vkannan
03-12 10:19 PM
I know someone with PD EB3-I 2003 March who got his GC today.
Come on now, dont create another rumour....our brothers in EB3- I 2003 would all be excited ....but after few weeks they will know the truth and get disappointed.....Just think practically whether this is possible....
One example....just think....a week before April Bulletin was released.....there was lot of positive thought/wibes going around thinking EB2/EB3-I india (due to LUDs) would have a Huge jump forward.....well, everyone knows by now.....how it all went..........
Come on now, dont create another rumour....our brothers in EB3- I 2003 would all be excited ....but after few weeks they will know the truth and get disappointed.....Just think practically whether this is possible....
One example....just think....a week before April Bulletin was released.....there was lot of positive thought/wibes going around thinking EB2/EB3-I india (due to LUDs) would have a Huge jump forward.....well, everyone knows by now.....how it all went..........
raydon
08-05 07:28 PM
lonedesi,
Much as I'd like to participate in this campaign, it's the employer's signature that I can't guarantee. My employer is a big and prestigious (supposedly) company and will not want to sign this petition or do anything against the counsel of the attorney. The attorney is not gaining anything by expedited processing of the I-140 and won't support this either. He's an AILA member too, if that's of any significance.
If this is worthless without the employer's signature, then I'm unable to participate in this campaign, though it is a worthy effort.I would urge all members who can get the employer's consent to definitely participate and wake up the USCIS from it's slumber.They need a big kick up their you-know-where, especially the TSC.
Much as I'd like to participate in this campaign, it's the employer's signature that I can't guarantee. My employer is a big and prestigious (supposedly) company and will not want to sign this petition or do anything against the counsel of the attorney. The attorney is not gaining anything by expedited processing of the I-140 and won't support this either. He's an AILA member too, if that's of any significance.
If this is worthless without the employer's signature, then I'm unable to participate in this campaign, though it is a worthy effort.I would urge all members who can get the employer's consent to definitely participate and wake up the USCIS from it's slumber.They need a big kick up their you-know-where, especially the TSC.
ashutrip
06-18 12:58 PM
I agree. On the other side, some were certified in quick time.
seems like your a big time optimist and me a big time pessimist
seems like your a big time optimist and me a big time pessimist
.jpg "emo love quotes and sayings")
senthil1
08-04 05:29 PM
H1b and GC are sponsered by employer and they have to pay. If employer asks employee to pay the expenses then that company is not legitimate and persons should avoid joining those companies. Most reputed companies will pay all the expenses of GC and H1b. Some will ask employees to pay for dependents EAD,AP etc.
Consulting companies ask employees to pay GC and H1b if employees want to work hourly. That means employees wanted more money and they are taking risk(Also working hourly is against the H1b regulations as they have more chance for falling out of status).
There's no law that employer should borne the cost of GC. I have spent almost 10K in my GC process until last year and 2K this year for EADs and APs. I spend about 3 K in one more GC process I started several years back which I abandoned because I changed the emloyer. I Spent 1000s of dollars in Visa stamping, H4 renewals. And yes I'm stuck for almost a decade. There are atleast 10 people I know who are in similar situations, so I'm guessing there'll be thousands in USA. These are facts it may not apply to you but does apply to lot of people here...
Consulting companies ask employees to pay GC and H1b if employees want to work hourly. That means employees wanted more money and they are taking risk(Also working hourly is against the H1b regulations as they have more chance for falling out of status).
There's no law that employer should borne the cost of GC. I have spent almost 10K in my GC process until last year and 2K this year for EADs and APs. I spend about 3 K in one more GC process I started several years back which I abandoned because I changed the emloyer. I Spent 1000s of dollars in Visa stamping, H4 renewals. And yes I'm stuck for almost a decade. There are atleast 10 people I know who are in similar situations, so I'm guessing there'll be thousands in USA. These are facts it may not apply to you but does apply to lot of people here...
more...
krispal
09-10 04:26 PM
Contributed $200 for the rally...I will not be able to attend the rally due to prior commitments..
Google Order #453214450987881
Google Order #453214450987881
satyasaich
03-08 09:43 AM
Senator Cornyn has proposed some amendments related to broder security
Senator Durban is also proposing some, but no harm for legal EB
Stay tuned
ok, one day is gone, now what`s will happen??
Senator Durban is also proposing some, but no harm for legal EB
Stay tuned
ok, one day is gone, now what`s will happen??
more...
gaz
08-26 12:14 AM
could you please provide some reference or more detail to this?
Not sure about which bank would be good but whichever bank you choose make sure that they give you a statement of how much interest you paid over the year. Most people don't realize that you can deduct interest paid for a home loan in India is tax deductible in the US. Just FYI.
Not sure about which bank would be good but whichever bank you choose make sure that they give you a statement of how much interest you paid over the year. Most people don't realize that you can deduct interest paid for a home loan in India is tax deductible in the US. Just FYI.
pd_recapturing
10-17 08:31 AM
nk2000,
Thanks a ton for opening up this new thread. I am going to send the letters.
pd_recapturing
Thanks a ton for opening up this new thread. I am going to send the letters.
pd_recapturing
more...
validIV
03-04 11:58 AM
Thats ridiculous. I recently bought a home and got FHA loan from Chevy Chase Bank. They did not ask me a single immigration related document or any proof of legal presence. All they ever asked was a valid ID during closing, and I showed them my drivers license.
LOL. I think you meant JP Morgan Chase :) CHEVY CHASE is an actor.
LOL. I think you meant JP Morgan Chase :) CHEVY CHASE is an actor.
ItIsNotFunny
10-22 09:42 AM
Hey, tx for the PM, I sent the email, do we need to send a letter too?>
I think emails are fine for now. We want to acknowledge them and trying to avoid embarassing them.
I think emails are fine for now. We want to acknowledge them and trying to avoid embarassing them.
more...
beppenyc
03-16 10:15 AM
Frist Sets Date for Immigration Debate
(CNSNews.com) - Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said he will bring an immigration reform bill to the Senate floor later this month, something that will force debate on a guest worker program supported by some Republicans but opposed by others. The Judiciary Committee hasn't completed work on what it calls a "very complicated" bill: Critics oppose any moves to give temporary workers amnesty. The House passed an immigration bill last year that does not address the guest worker issue. Read News on the Web
(CNSNews.com) - Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said he will bring an immigration reform bill to the Senate floor later this month, something that will force debate on a guest worker program supported by some Republicans but opposed by others. The Judiciary Committee hasn't completed work on what it calls a "very complicated" bill: Critics oppose any moves to give temporary workers amnesty. The House passed an immigration bill last year that does not address the guest worker issue. Read News on the Web
snathan
05-23 09:15 AM
If you have made a contribution and posted on this thread or on the thread we had before your name should be on the list. We do not have an automatic way of updating this list once someone had made a contribution through paypal at this time. Every night I go through this thread, update numbers and names. I could have made a manual error and missed some names but once people have brought that to my attention I have been double checking and responding back to them. I know I am behind on verifying one or two contributions but I will catch up. I work long hours,take classes and I live 80 miles away from where I work. I wish I had more than 24 hours in my day. If you could help us with maintaining an accurate list that would be awesome.
Hope I answered your query :)
Actually I paid $100 and not $50. It was two $50 on the same day.
Hope I answered your query :)
Actually I paid $100 and not $50. It was two $50 on the same day.
more...
qualified_trash
05-31 01:51 PM
Fermat's Last Theorem will be proved before anyone can come up with an explanation for the functioning of the BECs.
makemygc
10-25 11:59 PM
I've sent the mails and strongly encourage everyone to come out and take an early action before this gets worse. Even if you are not affected right now, support the cause to make sure that you will not be affected in the future.
Also, just wanted to point out some notes that letter says that Yates memo is attached, so if you are blindly copy and pasting make sure that you attach the Memo to your email or a copy to your letter.
I would suggest OP to add the copy of yates memo and the follow up memo to the posting.
Thanks
MakeMyGC
Issue/Background:
It seems USCIS is not following AC21 regulations in some cases � especially when underlying I140 is revoked by previous employer � and are incorrectly denying I485 applications. As we know, AC21 regulations and related guidelines, provide some relief and allow job changes without affecting the I485 application. As per these rules if the employee changes employment after 180 days of submitting I485 application, there is no need to redo I140 even-if old employer revokes the old I140.
In recent days USCIS seems to be denying lot of I485 applications � ignoring their own AC21 regulations. A few of IV volunteers (pd_recapturing, gc4me, chanduv et al) have started an effort to address this. You can get more info on this, at this thread: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21716.
This issue can affect a lot of us and it negates all the flexibility/relief that we acquired by getting EAD�s and advantages we got thru recent admin reform.
What needs to be done:
After some initial discussions and planning (thanks to pd-capturing, chandu, et al) it is decided to write letters to Ombudsman and service center heads to point out this and request them to correct it ASAP. Please participate and send letters. To succeed we need to send it in thousands.
Pasting the letter and the addresses below.
More info: (thanks to gc4me for addresses and letter template):
======================
Everyone please send the letter/email to 3 persons.
1. Ombudsman
2. Director, NSC
3. Director, TSC
======================
Ombudsman:
cisombudsman@dhs.gov
Mailing Address:
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
ATTN: Recommendations
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
=======================
Nebraska Service Center
Director: Gerard Heinauer
General Correspondence (Inquiries) (Sending applications or petitions to this address will delay their processing)
USCIS NSC
P.O. Box 82521
Lincoln, NE 68501-2521
NOTE: If using overnight delivery by any private service provider, send your package to:
USCIS
Nebraska Service Center
850 S Street
P.O. Box (Insert Correct P.O. Box Number)
Lincoln, NE 68508
Be sure to include the appropriate P.O. Box number on the shipping label.
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Suite 7000
Washington, DC 20529
or email: USCIS-COMPLAINT@DHS.GOV
=====================
Director: David Roark
General
Correspondence:
USCIS TSC
PO Box 851488
Mesquite, TX 75185-1488
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Ste 7000, Washington, DC 20529
============================
Letter
============================
Date: Today()
To
Mr. Michael Timothy Dougherty
The Ombudsman
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Re: Issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines
Dear Sir,
This is to bring your attention to the issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines.
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) allows for a change of employer on any I-485 Adjustment of Status Application that has been pending for 180 days or more, without the need to file a new I-140 petition, provided the applicant�s new employment is in a similar/same occupation.
According to the Memo released by William R Yates on August 4th 2003, the original I-140 is valid if it is approvable and form I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days. (Attached for your reference is the memo dated August 4th 2003 from William R Yates and the follow-up memo dated May 12th 2005 with relevant sections highlighted).
Due to unreasonable delays caused by retrogression, many candidates have lawfully changed employers in accordance with the AC21 statute. Even though there is no requirement that USCIS be notified after a job change, some applicants have done so to prove that they are in compliance with this regulation. If the previous employer has withdrawn the previously approved I-140, AC21 guidelines state that if the applicant has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the applicant be sent an NOID (Notice of Intent to Deny) to deny the I-485 application or a RFE (Request for Evidence) . If the response to the NOID/RFE is timely and indicates that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, USCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485.
Over the past few months, a disturbing pattern has emerged with cases where the applicant has changed employers. USCIS has started to deny I-485applications where the underlying I-140 has been withdrawn by the previous employer without issuing an NOID or RFE. Even those applicants who have notified USCIS of change in employers have had their I-485 denied.
After the denial of I-485, the applicant has to file a MTR (Motion to reconsider) with USCIS to re-open the case. In addition to the financial burden of filing and legal fees, the applicant has to stop working because of the denial of the I-485 until the case is re-opened. This could be anywhere from a month to a few months. Needless to say, employers are unwilling to keep the job position open for such a long period and the applicant in most cases is looking at potential loss of employment. The applicant who has followed the law to the fullest extent is unfairly punished on account of USCIS not following the AC21 provisions.
This is a request for you to intervene to ensure that the AC21 regulations are followed when adjudicating an I-485 application. If the applicant notifies USCIS of a change in employment under AC21, this should be added the applicant�s physical file and electronic records. If there is no such notification and the previous employer withdraws the I-140, the applicant should be issued a NOID/RFE instead of denying the I-485 application.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact.
Thank you in advance for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Thanks,
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone Number
Also, just wanted to point out some notes that letter says that Yates memo is attached, so if you are blindly copy and pasting make sure that you attach the Memo to your email or a copy to your letter.
I would suggest OP to add the copy of yates memo and the follow up memo to the posting.
Thanks
MakeMyGC
Issue/Background:
It seems USCIS is not following AC21 regulations in some cases � especially when underlying I140 is revoked by previous employer � and are incorrectly denying I485 applications. As we know, AC21 regulations and related guidelines, provide some relief and allow job changes without affecting the I485 application. As per these rules if the employee changes employment after 180 days of submitting I485 application, there is no need to redo I140 even-if old employer revokes the old I140.
In recent days USCIS seems to be denying lot of I485 applications � ignoring their own AC21 regulations. A few of IV volunteers (pd_recapturing, gc4me, chanduv et al) have started an effort to address this. You can get more info on this, at this thread: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21716.
This issue can affect a lot of us and it negates all the flexibility/relief that we acquired by getting EAD�s and advantages we got thru recent admin reform.
What needs to be done:
After some initial discussions and planning (thanks to pd-capturing, chandu, et al) it is decided to write letters to Ombudsman and service center heads to point out this and request them to correct it ASAP. Please participate and send letters. To succeed we need to send it in thousands.
Pasting the letter and the addresses below.
More info: (thanks to gc4me for addresses and letter template):
======================
Everyone please send the letter/email to 3 persons.
1. Ombudsman
2. Director, NSC
3. Director, TSC
======================
Ombudsman:
cisombudsman@dhs.gov
Mailing Address:
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
ATTN: Recommendations
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
=======================
Nebraska Service Center
Director: Gerard Heinauer
General Correspondence (Inquiries) (Sending applications or petitions to this address will delay their processing)
USCIS NSC
P.O. Box 82521
Lincoln, NE 68501-2521
NOTE: If using overnight delivery by any private service provider, send your package to:
USCIS
Nebraska Service Center
850 S Street
P.O. Box (Insert Correct P.O. Box Number)
Lincoln, NE 68508
Be sure to include the appropriate P.O. Box number on the shipping label.
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Suite 7000
Washington, DC 20529
or email: USCIS-COMPLAINT@DHS.GOV
=====================
Director: David Roark
General
Correspondence:
USCIS TSC
PO Box 851488
Mesquite, TX 75185-1488
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Ste 7000, Washington, DC 20529
============================
Letter
============================
Date: Today()
To
Mr. Michael Timothy Dougherty
The Ombudsman
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Re: Issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines
Dear Sir,
This is to bring your attention to the issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines.
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) allows for a change of employer on any I-485 Adjustment of Status Application that has been pending for 180 days or more, without the need to file a new I-140 petition, provided the applicant�s new employment is in a similar/same occupation.
According to the Memo released by William R Yates on August 4th 2003, the original I-140 is valid if it is approvable and form I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days. (Attached for your reference is the memo dated August 4th 2003 from William R Yates and the follow-up memo dated May 12th 2005 with relevant sections highlighted).
Due to unreasonable delays caused by retrogression, many candidates have lawfully changed employers in accordance with the AC21 statute. Even though there is no requirement that USCIS be notified after a job change, some applicants have done so to prove that they are in compliance with this regulation. If the previous employer has withdrawn the previously approved I-140, AC21 guidelines state that if the applicant has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the applicant be sent an NOID (Notice of Intent to Deny) to deny the I-485 application or a RFE (Request for Evidence) . If the response to the NOID/RFE is timely and indicates that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, USCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485.
Over the past few months, a disturbing pattern has emerged with cases where the applicant has changed employers. USCIS has started to deny I-485applications where the underlying I-140 has been withdrawn by the previous employer without issuing an NOID or RFE. Even those applicants who have notified USCIS of change in employers have had their I-485 denied.
After the denial of I-485, the applicant has to file a MTR (Motion to reconsider) with USCIS to re-open the case. In addition to the financial burden of filing and legal fees, the applicant has to stop working because of the denial of the I-485 until the case is re-opened. This could be anywhere from a month to a few months. Needless to say, employers are unwilling to keep the job position open for such a long period and the applicant in most cases is looking at potential loss of employment. The applicant who has followed the law to the fullest extent is unfairly punished on account of USCIS not following the AC21 provisions.
This is a request for you to intervene to ensure that the AC21 regulations are followed when adjudicating an I-485 application. If the applicant notifies USCIS of a change in employment under AC21, this should be added the applicant�s physical file and electronic records. If there is no such notification and the previous employer withdraws the I-140, the applicant should be issued a NOID/RFE instead of denying the I-485 application.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact.
Thank you in advance for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Thanks,
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone Number
more...
JunRN
05-15 11:20 PM
Thanks for your wishes.
I agree with you regarding the timeline and evidence. I have mentioned it to my attorney numerous times. My attorney was insistent that adjudicating officers can see all my info on their computer screens. It is only a matter of looking at the info correctly.
It looks like the first MTR went to the same IO who denied my I-485. I could say it from ID in both the denial letters.
Sometimes lawyers are used to their old ways of doing things. However, IOs are not the same people of the old. Most IOs are new hires and still in their learning curve.
I think the problem with your info. on USCIS screen is that the previously approved I-140 was changed to "denied" on same date it was approved. USCIS probably didn't have a log of the change.
The only evidence to prove that it was "approved" before is your copy of approval notice and it seems they don't believe the legitimacy of your copy. USCIS relied solely in their faulty database system.
Did you have a screen capture of the I-140 approval in CRIS? I screened captured mine just in case because it's another proof that one point in time, I-140 was approved.
I agree with you regarding the timeline and evidence. I have mentioned it to my attorney numerous times. My attorney was insistent that adjudicating officers can see all my info on their computer screens. It is only a matter of looking at the info correctly.
It looks like the first MTR went to the same IO who denied my I-485. I could say it from ID in both the denial letters.
Sometimes lawyers are used to their old ways of doing things. However, IOs are not the same people of the old. Most IOs are new hires and still in their learning curve.
I think the problem with your info. on USCIS screen is that the previously approved I-140 was changed to "denied" on same date it was approved. USCIS probably didn't have a log of the change.
The only evidence to prove that it was "approved" before is your copy of approval notice and it seems they don't believe the legitimacy of your copy. USCIS relied solely in their faulty database system.
Did you have a screen capture of the I-140 approval in CRIS? I screened captured mine just in case because it's another proof that one point in time, I-140 was approved.
rockrocky
06-11 11:32 AM
Just remember.. if we are not united, we ain't getting nothing. Lets work on Recapture of wasted numbers. Thats the only inflow we can rely on. We don't have to wait for their charity every month in the name of left over numbers or spill over numbers. We want our legal GCs. We worked hard to earn it. Lets stay united and fight against the system.
more...
svr_76
09-15 06:25 PM
Ramba - you seem to be working through a body-shopper as a plain consultant with restricted veritical movement in the organizational chain which implies your underlying assuption that if same org files multiple petitions for the same person.
In 2003, they were not able to skilled developer so file my eb3...now after one completes master's degree ..experience in other companies if they find that the cannot find experienced manager and after due recrutiment process find that one of their own employee is the best fit for that job.
So now u are saying that they should not do it? That will be a company discriminating against their own employees???
Comon...I thought guys from IT were logicall and brainy folks (and hence were grant EB2 category for their exceptional calibre)....guess thats wrong.
In 2003, they were not able to skilled developer so file my eb3...now after one completes master's degree ..experience in other companies if they find that the cannot find experienced manager and after due recrutiment process find that one of their own employee is the best fit for that job.
So now u are saying that they should not do it? That will be a company discriminating against their own employees???
Comon...I thought guys from IT were logicall and brainy folks (and hence were grant EB2 category for their exceptional calibre)....guess thats wrong.
sprash
03-12 06:08 PM
I know I might get bashed over this - but I don't see the so called "freeloaders" like me to be worthless as donors often tend to accuse.
In the past, I have doled out valuable information.... and have taken pains to scan my RFE and post it with detailed explanations etc for the benefit of the community. I have replied to people to the best of my knowledge and participated in numerous mailing campaigns. While those efforts may not be even close to what others have done here, I do believe that donations should be just that 'donations' and not turn that into a 'membership'.
Already I see people asking for exceptions "I have done xyz so I should get free access etc". I'm with that other 'donor' who said that we have enough divisions in our community already.
Keep in mind that by giving such an incentive to pay, you are also giving a disincentive for people to participate and share their data and their valuable experiences (thats not freeloading!).
In the past, I have doled out valuable information.... and have taken pains to scan my RFE and post it with detailed explanations etc for the benefit of the community. I have replied to people to the best of my knowledge and participated in numerous mailing campaigns. While those efforts may not be even close to what others have done here, I do believe that donations should be just that 'donations' and not turn that into a 'membership'.
Already I see people asking for exceptions "I have done xyz so I should get free access etc". I'm with that other 'donor' who said that we have enough divisions in our community already.
Keep in mind that by giving such an incentive to pay, you are also giving a disincentive for people to participate and share their data and their valuable experiences (thats not freeloading!).
little_willy
09-11 04:56 PM
Thats the only thing hadn't happened so far......and now we have it...People are blaming IV now...I hope this is not true.
http://www..com/discussion-forums/i485-1/124475663/last-page/
Ignore these kind of posts. If you check his profile, he just joined yesterday and this is his only post. Many ppl who were banned from IV paint this false image of the core, but we all know better than that. Ignore and move on.
http://www..com/discussion-forums/i485-1/124475663/last-page/
Ignore these kind of posts. If you check his profile, he just joined yesterday and this is his only post. Many ppl who were banned from IV paint this false image of the core, but we all know better than that. Ignore and move on.
Libra
07-06 03:18 PM
There are many members who think IV and other members are fighting for re-reversal of VB or increase in visa number for 2007....
why dont they understand that we are fighting to avoid rejection, we are not asking them to re-revise bulletin, all we want is just accept the application without rejecting them, so that we can save ourselves from loosing money and time. dont make fun of IV and other members who's putting their efforts in it, no matter what the result is. if you dont want to participate please stop visiting this forum.
Paisa you too man.
definitely if the result on Monday is the reversal of USCIS decision and July is open again.
why dont they understand that we are fighting to avoid rejection, we are not asking them to re-revise bulletin, all we want is just accept the application without rejecting them, so that we can save ourselves from loosing money and time. dont make fun of IV and other members who's putting their efforts in it, no matter what the result is. if you dont want to participate please stop visiting this forum.
Paisa you too man.
definitely if the result on Monday is the reversal of USCIS decision and July is open again.
WillIBLucky
12-18 02:40 PM
Who ever has got the idea of striking, picketing or hunger strike, it will not work here. Lobbying is the only way out for us. Well I guess someone has taken a cue from Mamta Benerjee. Well it surely works in India but not in United States.
So lets stick to lobbying and calling the senators and addding members and contributing to help lobbying.
So lets stick to lobbying and calling the senators and addding members and contributing to help lobbying.
No comments:
Post a Comment