svr_76
06-10 01:24 PM
xactly. so the immi grps impacted are H1 and recent/new I-140 filers.
In the past pure H1B holder (no intension to adjust or working for firms that dont sponser GC) were not actively participating in IV's activities as they were never impacted and had the option to stay away.
This new rule-making definitely impact them..and should be an opportunity to join IV in more active way.
In the past pure H1B holder (no intension to adjust or working for firms that dont sponser GC) were not actively participating in IV's activities as they were never impacted and had the option to stay away.
This new rule-making definitely impact them..and should be an opportunity to join IV in more active way.
wallpaper Elle+and+dakota+fanning+
neelu
12-13 12:17 AM
I'm with you - less talk and more action.
Also, members should all show support for all goals.
I am not in the I-485 stage but would certainly fax USCIS.
In the same way, members should fax DOL to clear up their backlogs.
the whole point of this forum is united action, so lets show support
Add one more member to this effort. I will support any effort to call/fax for both fixes to LC backlogs as well as provision to allow 485 filing without visa number availability.
At the same time, I do want to caution that we need to take measured steps, because USCIS and DOL though they are public service departments are unlike the congress which is a representative body of the people and so by definition there to 'hear' our problems and address them. In summary, DOL and USCIS might not be as receptive or even be irritated (might hurt our cause).
I would suggest that a group of say around 10-15 with a couple of core members (am not volunteering them here!) who have had both media exposure and well versed with the issues, meet these people at the top and seek explanations. But even as I write this, I doubt how much effect that kind of thing would have, unless we do this on a regular basis.
I know many of these suggestions are easier said than done, but better something said than none! :)
Also, members should all show support for all goals.
I am not in the I-485 stage but would certainly fax USCIS.
In the same way, members should fax DOL to clear up their backlogs.
the whole point of this forum is united action, so lets show support
Add one more member to this effort. I will support any effort to call/fax for both fixes to LC backlogs as well as provision to allow 485 filing without visa number availability.
At the same time, I do want to caution that we need to take measured steps, because USCIS and DOL though they are public service departments are unlike the congress which is a representative body of the people and so by definition there to 'hear' our problems and address them. In summary, DOL and USCIS might not be as receptive or even be irritated (might hurt our cause).
I would suggest that a group of say around 10-15 with a couple of core members (am not volunteering them here!) who have had both media exposure and well versed with the issues, meet these people at the top and seek explanations. But even as I write this, I doubt how much effect that kind of thing would have, unless we do this on a regular basis.
I know many of these suggestions are easier said than done, but better something said than none! :)
Raj2006
06-10 04:49 PM
done.
2011 Dakota Fanning
drirshad
07-04 09:35 PM
immigration-law.com
07/04/2007: Status and Issues Involving July 2007 485 Fiasco
* The AILF work on the lawsuit appears to be in progress without any hurdles. It has reported that enough candidates have come forward to participate in the lawsuit as the plaintiffs and it does not need any more candidates to move forward for the lawsuit. Some of other people are likely to be covered as members of the class action regardless of their actual participation in the lawsuit. People should send "THANK YOU" to the AILF Legal Action Center leaders and the attorneys who are actually working on this case. Some contribution to the AILF may be more than appropriate. Please visit the AILF site to learn how they can send in contribution.
#
# We have been asked by the readers to report the alleged conspiracy theory. We declined to do it. However, people may want to know potential issues that should be answered and explored. We will discuss these issues on following hypotehtical premises:
* Presumption of Facts: (1) The I-485 applications have been experiencing a tremendous backlog lately. (2) The causes for the backlog have been known to be delays in the security checks. Some of these applicants have sought a relief in federal courts in the form of mandamus actions. (3) Allegedly, the USCIS pull together local and Service Center employees and pull out pending I-485 cases which were older than six months in backlog, working overtime and during the weekend right before July 1, 2007. This is an assumption at this point. (4) As evidenced by the revised Visa Bulletin, apparently these employees contacted "en mass" the DOS to request the visa numbers for these pending I-485 cases, which the DOS reported in the release of the revised VB turned out exceeding 60,000. (5) The rule requires that the USCIS approves I-485 cases "prior to" to contacting and requesting a visa number. (6) The current USCIS policy and procedure also require that I-485 applications be adjudicated and approved "only after" the completion of clearance of the security checks.
* Issue I: Hypothetically, what happens if the USCIS takes out the visa number before they obtain the security clearace?
o Answer I: Obviously it would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: It will constitue a serious security lapse, compromising the homeland security.
* Issue II: Hypothetically, what hppens if the USCIS requests and takes out the visa numbers prior to adjudication and approval of the pending I-485 applications?
o Answer I: It is evident that the USCIS would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: There could be two probable consequences affecting the backlog I-485 applicants and the new July Visa Bulletin eligible I-485 applicants, shoud the hypothetical facts develop. (1) The backlog I-485 applicants who have been issued I-485 approval notices should not be affected by the fiasco, albeit the potential revocation of the I-485 approvals. In most cases, revocation of the approved I-485 requires the time-consuming immigration court proceedings, assuming that the USCIS has a sufficient cause of action which may be questionable in this case. (2) The backlog I-485 applicants who have yet to receive the approval notice and the USCIS has yet to adjudicate and approve the application might be vulnerable in that the USCIS might be required to return the visa numbers for these cases as there was an error. Hypothetically, these numbers could be returned to the State Department and based on these returned number, the State Department might be required to revise the July Visa Bulletin again.
07/04/2007: Status and Issues Involving July 2007 485 Fiasco
* The AILF work on the lawsuit appears to be in progress without any hurdles. It has reported that enough candidates have come forward to participate in the lawsuit as the plaintiffs and it does not need any more candidates to move forward for the lawsuit. Some of other people are likely to be covered as members of the class action regardless of their actual participation in the lawsuit. People should send "THANK YOU" to the AILF Legal Action Center leaders and the attorneys who are actually working on this case. Some contribution to the AILF may be more than appropriate. Please visit the AILF site to learn how they can send in contribution.
#
# We have been asked by the readers to report the alleged conspiracy theory. We declined to do it. However, people may want to know potential issues that should be answered and explored. We will discuss these issues on following hypotehtical premises:
* Presumption of Facts: (1) The I-485 applications have been experiencing a tremendous backlog lately. (2) The causes for the backlog have been known to be delays in the security checks. Some of these applicants have sought a relief in federal courts in the form of mandamus actions. (3) Allegedly, the USCIS pull together local and Service Center employees and pull out pending I-485 cases which were older than six months in backlog, working overtime and during the weekend right before July 1, 2007. This is an assumption at this point. (4) As evidenced by the revised Visa Bulletin, apparently these employees contacted "en mass" the DOS to request the visa numbers for these pending I-485 cases, which the DOS reported in the release of the revised VB turned out exceeding 60,000. (5) The rule requires that the USCIS approves I-485 cases "prior to" to contacting and requesting a visa number. (6) The current USCIS policy and procedure also require that I-485 applications be adjudicated and approved "only after" the completion of clearance of the security checks.
* Issue I: Hypothetically, what happens if the USCIS takes out the visa number before they obtain the security clearace?
o Answer I: Obviously it would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: It will constitue a serious security lapse, compromising the homeland security.
* Issue II: Hypothetically, what hppens if the USCIS requests and takes out the visa numbers prior to adjudication and approval of the pending I-485 applications?
o Answer I: It is evident that the USCIS would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: There could be two probable consequences affecting the backlog I-485 applicants and the new July Visa Bulletin eligible I-485 applicants, shoud the hypothetical facts develop. (1) The backlog I-485 applicants who have been issued I-485 approval notices should not be affected by the fiasco, albeit the potential revocation of the I-485 approvals. In most cases, revocation of the approved I-485 requires the time-consuming immigration court proceedings, assuming that the USCIS has a sufficient cause of action which may be questionable in this case. (2) The backlog I-485 applicants who have yet to receive the approval notice and the USCIS has yet to adjudicate and approve the application might be vulnerable in that the USCIS might be required to return the visa numbers for these cases as there was an error. Hypothetically, these numbers could be returned to the State Department and based on these returned number, the State Department might be required to revise the July Visa Bulletin again.
more...
uma001
07-29 05:10 AM
Add Wachovia now acquired by Wells Fargo to the list. They don't even do H1 extensions.
That's too bad.
That's too bad.
yabadaba
09-26 12:44 PM
As needhelp said earlier, the damage is done. This is really shameful on the part of CNN. Maybe its a coordinated effort by the Lou Dobbs production team to equate our issues with H1B. This philosophy trickles down and freelance writers end up subscribing to that ideology giving betsy ross and her hateful group a nice platform for them to launch their attacks on us or spread even more misinformation.
One thing I started doing was identifying texts in the comments section of any news article post related to high skilled immigration. It looks like ALIPAC or one of those hate groups have a concentrated effort for members to post the same message in the comments section of any media article that is sympathetic to our predicament. We need to identify these posters and the messages - maybe it all comes from one user posting the same set of stock messages with different names.
One thing I started doing was identifying texts in the comments section of any news article post related to high skilled immigration. It looks like ALIPAC or one of those hate groups have a concentrated effort for members to post the same message in the comments section of any media article that is sympathetic to our predicament. We need to identify these posters and the messages - maybe it all comes from one user posting the same set of stock messages with different names.
more...
abhijitp
07-25 02:29 PM
http://www.google.com/answers/threadview?id=559556
If an applicant for adjustment wishes to take a new job in the same
or similar occupational classification at the job that was the basis
of his or her employment-based I-140 AND the I-485 has been pending
180 days or more, the new employer may be substituted into the
existing I-485 application without disrupting the application at all.
This is accomplished very easily - NO new petition and no new fees.
Step 1: The applicant notifies INS of the change in intent by letter.
Step 2: The Service should then make a request for a letter of
employment from the new employer.
Voila! Done deal."
http://www.ilw.com/articles/2001,0705-Latour.shtm
If an applicant for adjustment wishes to take a new job in the same
or similar occupational classification at the job that was the basis
of his or her employment-based I-140 AND the I-485 has been pending
180 days or more, the new employer may be substituted into the
existing I-485 application without disrupting the application at all.
This is accomplished very easily - NO new petition and no new fees.
Step 1: The applicant notifies INS of the change in intent by letter.
Step 2: The Service should then make a request for a letter of
employment from the new employer.
Voila! Done deal."
http://www.ilw.com/articles/2001,0705-Latour.shtm
2010 I#39;m not going to skirt around
shreekhand
07-04 10:28 PM
A nicely presented opinion by Ramba, but there are obvious flaws in the anaylsis. Here are my observations
1.) The contention that they followed the recommendations of the Omb report and went back to pre-1982 method cannot be true. They cannot follow that without violating 8 USC Section 1255 (b) which clearly states that a visa number is reduced AFTER the approval of the I-485.
2.)There were 40K visas remaining at the time of the Jun 13 bulletin according to AILA. The 60K number as per DoS might have been from end of May. We most note the fact from the CIS I-485 Standard Operating Procedure that when a petition is "documentarily qualified and approvable" a request is made for a visa number, if such number is not available that petition is put into a approved pending availability of visa number list. This makes it amply clear that the CIS knew the exact number of approvable petitions.(might be ~40-60K) The DoS might also have known that.
3.) So what happened ? Looks like the DoS did not expect the CIS to get those petitions quickly from storage, assign a visa number, stamp and sign petitions with the speed that CIS did it with. As a matter of fact, we can clearly deduce from inquiries made my petitioners in the month of May that soon after the June bulletin was released in May, the petitioners were informed by IO's that their files are now been retrieved and have been assigned to officers for approval in June !
4.) This shows that the CIS swift approval (i.e retrieval, assigning visa #, stamp, signature) activity especially the retrieval part did not start on June 1, or June 13 but well before in mid May if not earlier.
5.) Now maybe they assigned the visa #'s to the approvable petitions (in line with the law) already but they are still going on with the stamp, signature part (as evidenced by people receiving approvals e-mails even on July 2nd and 3rd.. and other forums)
6.) Suspension of PPS at NSC and TSC -- Now why should that happen ?
If they have already used up the EB quota one would ask that much amount of man hours are now free isn't it !!?
But the above points might show us that they might need it to simply finish off the paperwork of the approvable petitions in the month of July. Remember signing off on 40K+ petitions is not a 1 month job, but just assigning visa numbers might be. It is very certain to me that we will see approvals well within July!
Loose ends:
1.) What baffles though is the allocation of all visa numbers before the last quarter of FY 07 ! Maybe there is loophole there that allowed them to do so.
2.) How did visa number for EB1 for a top scientist from say an undersubscribed country such as Ukraine also get used up ??!
1.) The contention that they followed the recommendations of the Omb report and went back to pre-1982 method cannot be true. They cannot follow that without violating 8 USC Section 1255 (b) which clearly states that a visa number is reduced AFTER the approval of the I-485.
2.)There were 40K visas remaining at the time of the Jun 13 bulletin according to AILA. The 60K number as per DoS might have been from end of May. We most note the fact from the CIS I-485 Standard Operating Procedure that when a petition is "documentarily qualified and approvable" a request is made for a visa number, if such number is not available that petition is put into a approved pending availability of visa number list. This makes it amply clear that the CIS knew the exact number of approvable petitions.(might be ~40-60K) The DoS might also have known that.
3.) So what happened ? Looks like the DoS did not expect the CIS to get those petitions quickly from storage, assign a visa number, stamp and sign petitions with the speed that CIS did it with. As a matter of fact, we can clearly deduce from inquiries made my petitioners in the month of May that soon after the June bulletin was released in May, the petitioners were informed by IO's that their files are now been retrieved and have been assigned to officers for approval in June !
4.) This shows that the CIS swift approval (i.e retrieval, assigning visa #, stamp, signature) activity especially the retrieval part did not start on June 1, or June 13 but well before in mid May if not earlier.
5.) Now maybe they assigned the visa #'s to the approvable petitions (in line with the law) already but they are still going on with the stamp, signature part (as evidenced by people receiving approvals e-mails even on July 2nd and 3rd.. and other forums)
6.) Suspension of PPS at NSC and TSC -- Now why should that happen ?
If they have already used up the EB quota one would ask that much amount of man hours are now free isn't it !!?
But the above points might show us that they might need it to simply finish off the paperwork of the approvable petitions in the month of July. Remember signing off on 40K+ petitions is not a 1 month job, but just assigning visa numbers might be. It is very certain to me that we will see approvals well within July!
Loose ends:
1.) What baffles though is the allocation of all visa numbers before the last quarter of FY 07 ! Maybe there is loophole there that allowed them to do so.
2.) How did visa number for EB1 for a top scientist from say an undersubscribed country such as Ukraine also get used up ??!
more...
zen
04-06 08:55 PM
I know a person who was sent back; IO called the end client to verify his employment and asked if they could hire american worker instead, when the employer said they could, IO sent him back. I think they are only going after H1's working for smaller consulting companies.
You may write it off as a rumor, so be it, but IV needs to step in and take necessary action.
well if the employer is not supporting you ..then maybe the IO does have the authority to refuse ?? (well assuming that these cases are correct ..then I guess we can assume that IO has recd instructions from his superiors) it is good to hear from Pappu that IV is ready to take up this issue ...but till someone comes foward ..can IV focus on other issues like recapture, removal of country limits etc (there is no shortage of issues where focus is needed)
You may write it off as a rumor, so be it, but IV needs to step in and take necessary action.
well if the employer is not supporting you ..then maybe the IO does have the authority to refuse ?? (well assuming that these cases are correct ..then I guess we can assume that IO has recd instructions from his superiors) it is good to hear from Pappu that IV is ready to take up this issue ...but till someone comes foward ..can IV focus on other issues like recapture, removal of country limits etc (there is no shortage of issues where focus is needed)
hair Elle+and+dakota+fanning+
CSPAvictim
07-10 05:38 PM
Note: Administrators/Moderators, please move this post to the appropriate thread, or delete it if this has already been posted elsewhere.
Source: http://www.murthy.com
Update on AILF's Legal Action Center Visa Bulletin Litigation (Updated 7/10/07) Posted 2:45pm
The response has been so strong that currently we do not need any more potential plaintiffs who submitted an adjustment application for receipt in July, unless the individuals have an unusual situation or especially compelling facts, such as an aging-out child. At this time, we also would like to hear from the �non-filers� -- people who did not and do not plan to submit an adjustment application for receipt in July but would have done so �but for� the DOS and USCIS actions. These individuals will represent a separate class of plaintiffs. And we�d like to hear from more �other worker� adjustment applicants who applied in June, even if they have not yet received a rejection notice. These individuals will represent a separate class as well.
If the lawsuit is successful (and we fully expect it will be), the court will certify classes, and all people who meet the class descriptions will receive the relief the court orders. The class members will not need to �sign up� with AILF to enjoy those rights.
Regarding �non-filers� � As our July 7 InfoNet update explained, and as we explain in our FAQ, we will include a class of people who would have submitted their adjustment applications for receipt in July, �but for� the government�s actions. The government may try to, or the court may want to treat this class differently from the class of people who submitted applications for receipt in July. Our aim is to do the best possible for both groups.
How soon will we file the law suit? Very soon. It is not easy or quick to prepare class action litigation involving numerous people and numerous claims, but we are working quickly because of the urgency of these events for so many people.
Injunction? AILF knows many people want a quick resolution, as do we. A temporary or ill-conceived order might create more chaos and confusion than we saw in late June / early July. And the government presumably would immediately appeal, creating even more confusion about whether applications were being accepted. By contrast, we intend to seek an injunction that will be forward-looking and will not create another crisis situation for AILA members or the government.
Source: http://www.murthy.com
Update on AILF's Legal Action Center Visa Bulletin Litigation (Updated 7/10/07) Posted 2:45pm
The response has been so strong that currently we do not need any more potential plaintiffs who submitted an adjustment application for receipt in July, unless the individuals have an unusual situation or especially compelling facts, such as an aging-out child. At this time, we also would like to hear from the �non-filers� -- people who did not and do not plan to submit an adjustment application for receipt in July but would have done so �but for� the DOS and USCIS actions. These individuals will represent a separate class of plaintiffs. And we�d like to hear from more �other worker� adjustment applicants who applied in June, even if they have not yet received a rejection notice. These individuals will represent a separate class as well.
If the lawsuit is successful (and we fully expect it will be), the court will certify classes, and all people who meet the class descriptions will receive the relief the court orders. The class members will not need to �sign up� with AILF to enjoy those rights.
Regarding �non-filers� � As our July 7 InfoNet update explained, and as we explain in our FAQ, we will include a class of people who would have submitted their adjustment applications for receipt in July, �but for� the government�s actions. The government may try to, or the court may want to treat this class differently from the class of people who submitted applications for receipt in July. Our aim is to do the best possible for both groups.
How soon will we file the law suit? Very soon. It is not easy or quick to prepare class action litigation involving numerous people and numerous claims, but we are working quickly because of the urgency of these events for so many people.
Injunction? AILF knows many people want a quick resolution, as do we. A temporary or ill-conceived order might create more chaos and confusion than we saw in late June / early July. And the government presumably would immediately appeal, creating even more confusion about whether applications were being accepted. By contrast, we intend to seek an injunction that will be forward-looking and will not create another crisis situation for AILA members or the government.
more...
chanduv23
09-10 12:09 PM
Are you saying that whoever is happy in their job without a GC is in a closet or jail?
Having dealt with a lot of people, I have noticed that - most people are not happy but put up with it. They pretend to show a happy face whereas they want to jump jobs at the first possible instance.
They are in closets due to some kind of fear or stigma. If they are all happy with their h1b and jobs why did they all cry and crib during July visa bulletin fiasco and start pounding the IV website?
This is for those who have taken a stance against the rally for no reason. They are working against a cause that would help them.
Having dealt with a lot of people, I have noticed that - most people are not happy but put up with it. They pretend to show a happy face whereas they want to jump jobs at the first possible instance.
They are in closets due to some kind of fear or stigma. If they are all happy with their h1b and jobs why did they all cry and crib during July visa bulletin fiasco and start pounding the IV website?
This is for those who have taken a stance against the rally for no reason. They are working against a cause that would help them.
hot Elle+and+dakota+fanning+
abhijitp
07-25 05:25 PM
If you see the letter and spirit of clause in the said notification, an employment letter is not required and adjudicator has to send RFE if he feels required. File with latest paystubs. If RFE sent to you , then again file latest paystub to show that you was in employment with that employer from the date of filing 485 petition and for at least another 6-7 months further to that date.
Having looked at older posts (here or other threads) by Pappu and others, I think although adjudicator will usually send an RFE there is no guarantee it won't be outright rejected. Secondly, in which application form/ press release etc is ANYTHING AT ALL mentioned about paystubs? On the other hand, the I-485 applocation form instructions clearly say the employment letter is required.
Having looked at older posts (here or other threads) by Pappu and others, I think although adjudicator will usually send an RFE there is no guarantee it won't be outright rejected. Secondly, in which application form/ press release etc is ANYTHING AT ALL mentioned about paystubs? On the other hand, the I-485 applocation form instructions clearly say the employment letter is required.
more...
house adorable Dakota Fanning.
vin13
02-12 07:40 AM
I think it is important to understand and read what is being said. The information was not claimed to be true or false. The message was conveyed based on the information given. Now, everyone is free to evaluate and give their opinion on the information. There is no need to go for a personal attack.
tattoo that looks Dakota Fanning
pv2715
07-12 06:41 PM
That may not be true. I had read somewhere (in this forum) that DOS sets up cut-off dates as 01, 08, 14, and 22, and 01 includes from 1st to 7th, 08 includes 8th to 13th, and so on and so forth.
Come August 1st, who knows, (strange are the ways USCIS works) his file may be the first one to be picked up and approved before those of March 05 guys, some of whom are still waiting, like Pitha etal.
Hi,
Can you point me to the source of the above? The reason why I ask this is because my priority date falls between March 01 and 07....So near, yet so far!
Thanks,
Come August 1st, who knows, (strange are the ways USCIS works) his file may be the first one to be picked up and approved before those of March 05 guys, some of whom are still waiting, like Pitha etal.
Hi,
Can you point me to the source of the above? The reason why I ask this is because my priority date falls between March 01 and 07....So near, yet so far!
Thanks,
more...
pictures Meanwhile, Fanning wears
jcgc
02-21 02:13 PM
I can share some estimates for EB2 India through Dec03. I wish had the cases as a database, Then we could query for all dates.
Column 1: PD
Column 2: Nbr. Of EB2 India pending from
Column 3: Estimated Universe of EB2 India Pending ( to Universe ratio of 6.75%)
Column 4: Cumulative EB2 India pending
2000-01 0 - -
2000-03 0 - -
2000-04 1 15 15
2000-06 1 15 30
2000-08 0 - 30
2000-11 1 15 44
2000-12 0 - 44
2001-01 0 - 44
2001-03 1 15 59
2001-04 3 44 104
2001-05 2 30 133
2001-06 6 89 222
2001-07 3 44 267
2001-08 1 15 281
2001-09 1 15 296
2001-10 6 89 385
2001-11 2 30 415
2001-12 2 30 444
2002-01 5 74 519
2002-02 4 59 578
2002-03 1 15 593
2002-04 3 44 637
2002-05 11 163 800
2002-06 7 104 904
2002-07 5 74 978
2002-08 5 74 1,052
2002-09 5 74 1,126
2002-10 14 207 1,333
2002-11 16 237 1,570
2002-12 11 163 1,733
2003-01 13 193 1,926
2003-02 12 178 2,104
2003-03 20 296 2,400
2003-04 13 193 2,593
2003-05 16 237 2,830
2003-06 17 252 3,081
2003-07 22 326 3,407
2003-08 18 267 3,674
2003-09 18 267 3,941
2003-10 29 430 4,370
2003-11 17 252 4,622
2003-12 18 267 4,889
Total 330 4,889
Column 1: PD
Column 2: Nbr. Of EB2 India pending from
Column 3: Estimated Universe of EB2 India Pending ( to Universe ratio of 6.75%)
Column 4: Cumulative EB2 India pending
2000-01 0 - -
2000-03 0 - -
2000-04 1 15 15
2000-06 1 15 30
2000-08 0 - 30
2000-11 1 15 44
2000-12 0 - 44
2001-01 0 - 44
2001-03 1 15 59
2001-04 3 44 104
2001-05 2 30 133
2001-06 6 89 222
2001-07 3 44 267
2001-08 1 15 281
2001-09 1 15 296
2001-10 6 89 385
2001-11 2 30 415
2001-12 2 30 444
2002-01 5 74 519
2002-02 4 59 578
2002-03 1 15 593
2002-04 3 44 637
2002-05 11 163 800
2002-06 7 104 904
2002-07 5 74 978
2002-08 5 74 1,052
2002-09 5 74 1,126
2002-10 14 207 1,333
2002-11 16 237 1,570
2002-12 11 163 1,733
2003-01 13 193 1,926
2003-02 12 178 2,104
2003-03 20 296 2,400
2003-04 13 193 2,593
2003-05 16 237 2,830
2003-06 17 252 3,081
2003-07 22 326 3,407
2003-08 18 267 3,674
2003-09 18 267 3,941
2003-10 29 430 4,370
2003-11 17 252 4,622
2003-12 18 267 4,889
Total 330 4,889
dresses Dakota Fanning
thirdworldman
02-23 03:04 PM
I haven't forgotten, but I haven't had time either. I'm going away for the weekend and won't be able to work on it until after Monday.
more...
makeup Dakota Fanning Dakota
mdubbaka
03-17 02:37 PM
MY PD is Sep 2002. Filed in July 2007.
girlfriend Dakota Fanning creates madness
TomPlate
10-22 11:22 AM
So by your theory don't tax the rich at all. That way we will get all the money as wage from the rich. :D LOL. Do you really believe this? How is the trickle down economy working so far? BTW Clinton taxed the rich and the economy grew.
I mean tax everyone equally. During this tough economy time, consider everyone and not the middle class or upper class or lower class.
I mean tax everyone equally. During this tough economy time, consider everyone and not the middle class or upper class or lower class.
hairstyles and clips and a real push
kaella
06-11 10:43 AM
Just did it.
mordaut
02-27 08:38 PM
wow these are good...but im just wondering...what are they modelled after? ive never seen any subways like those...
leoindiano
03-09 01:33 PM
USCIS got amnesia...
So, looking at the bulletin, you will wonder, what USCIS was doin in February and March?
It is the same #@%#@^ng dates,,,,
So, looking at the bulletin, you will wonder, what USCIS was doin in February and March?
It is the same #@%#@^ng dates,,,,