rahulpaper
12-04 11:04 AM
My case is NSC>>CSC>>NSC and the received date is listed incorrectly on transfer notice....
Receipt Notice from CSC has correct received date of July 31st 2007
but
Transfer Notice from NSC has received date of Oct 12th 2007
Oct 12th seems to be the date when my case was tranferred back to NSC.
I have 3 questions for you...
1) Are other folks also observing this in their case?
2) Will NSC process my case based on Received date from (CSC notice) or their own transfer notice?
3) Whats the process to get received date fixed?
Thanks in advance.
Receipt Notice from CSC has correct received date of July 31st 2007
but
Transfer Notice from NSC has received date of Oct 12th 2007
Oct 12th seems to be the date when my case was tranferred back to NSC.
I have 3 questions for you...
1) Are other folks also observing this in their case?
2) Will NSC process my case based on Received date from (CSC notice) or their own transfer notice?
3) Whats the process to get received date fixed?
Thanks in advance.
wallpaper Firemen dismantle car engine
pvpb
10-15 07:04 PM
Hi Guys,
All my checks got cashed on friday....today my lawyer office got a notice saying that there is no FP fee eventhough they cashed it.
they asked to resubmit the fees again...my lawyer said he will work it out with them..
My questions is I filed to NSC, transfered to VSc and today they status says it has been transfered to TSC :confused:
So should i submit this evidence to VSC or TSC.
Please clarify.
venkat/
All my checks got cashed on friday....today my lawyer office got a notice saying that there is no FP fee eventhough they cashed it.
they asked to resubmit the fees again...my lawyer said he will work it out with them..
My questions is I filed to NSC, transfered to VSc and today they status says it has been transfered to TSC :confused:
So should i submit this evidence to VSC or TSC.
Please clarify.
venkat/
sk017
08-03 11:06 PM
My I-485 is pending with PD of Oct 11 2006(EB2 India). I have been on H1 as was not able to add my spouse to my initial 485 application. As my H1 expires on Sep 6, we recently filed for H1/4 extension and received an RFE for Employee-Employer relationship. We have to answer this by Sep 13. As a Plan B, What we did in June 2010 was
a) I filed for my EAD
b) My spouse got admitted into a school here and applied for COS from H4 to F1 with a valid I-20.
Both of these cases are currently pending.. My questions are:
1) As our H1/4 and I-94 expires on Sep 6, Would we still be in legal status after Sep 6 as both of our cases (EAD and COS) are pending?
2) After answering the RFE, if it is denied, would it impact my GC processing?
3) I understand that even if my H1 is denied, As I have a pending EAD, my status would be okay but what options would we have if my Wife's case is denied.
Thanks in Advance!
a) I filed for my EAD
b) My spouse got admitted into a school here and applied for COS from H4 to F1 with a valid I-20.
Both of these cases are currently pending.. My questions are:
1) As our H1/4 and I-94 expires on Sep 6, Would we still be in legal status after Sep 6 as both of our cases (EAD and COS) are pending?
2) After answering the RFE, if it is denied, would it impact my GC processing?
3) I understand that even if my H1 is denied, As I have a pending EAD, my status would be okay but what options would we have if my Wife's case is denied.
Thanks in Advance!
2011 Cat under car (illustration
Candidate
02-01 12:38 AM
Need advice ...I am currently on H1 B.
six years back (on F-1) I started working 2 business days prior to my CPT started.... Unfortunately ... that meant I did work unauthorized for a couple of days. Now I am at a stage where I need to use CPT experience to apply for PERM. Would stating the actual start date on form 9089 (which happens to be 2 days prior to actual CPT start date listed on I 20) pose any future issues?
CAn I be granted lineancy (something like 245K) if in in future this lapse becomes evident to U S C I S. How seriously would this minor violation be treated?
Thanks and appreciate your help!
six years back (on F-1) I started working 2 business days prior to my CPT started.... Unfortunately ... that meant I did work unauthorized for a couple of days. Now I am at a stage where I need to use CPT experience to apply for PERM. Would stating the actual start date on form 9089 (which happens to be 2 days prior to actual CPT start date listed on I 20) pose any future issues?
CAn I be granted lineancy (something like 245K) if in in future this lapse becomes evident to U S C I S. How seriously would this minor violation be treated?
Thanks and appreciate your help!
more...
ysramu
01-02 02:05 PM
My AP approvals are lost in mail, my employer mailed them in ordinary mail during holiday season (12/11/07). What can I do next? Go thru attorney for duplicates? Please advice.
raju3g
08-08 04:07 AM
Its not an issue. Make sure u fill all ur future applications like ssn, green card etc as per your passport. also ur birth certificate should be like ur passport details name date of birth and place of birth.
more...
prout02
02-09 03:20 PM
Do you need to submit copies of your approved LC or I-140 to support your stay beyond 6 years? I don't see it mentioned in the I-129 application.
And do you say yes or no to the following question (Q.5, Part C of H-1B Data Collection and Filing Fee Exemption Supplement form)?
"Has the beneficiary of this petition been previously granted status as an H1-B nonimmigrant in the past 6 years and not left the United States for more than one year after attaining such status?"
This probably wishes to know whether you have a reason to stay here for more than 6 years. But I don't see anywhere to explain that. Any help is greatly appreciated.
And do you say yes or no to the following question (Q.5, Part C of H-1B Data Collection and Filing Fee Exemption Supplement form)?
"Has the beneficiary of this petition been previously granted status as an H1-B nonimmigrant in the past 6 years and not left the United States for more than one year after attaining such status?"
This probably wishes to know whether you have a reason to stay here for more than 6 years. But I don't see anywhere to explain that. Any help is greatly appreciated.
2010 the car and found Gussie,
kirupa
10-12 10:16 PM
Welcome to the forums :)
I have added your entry to the list!
I have added your entry to the list!
more...
Zil
12-24 05:25 AM
I am not sure if it was posted before, the immigrant visa fee will go up to $400 from $380 effective January 1, 2008.
Also, Bombay and Madras consulates switched to NVC appointment processing (NVC takes over the scheduling of immigrant visa appointments). Delhi and Calcutta are still standard processing posts, but expect them to be converted in the near future as well.
Chinese, Japanese, Australian and some other (mostly Asian) consulates still follow standard processing, but expect them to be converted in 2008 as well.
They convert consulates without any notice to the public, so always check here before sending in DS-230 and supporting documents:
http://travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/info/info_3176.html
Also, Bombay and Madras consulates switched to NVC appointment processing (NVC takes over the scheduling of immigrant visa appointments). Delhi and Calcutta are still standard processing posts, but expect them to be converted in the near future as well.
Chinese, Japanese, Australian and some other (mostly Asian) consulates still follow standard processing, but expect them to be converted in 2008 as well.
They convert consulates without any notice to the public, so always check here before sending in DS-230 and supporting documents:
http://travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/info/info_3176.html
hair flames in the car#39;s engine
kanshere
07-26 12:54 PM
hi folks,
I need some help wrt my wife's immi status.
She had applied H1 (from H4), and got the approval notice I-797.
Now, we applied I-485 for both of us on July 1st
But our attorney did not file for EAD/AP, because of time constraints.
Is it ok for her to start working using the H1 from Oct 1st?
Will it jeopardize her I485 Appln?
Any info / experience on this will be of great help.
Thanks,
Kans.
I need some help wrt my wife's immi status.
She had applied H1 (from H4), and got the approval notice I-797.
Now, we applied I-485 for both of us on July 1st
But our attorney did not file for EAD/AP, because of time constraints.
Is it ok for her to start working using the H1 from Oct 1st?
Will it jeopardize her I485 Appln?
Any info / experience on this will be of great help.
Thanks,
Kans.
more...
vedicman
06-25 11:33 AM
5 more Representatives co-sponsor for CIR ASAP of 2009 bringing it to 102 sponsors.
However, unless the Senate moves on Immigration .. nothing will happen in the House.
However, unless the Senate moves on Immigration .. nothing will happen in the House.
hot Cat#39;s week under car bonnet
freddyCR
February 5th, 2005, 05:41 PM
This is the name of this beautiful Church, dedicated to the patron Virgin of Costa Rica, located in the city of Cartago.
Her name and image are linked to multiple miraculous healings, and it is the destiny of a national pilgrimage, every August 10 th.
Hope you like them. As always, any comment is welcome.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v629/alcorjr2/cartago1Medium.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v629/alcorjr2/DSCF3365_1Medium.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v629/alcorjr2/DSCF3368_1Medium.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v629/alcorjr2/DSCF3360_1Medium.jpg
Her name and image are linked to multiple miraculous healings, and it is the destiny of a national pilgrimage, every August 10 th.
Hope you like them. As always, any comment is welcome.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v629/alcorjr2/cartago1Medium.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v629/alcorjr2/DSCF3365_1Medium.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v629/alcorjr2/DSCF3368_1Medium.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v629/alcorjr2/DSCF3360_1Medium.jpg
more...
house diesel engine parts, CAT
Macaca
10-27 10:14 AM
America has a persuadable center, but neither party appeals to it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/25/AR2007102502774.html) By Jonathan Yardley (yardleyj@washpost.com) | Washington Post, October 28, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, Penguin. 484 pp. $27.95
These are difficult times for American politics at just about all levels, but especially in presidential politics, which has been poisoned -- the word is scarcely too strong -- by a variety of influences, none more poisonous than what Ronald Brownstein calls "an unrelenting polarization . . . that has divided Washington and the country into hostile, even irreconcilable camps." There is nothing new about this, he quickly acknowledges, and "partisan rivalry most often has been a source of energy, innovation, and inspiration," but what is particularly worrisome now "is that the political system is more polarized than the country. Rather than reducing the level of conflict, Washington increases it. That tendency, not the breadth of the underlying divisions itself, is the defining characteristic of our era and the principal cause of our impasse on so many problems."
Most people who pay reasonably close attention to American politics will not find much to surprise them in The Second Civil War, but Brownstein -- who recently left the Los Angeles Times to become political correspondent for Atlantic Media and who is a familiar figure on television talk shows -- has done a thorough job of amassing all the pertinent material and analyzing it with no apparent political or ideological axe to grind. He isn't an especially graceful prose stylist, and he's given to glib, one-word portraits -- on a single page he gives us "the burly Joseph T. Robinson," "the bullet-headed Sam Rayburn," "the mystical Henry A. Wallace" and "the flinty Harold Ickes" -- but stylistic elegance is a rare quality in political journalism in the best of times, and in these worst of times it can be forgiven. What matters is that Brownstein knows what he's talking about.
He devotes the book's first 175 pages -- more, really, than are necessary -- to laying the groundwork for the present situation. Since the election of 1896, he argues, "the two parties have moved through four distinct phases": the first, from 1896 to 1938, when they pursued "highly partisan strategies," the "period in modern American life most like our own"; the second, from the late New Deal through the assassination of John F. Kennedy, "the longest sustained period of bipartisan negotiation in American history," an "ideal of cooperation across party lines"; the third, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, "a period of transition" in which "the pressures for more partisan confrontation intensified"; and the fourth, "our own period of hyperpartisanship, an era that may be said to have fully arrived when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted on a virtually party-line vote to impeach Bill Clinton in December 1998."
As is well known, the lately departed (but scarcely forgotten) Karl Rove likes to celebrate the presidency of William McKinley, which serious historians generally dismiss out of hand but in which Rove claims to find strength and mastery. Perhaps, as Brownstein and others have suggested, this is because Rove would like to be placed alongside Mark Hanna, the immensely skilled (and immensely cynical) boss who was the power behind McKinley's throne. But the comparison is, indeed, valid in the sense that the McKinley era was the precursor of the Bush II era, which "harkened back to the intensely partisan strategies of McKinley and his successors." Bush's strategies are now widely regarded as failures, not merely among his enemies but also among his erstwhile allies on Capitol Hill, who grouse about "White House incompetence or arrogance." But Brownstein places these complaints in proper context:
"Yet many conservatives recognized in Bush a kindred soul, not only in ideology, but more importantly in temperament. Because their goals were transformative rather than incremental, conservative activists could not be entirely satisfied with the give and take, the half a loaf deal making, of politics in ordinary times. . . . In Bush they found a leader who shared that conviction and who demonstrated, over and again, that in service of his goals he was willing to sharply divide the Congress and the country."
This, as Brownstein notes, came from the man who pledged to govern as "a uniter, not a divider." Bush's service as governor of Texas had been marked by what one Democrat there called a "collaborative spirit," but "he is not the centrist as president that he was as governor." This cannot be explained solely by the influence of Rove, who appeared to be far more interested in placating the GOP's hard-right "base" than in enacting effective legislation. Other influences probably included a Democratic congressional leadership that grew ever more hostile and ideological, the frenzied climate whipped up by screamers on radio and television, and Bush's own determination not to repeat his father's second-term electoral defeat. But whatever the precise causes, the Bush Administration's "forceful, even belligerent style" assured nothing except deadlock on the Hill, even on issues as important to Bush as immigration and Social Security "reform."
Brownstein's analysis of the American mood is far different from Bush/Rove's. He believes, and I think he's right, that there is "still a persuadable center in American politics -- and that no matter how effectively a party mobilized its base, it could not prevail if those swing voters moved sharply and cohesively against it," viz., the 2006 midterm elections. He also believes, and again I think he's right, that coalition politics is the wisest and most effective way to govern: "The party that seeks to encompass and harmonize the widest range of interests and perspectives is the one most likely to thrive. The overriding lesson for both parties from the Bush attempt to profit from polarization is that there remains no way to achieve lasting political power in a nation as diverse as America without assembling a broad coalition that locks arms to produce meaningful progress against the country's problems." As Lyndon Johnson used to say to those on the other side of the fence, "Come now, let us reason together."
Yet there's not much evidence that many in either party have learned this rather obvious lesson. Several of the (remarkably uninspired) presidential candidates have made oratorical gestures toward the politics of inclusion, but from Hillary Clinton to Rudolph Giuliani they're practicing interest-group politics of exclusion as delineated in the Gospel According to Karl Rove. Things have not been helped a bit by the Democratic leadership on the Hill, which took office early this year with great promises of unity but quickly lapsed into an ineffective mixture of partisan rhetoric and internal bickering. Brownstein writes:
"Our modern system of hyperpartisanship has unnecessarily inflamed our differences and impeded progress against our most pressing challenges. . . . In Washington the political debate too often careens between dysfunctional poles: either polarization, when one party imposes its will over the bitter resistance of the other, or immobilization, when the parties fight to stalemate. . . . Our political system has virtually lost its capacity to formulate the principled compromises indispensable for progress in any diverse society. By any measure, the costs of hyperpartisanship vastly exceed the benefits."
Brownstein has plenty of suggestions for changing things, from "allowing independents to participate in primaries" to "changing the rules for drawing districts in the House of Representatives." Most of these are sensible and a few are first-rate, but they have about as much chance of being adopted as I do of being president. The current rush by the states to be fustest with the mostest in primary season suggests how difficult it would be to achieve reform in that area, and the radical gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts engineered by Tom DeLay makes plain that reform in that one won't be easy, either. Probably what would do more good than anything else would be an attractive, well-organized, articulate presidential candidate willing, in Adlai Stevenson's words, "to talk sense to the American people." Realistically, though, what we can look for is more meanness, divisiveness and cynicism. It's the order of the day, and it's not going away any time soon.
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, Penguin. 484 pp. $27.95
These are difficult times for American politics at just about all levels, but especially in presidential politics, which has been poisoned -- the word is scarcely too strong -- by a variety of influences, none more poisonous than what Ronald Brownstein calls "an unrelenting polarization . . . that has divided Washington and the country into hostile, even irreconcilable camps." There is nothing new about this, he quickly acknowledges, and "partisan rivalry most often has been a source of energy, innovation, and inspiration," but what is particularly worrisome now "is that the political system is more polarized than the country. Rather than reducing the level of conflict, Washington increases it. That tendency, not the breadth of the underlying divisions itself, is the defining characteristic of our era and the principal cause of our impasse on so many problems."
Most people who pay reasonably close attention to American politics will not find much to surprise them in The Second Civil War, but Brownstein -- who recently left the Los Angeles Times to become political correspondent for Atlantic Media and who is a familiar figure on television talk shows -- has done a thorough job of amassing all the pertinent material and analyzing it with no apparent political or ideological axe to grind. He isn't an especially graceful prose stylist, and he's given to glib, one-word portraits -- on a single page he gives us "the burly Joseph T. Robinson," "the bullet-headed Sam Rayburn," "the mystical Henry A. Wallace" and "the flinty Harold Ickes" -- but stylistic elegance is a rare quality in political journalism in the best of times, and in these worst of times it can be forgiven. What matters is that Brownstein knows what he's talking about.
He devotes the book's first 175 pages -- more, really, than are necessary -- to laying the groundwork for the present situation. Since the election of 1896, he argues, "the two parties have moved through four distinct phases": the first, from 1896 to 1938, when they pursued "highly partisan strategies," the "period in modern American life most like our own"; the second, from the late New Deal through the assassination of John F. Kennedy, "the longest sustained period of bipartisan negotiation in American history," an "ideal of cooperation across party lines"; the third, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, "a period of transition" in which "the pressures for more partisan confrontation intensified"; and the fourth, "our own period of hyperpartisanship, an era that may be said to have fully arrived when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted on a virtually party-line vote to impeach Bill Clinton in December 1998."
As is well known, the lately departed (but scarcely forgotten) Karl Rove likes to celebrate the presidency of William McKinley, which serious historians generally dismiss out of hand but in which Rove claims to find strength and mastery. Perhaps, as Brownstein and others have suggested, this is because Rove would like to be placed alongside Mark Hanna, the immensely skilled (and immensely cynical) boss who was the power behind McKinley's throne. But the comparison is, indeed, valid in the sense that the McKinley era was the precursor of the Bush II era, which "harkened back to the intensely partisan strategies of McKinley and his successors." Bush's strategies are now widely regarded as failures, not merely among his enemies but also among his erstwhile allies on Capitol Hill, who grouse about "White House incompetence or arrogance." But Brownstein places these complaints in proper context:
"Yet many conservatives recognized in Bush a kindred soul, not only in ideology, but more importantly in temperament. Because their goals were transformative rather than incremental, conservative activists could not be entirely satisfied with the give and take, the half a loaf deal making, of politics in ordinary times. . . . In Bush they found a leader who shared that conviction and who demonstrated, over and again, that in service of his goals he was willing to sharply divide the Congress and the country."
This, as Brownstein notes, came from the man who pledged to govern as "a uniter, not a divider." Bush's service as governor of Texas had been marked by what one Democrat there called a "collaborative spirit," but "he is not the centrist as president that he was as governor." This cannot be explained solely by the influence of Rove, who appeared to be far more interested in placating the GOP's hard-right "base" than in enacting effective legislation. Other influences probably included a Democratic congressional leadership that grew ever more hostile and ideological, the frenzied climate whipped up by screamers on radio and television, and Bush's own determination not to repeat his father's second-term electoral defeat. But whatever the precise causes, the Bush Administration's "forceful, even belligerent style" assured nothing except deadlock on the Hill, even on issues as important to Bush as immigration and Social Security "reform."
Brownstein's analysis of the American mood is far different from Bush/Rove's. He believes, and I think he's right, that there is "still a persuadable center in American politics -- and that no matter how effectively a party mobilized its base, it could not prevail if those swing voters moved sharply and cohesively against it," viz., the 2006 midterm elections. He also believes, and again I think he's right, that coalition politics is the wisest and most effective way to govern: "The party that seeks to encompass and harmonize the widest range of interests and perspectives is the one most likely to thrive. The overriding lesson for both parties from the Bush attempt to profit from polarization is that there remains no way to achieve lasting political power in a nation as diverse as America without assembling a broad coalition that locks arms to produce meaningful progress against the country's problems." As Lyndon Johnson used to say to those on the other side of the fence, "Come now, let us reason together."
Yet there's not much evidence that many in either party have learned this rather obvious lesson. Several of the (remarkably uninspired) presidential candidates have made oratorical gestures toward the politics of inclusion, but from Hillary Clinton to Rudolph Giuliani they're practicing interest-group politics of exclusion as delineated in the Gospel According to Karl Rove. Things have not been helped a bit by the Democratic leadership on the Hill, which took office early this year with great promises of unity but quickly lapsed into an ineffective mixture of partisan rhetoric and internal bickering. Brownstein writes:
"Our modern system of hyperpartisanship has unnecessarily inflamed our differences and impeded progress against our most pressing challenges. . . . In Washington the political debate too often careens between dysfunctional poles: either polarization, when one party imposes its will over the bitter resistance of the other, or immobilization, when the parties fight to stalemate. . . . Our political system has virtually lost its capacity to formulate the principled compromises indispensable for progress in any diverse society. By any measure, the costs of hyperpartisanship vastly exceed the benefits."
Brownstein has plenty of suggestions for changing things, from "allowing independents to participate in primaries" to "changing the rules for drawing districts in the House of Representatives." Most of these are sensible and a few are first-rate, but they have about as much chance of being adopted as I do of being president. The current rush by the states to be fustest with the mostest in primary season suggests how difficult it would be to achieve reform in that area, and the radical gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts engineered by Tom DeLay makes plain that reform in that one won't be easy, either. Probably what would do more good than anything else would be an attractive, well-organized, articulate presidential candidate willing, in Adlai Stevenson's words, "to talk sense to the American people." Realistically, though, what we can look for is more meanness, divisiveness and cynicism. It's the order of the day, and it's not going away any time soon.
tattoo a hot car engine after the
iwantmygreen
06-02 01:52 PM
does anyone know how long is Nebraska Service Center taking for EAD approval.
more...
pictures Cat: Attractive Car Collection
Blog Feeds
09-08 07:20 PM
New numbers are out on H-1B usage and the past week showed a substantial pickup in usage with more than 1700 numbers counted against the cap of 65,000. 36,600 H-1Bs have been counted now. I'm moving my exhaustion projection date up about two weeks. My target is based on a rolling four week usage average so variations from week to week are discounted. Usage over the last month has been about 1275 H-1Bs per week. On the masters cap of 20,000, the pace is pretty much the same with 400 petitions counted in the last week and total usage of...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/09/h-1b-exhaustion-target-march-8-2011.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/09/h-1b-exhaustion-target-march-8-2011.html)
dresses Cat in Car Engine - April 2010
puriyu
09-15 10:47 AM
http://imminfo.com/library/calculatingvisabulletinmovementarticle.html
more...
makeup milk-cat-stuck-in-car-engine
siddar
12-09 01:19 PM
Are you really sure that your H1B is still valid? My understanding is, only one type of Visa will be issued to a country for an individual, they cancel previously valid visas.
girlfriend diesel engine parts, CAT
fatjoe
09-06 01:45 PM
In the same boat. Looks like July 17th & around are not cleared yet. Mine filed on July 18th
hairstyles Cat In Car Engine
anyluck?
08-18 01:39 PM
Hi
I have a question regarding my spouse who is on H4 visa.she has real experience in India for 5 years. One of the company who does some projects did H1b processing through "CONSULAR PROCESSING". Her H1B is approved now.
1) Employer is saying she has to go out of the country to get the visa in order to work.
2) Apply for change of Status while staying in USA. Employer saying that there are chances of getting an RFE during that process. Is there any Premium process in Change of Status processing.
which one is advisable?
Can any one please suggest.
Thanks
I have a question regarding my spouse who is on H4 visa.she has real experience in India for 5 years. One of the company who does some projects did H1b processing through "CONSULAR PROCESSING". Her H1B is approved now.
1) Employer is saying she has to go out of the country to get the visa in order to work.
2) Apply for change of Status while staying in USA. Employer saying that there are chances of getting an RFE during that process. Is there any Premium process in Change of Status processing.
which one is advisable?
Can any one please suggest.
Thanks
krishna.ahd
05-15 04:00 PM
Only 36 votes so far ???????????????????
jayleno
10-14 01:45 PM
POJO lost its MOJO. It doesnt work anymore. If you have a real concern, try Infopass.
What is the new POJO method/sequence to call Texas service center???
What is the new POJO method/sequence to call Texas service center???
No comments:
Post a Comment