, speaking with someone is better than email.
more...
texcan
08-22 03:00 PM
" Rally in each state" is a fantastic idea. Lets do it.
But lets concentrate on one location in Texas and for that matter in
every state to pack more punch.
I think everyone can drive to one common location in texas.
Since Austin is capital, i propose rally in Austin for Texas.
Let do it.
But lets concentrate on one location in Texas and for that matter in
every state to pack more punch.
I think everyone can drive to one common location in texas.
Since Austin is capital, i propose rally in Austin for Texas.
Let do it.
2010 índice de masa corporal
axp817
02-03 01:49 PM
Documentation informing the USCIS of your having utilized AC21 benefits isn't necessary, but is a proactive measure usually taken to have a clean slate on the applicant's part.
It is true that in a majority of the cases the AC21 documentation might never reach the applican't 485 file, but in an unforeseen circumstance such as the denial of one's 485 based on 140 revocation (which, as we know isn't very uncommon) and matters reaching an immigration court, proof that one had taken proactive steps and gone out of one's way to inform the USCIS might make one's case stronger and thus make it easier to have the case reopened.
I was fortunate enough to not have to make that decision -whether to send AC21 documentation or not, the attorneys (Fragomen) representing the new employer recommended sending it making it easy for me.
Just my 2 cents,
It is true that in a majority of the cases the AC21 documentation might never reach the applican't 485 file, but in an unforeseen circumstance such as the denial of one's 485 based on 140 revocation (which, as we know isn't very uncommon) and matters reaching an immigration court, proof that one had taken proactive steps and gone out of one's way to inform the USCIS might make one's case stronger and thus make it easier to have the case reopened.
I was fortunate enough to not have to make that decision -whether to send AC21 documentation or not, the attorneys (Fragomen) representing the new employer recommended sending it making it easy for me.
Just my 2 cents,
more...
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
hair El Índice de Masa Corporal
mariner5555
05-07 01:41 PM
Forget to mention that you can port to self-employment :)
are you sure of this ..if yes, then how does one do that ..do you need to show you can make the salary mentioned on your own ??
are you sure of this ..if yes, then how does one do that ..do you need to show you can make the salary mentioned on your own ??
more...
brij523
02-17 10:10 AM
Test Siganture
hot o Índice de Masa Corporal
felix31
04-18 11:26 AM
vicks don,
did you file with vermont before April 1st?
my husband's I-140 case was initially sent to Nebraska (after april 1st batch) and it got transferred to Texas and we got Texas service center receipt notice.
I guess you would send RFE to the center that issued the RFE. Wait for it to arrive....Also, you already have receipt notice, right? Look for the first three letters your receipt number starts with. If it is EAC, that your case is with vermont. If it is SRC, than your case is with Texas..
hope this helps..
Oh, and one extra detail, the online message from Texas says it takes 400+ days to process these applications. I am absolutely horrified by it..
The web site says they are processing Jan 06 cases, but somehow that does not look real..
did you file with vermont before April 1st?
my husband's I-140 case was initially sent to Nebraska (after april 1st batch) and it got transferred to Texas and we got Texas service center receipt notice.
I guess you would send RFE to the center that issued the RFE. Wait for it to arrive....Also, you already have receipt notice, right? Look for the first three letters your receipt number starts with. If it is EAC, that your case is with vermont. If it is SRC, than your case is with Texas..
hope this helps..
Oh, and one extra detail, the online message from Texas says it takes 400+ days to process these applications. I am absolutely horrified by it..
The web site says they are processing Jan 06 cases, but somehow that does not look real..
more...
house de porcentaje de grasa,
immi_seeker
07-12 08:31 PM
Our Current EAD is expiring on 10/01/2008. So we had applied for extension in june. On july 7th our application was approved and today we recieved our EAD cards. I was expecting a one year extension , which is until 10/01/2009. But USCIS send us ead cards that will expire on 01/01/2009.
What should be the course of action here. Do i need to reapply or just contact USCIS and will they be able to fix it? Any body on similiar situation.?
Service center is nebraska
What should be the course of action here. Do i need to reapply or just contact USCIS and will they be able to fix it? Any body on similiar situation.?
Service center is nebraska
tattoo el índice de masa corporal
gc4me
07-05 09:02 PM
Please let me know if anyone/your friend has port PD using receipt#. Logically it should be possible, as USCIS should pull everything from DB using receipt#. The question is has anyone successfully done this?
more...
pictures el índice de masa corporal
iman.karta
11-06 01:31 PM
Whats up, guys!
FYI:
My employer got a letter today stating that my form ETA9089 has been certified. Finally, after about 13 months waiting.
I got audited on November 2007. I filed the petition on October 2007.
Good luck with all of you guys.
Thanks for the supports!
FYI:
My employer got a letter today stating that my form ETA9089 has been certified. Finally, after about 13 months waiting.
I got audited on November 2007. I filed the petition on October 2007.
Good luck with all of you guys.
Thanks for the supports!
dresses Se calculó el índice de masa
sparky_jones
10-05 10:49 AM
Never knew that spouse had to be included in the I-140 stage... Is this a new rule?
No, this is basically the left arm of the government not knowing how the right arm does its business.
No, this is basically the left arm of the government not knowing how the right arm does its business.
more...
makeup Los índices de masa corporal
waiting4gc
12-03 01:30 PM
Appointment at Mumbai consulate can take forever. Recently my wife and I went for h1 stamping. For me it took 2.5 hours, for my wife, about 5 hours. It will take you at least an hour to get from the consulate to the airport. I would strongly recommend that you take either a late evening flight or next day. That way you can try to pick up the passport the same day too.
Usually I get my Visa stamped in Chennai. I have enough info to survive in Chennai.
This time it is not going to help much as I am going to Mumbai. It is a pain from the first step. I finally got the appointment for 10th Dec. I have to have some body hand deliver documents there in India..Oh well..
I have the appointment at 9:30 AM and was planning to fly out of Mumbai Airport same day at 1:30 PM. Now it looks very ambitious! What do you think? :confused:
I have no idea about lodging near consulate. I tried my luck near the airport many times. It wasn't pretty.
Any recommendation on Hotels and area near consulate ? I am not going near Five star / Rs 10,000 per day.
I am looking at ~ Rs 2,000 for 7 hours..
Any help is appreciated..:)
Usually I get my Visa stamped in Chennai. I have enough info to survive in Chennai.
This time it is not going to help much as I am going to Mumbai. It is a pain from the first step. I finally got the appointment for 10th Dec. I have to have some body hand deliver documents there in India..Oh well..
I have the appointment at 9:30 AM and was planning to fly out of Mumbai Airport same day at 1:30 PM. Now it looks very ambitious! What do you think? :confused:
I have no idea about lodging near consulate. I tried my luck near the airport many times. It wasn't pretty.
Any recommendation on Hotels and area near consulate ? I am not going near Five star / Rs 10,000 per day.
I am looking at ~ Rs 2,000 for 7 hours..
Any help is appreciated..:)
girlfriend índice de masa corporal en
coolmanasip
07-19 09:39 AM
If we submit tax returns then do CIS check those to see what exsumptions we have taken etc??? One of my friend by mistake took hope credits coupld yrs ago and is terrified that CIS may catch this if he sends the tax returns so he has been fighting with his attorney about not sending it!! both he and his wife are earning and no dependents. Any thoughts on the situation??
I told him checking the tax returns is not CIS's function!! That is IRS.......he should relax. By the way, what happens if he approaches IRS saying it was an honest mistake and pays off the exsumption he took.
I told him checking the tax returns is not CIS's function!! That is IRS.......he should relax. By the way, what happens if he approaches IRS saying it was an honest mistake and pays off the exsumption he took.
hairstyles Indice de Masa Corporal;
immi_enthu
09-27 04:04 PM
His Response:
Yes, it happens. However, they two will be combined eventually.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 12:40 PM
Subject: Different Alien Registration Numbers on approved I 140 and 485
receipt notice
My question:
>
> I have two different Alien Registration Numbers in my I 140 and 485
> receipt notice. Do I need to worry about it ?
>
> Thanks-
Very vague response. When I asked if there will be any delay due to this, no response so far.
Yes, it happens. However, they two will be combined eventually.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 12:40 PM
Subject: Different Alien Registration Numbers on approved I 140 and 485
receipt notice
My question:
>
> I have two different Alien Registration Numbers in my I 140 and 485
> receipt notice. Do I need to worry about it ?
>
> Thanks-
Very vague response. When I asked if there will be any delay due to this, no response so far.
humdesi
02-17 11:02 PM
I was wondering what are the rules regarding the 'overflow' stuff. Any document ?
It's discussed here in detail:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=205986
It's discussed here in detail:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=205986
roseball
02-20 04:14 PM
Thanks for the replies, I appreciate the time.
When I look back at the timelines, when we applied for the 485s, we thought he was in status but afterwards, we realized he might not have been. Since then, we have renewed the H4 twice, and each time there was an I94 attached and the last one is still valid, so he is in status now.
My concern is (1) that when the time comes to adjudicate his 485, someone might look back and say err, ten years ago there was a problem... I hope it won't happen, but I just want to be safe and my understanding is that returning with a stamped H4 would cure this and (2) that if we decide to go for the stamping, whether someone in the embassy would dig up the records and cause us problems.
Thanks for the insight.
Since you already got H4 extensions with attached I-94s, current status is not an issue. The issue will be with his I-485 application as he was out-of-status when it was applied. You should try and go to the US consulate outside US and get a H4 stamped. In my opinion, getting new VISAs will not be an issue since it was an honest mistake on your part and as soon as you realized it you applied for extensions and you should acknowledge it in your visa application. You have to get this done before USCIS issues an RFE asking for your son's status information. For how long was your son out of status. The duration of invalid status has different implications. In any case, before leaving US, you should take advise from a good attorney. Once your son gets H4 visa stamped and re-enters US on a valid H4 status, his previous out-of-status issue will be void. Please note that re-entering on AP does not void earlier out-of-status.
When I look back at the timelines, when we applied for the 485s, we thought he was in status but afterwards, we realized he might not have been. Since then, we have renewed the H4 twice, and each time there was an I94 attached and the last one is still valid, so he is in status now.
My concern is (1) that when the time comes to adjudicate his 485, someone might look back and say err, ten years ago there was a problem... I hope it won't happen, but I just want to be safe and my understanding is that returning with a stamped H4 would cure this and (2) that if we decide to go for the stamping, whether someone in the embassy would dig up the records and cause us problems.
Thanks for the insight.
Since you already got H4 extensions with attached I-94s, current status is not an issue. The issue will be with his I-485 application as he was out-of-status when it was applied. You should try and go to the US consulate outside US and get a H4 stamped. In my opinion, getting new VISAs will not be an issue since it was an honest mistake on your part and as soon as you realized it you applied for extensions and you should acknowledge it in your visa application. You have to get this done before USCIS issues an RFE asking for your son's status information. For how long was your son out of status. The duration of invalid status has different implications. In any case, before leaving US, you should take advise from a good attorney. Once your son gets H4 visa stamped and re-enters US on a valid H4 status, his previous out-of-status issue will be void. Please note that re-entering on AP does not void earlier out-of-status.
No comments:
Post a Comment