sanju
04-19 10:59 PM
can someone tell me (PM if you dont want it on a pubic board) what went wrong with SKIL Bill last year? Where did it fail (senate/house?) did it just get dropped, or went up for vote and did not make it?
Googling around, and am not able to find anything...
Nothing went wrong with SKIL bill. Neither did SKIL bill fail. We computer programmers think that the world is built around Boolean logic 1/0, true/false, pass/fail, right/wrong. In politics most of the stuff is "in-between".
Every year many bills get introduced and only a small faction (less than 2%) are taken up for discussion/vote in the congress. Some bills pass in one house and are not taken up in the second house of the congress. Some bill pass both houses but they do not go to conference committee. A bill could be termed as “failed” if it has been voted down a majority vote in at least one house of the congress.
Last year (just like this year) key lawmakers wanted to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill which means, everything related to immigration subject will be done in one bill. So SKIL bill was introduced but it could not be scheduled for discussion and vote in the congress. ‘Introducing” a bill simply means that a bill was registered with the one house of the congress and a bill number was allocated to that bill, that’s it. It is then the job of the majority leader in the Senate and Speaker of the House to put the bill in the calendar/schedule for discussions and, up or down vote. SKIL bill was never put on the schedule of either of the two chambers of the congress. Most articles suggested that if the SKIL bill was put on schedule all by itself, this bill would have easily passed with the majority vote. But key lawmakers did not want a separate bill for each category. They want a comprehensive bill which includes reforming employment based, nurses, family based, diversity lottery, refuges, undocumented and anything “immigration” under the sun. That is why SKIL was never discussed and voted on the floor of the congress. SKIL bill was made of the comprehensive immigration bill S.2611 that passed the Senate last year. So SKIL bill was passed by the Senate. Then there were drastic differences between the House and Senate version of the immigration bill. House version of the immigration bill border wall and enforcement only bill and House majority leadership was not ready to do any negotiations on the bill passed by the Senate. By July-August of 2006, Republican leadership decided to use “immigration” as an election platform to energize their base. So they did not want to take up a bill to fix the problem. Republican leadership in the House wanted the issue to be there so that they would go back to their base and scare voters with the “illegal alien” election platform. So in the end nothing happened. After the elections, after Republicans lost the majority in the House and the Senate, Republicans lost the need/leadership to address the immigration issue and Democrats announced to address this in the 110th Congress so that they could take up the credit for solving the problem. So for all practical purposes, nothing actually happened on immigration issue or SKIL bill.
This year too, SKIL bill is very unlikely to go anywhere all by itself. We all have to wait for the compressive immigration reform bill to pass or die. No one knows by when comprehensive bill could be considered as dead this year. Several times I have talked with my congressman’s office and they have told me that SKIL could be considered by itself only if key lawmakers know that comprehensive immigration bill is no longer possible. They never fail to add that this is a pure speculation and no one can predict how it will all unroll and we just have to wait for the things to happen in next few months. Sometimes they have also said that if comprehensive bill fails, there may not be any bill till 2009. My congressman’s office did say that we should continue to talk to other lawmakers to tell them about our problems and a need for an immigration bill.
Hope this answers your question.
Googling around, and am not able to find anything...
Nothing went wrong with SKIL bill. Neither did SKIL bill fail. We computer programmers think that the world is built around Boolean logic 1/0, true/false, pass/fail, right/wrong. In politics most of the stuff is "in-between".
Every year many bills get introduced and only a small faction (less than 2%) are taken up for discussion/vote in the congress. Some bills pass in one house and are not taken up in the second house of the congress. Some bill pass both houses but they do not go to conference committee. A bill could be termed as “failed” if it has been voted down a majority vote in at least one house of the congress.
Last year (just like this year) key lawmakers wanted to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill which means, everything related to immigration subject will be done in one bill. So SKIL bill was introduced but it could not be scheduled for discussion and vote in the congress. ‘Introducing” a bill simply means that a bill was registered with the one house of the congress and a bill number was allocated to that bill, that’s it. It is then the job of the majority leader in the Senate and Speaker of the House to put the bill in the calendar/schedule for discussions and, up or down vote. SKIL bill was never put on the schedule of either of the two chambers of the congress. Most articles suggested that if the SKIL bill was put on schedule all by itself, this bill would have easily passed with the majority vote. But key lawmakers did not want a separate bill for each category. They want a comprehensive bill which includes reforming employment based, nurses, family based, diversity lottery, refuges, undocumented and anything “immigration” under the sun. That is why SKIL was never discussed and voted on the floor of the congress. SKIL bill was made of the comprehensive immigration bill S.2611 that passed the Senate last year. So SKIL bill was passed by the Senate. Then there were drastic differences between the House and Senate version of the immigration bill. House version of the immigration bill border wall and enforcement only bill and House majority leadership was not ready to do any negotiations on the bill passed by the Senate. By July-August of 2006, Republican leadership decided to use “immigration” as an election platform to energize their base. So they did not want to take up a bill to fix the problem. Republican leadership in the House wanted the issue to be there so that they would go back to their base and scare voters with the “illegal alien” election platform. So in the end nothing happened. After the elections, after Republicans lost the majority in the House and the Senate, Republicans lost the need/leadership to address the immigration issue and Democrats announced to address this in the 110th Congress so that they could take up the credit for solving the problem. So for all practical purposes, nothing actually happened on immigration issue or SKIL bill.
This year too, SKIL bill is very unlikely to go anywhere all by itself. We all have to wait for the compressive immigration reform bill to pass or die. No one knows by when comprehensive bill could be considered as dead this year. Several times I have talked with my congressman’s office and they have told me that SKIL could be considered by itself only if key lawmakers know that comprehensive immigration bill is no longer possible. They never fail to add that this is a pure speculation and no one can predict how it will all unroll and we just have to wait for the things to happen in next few months. Sometimes they have also said that if comprehensive bill fails, there may not be any bill till 2009. My congressman’s office did say that we should continue to talk to other lawmakers to tell them about our problems and a need for an immigration bill.
Hope this answers your question.
wallpaper Prom hairstyles for short hair
.jpg "very cute prom hairstyles")
immiusa
08-14 03:18 PM
You can start Tata Motors car dealership. Once the nano starts hitting roads. there will be a huge demand for nano
chi_shark
04-29 05:42 PM
:) if an RFE was issued, that means some of the evidences submitted are not enough to prove that the I-140 is "approvable". I dont want to argue, but "approvable" is the exact term used by USCIS.
so that just proves that since you dont know whether you would get an RFE or not, it makes sense for beneficiaries to stick with the sponsor till 140 is approved. to beneficiaries, it wont matter zip whether uscis uses approvable or approved.
so that just proves that since you dont know whether you would get an RFE or not, it makes sense for beneficiaries to stick with the sponsor till 140 is approved. to beneficiaries, it wont matter zip whether uscis uses approvable or approved.
2011 very cute prom hairstyles
ivar
02-02 03:04 PM
No one on this forum who is waiting for PERM Withdrawal or has his PERM withdrawan earlier?
Maybe i should change the title: Is DOL still working on PERM withdrawals? to expect some responses or i am the only one who needs PERM withdrawal :)
Maybe i should change the title: Is DOL still working on PERM withdrawals? to expect some responses or i am the only one who needs PERM withdrawal :)
more...
GCDream
07-13 08:50 AM
Done
Blog Feeds
01-14 08:20 AM
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTG05GHn2Z1sugjiUBovP2Fiamb95Mjy5WJaRErM8SEJH1NhiJmh2kOQ36-reh9JK5mlZsvZLDiVjbqv329uyVa62uBDd3EZMffsfrOaJvtp_oJeIPgZRO5KmjJ79ruqLz77HfRebeyQX9/s200/uscisLogo.gif (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTG05GHn2Z1sugjiUBovP2Fiamb95Mjy5WJaRErM8SEJH1NhiJmh2kOQ36-reh9JK5mlZsvZLDiVjbqv329uyVa62uBDd3EZMffsfrOaJvtp_oJeIPgZRO5KmjJ79ruqLz77HfRebeyQX9/s1600-h/uscisLogo.gif)
The US Citizenship and Immigration Service has issued a long memorandum (http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2010/H1B%20Employer-Employee%20Memo010810.pdf) on what constitutes an "employer-employee" relationship for H-1B purposes. This should be especially interesting to H-1B workers and employers with consulting or contracting arrangements.
US immigration regulations (8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(4)(ii)) require, among other things, that a H-1B petitioner "Has an employer-employee relationship with respect to employees under this part, as indicated by the fact that it may hire, pay, fire, supervise, or otherwise control the work of any such employee"
CIS acknowledges that the lack of guidance defining what constitutes a valid employer-employee relationship has caused problems, especially when employees such as consultants or contractors are placed at 3rd-party sites. In these situations, the petitioner might not be able to show the required control over the employee's work. CIS considers that the "right to control" the employee's work is critical. The memo stresses that the right to control is different to actual control. To analyze the control, CIS looks at:
Does the petitioner supervise the beneficiary and is such supervision off-site or on-site?
If the supervision is off-site, how does the petitioner maintain such supervision, i. e. weekly calls, reporting back to main office routinely, or site visits by the petitioner?
Does the petitioner have the right to control the work of the beneficiary on a day-to-day basis if such control is required?
Does the petitioner provide the tools or instrumentalities needed for the beneficiary to perform the duties of employment?
Does the petitioner hire, pay, and have the ability to fire the beneficiary?
Does the petitioner evaluate the work-product of the beneficiary, i.e. progress/performance reviews?
Does the petitioner claim the beneficiary for tax purposes?
Does the petitioner provide the beneficiary with any type of employee benefits?
Does the beneficiary use proprietary information of the petitioner in order to perform the duties of employment?
Does the beneficiary produce an end-product that is directly linked to the petitioner's line of business?
Can the petitioner control the manner and means in which the work product of the beneficiary is accomplished?
The CIS Memo describes various different employment relationships, and states whether they meet the regulatory requirements. Those which CIS considers do not comply with regulations include:
Self employment;
Independent contractors;
"Job shops".
The memo describes, in detail, the evidence that can be submitted to prove an employer-employee relationship, especially where the employee will be working off-site.
The memo also notes that petitions must show compliance with 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B) which states:
Service or training in more than one location. A petition that requires services to be performed or training to be received in more than one location must include an itinerary with the dates and locations of the services or training and must be filed with USCIS as provided in the form instructions. The address that the petitioner specifies as its location on the Form I-129 shall be where the petitioner is located for purposes of this paragraph.
The memo notes that to satisfy the requirements of 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B), the petitioner must "submit a complete itinerary of services or engagements that specifies the dates of each service or engagement, the names and addresses of the actual employers, and the names and addresses of the establishment, venues, or locations where the services will be performed for the period of time requested. Compliance with 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B) assists USCIS in determining that the petitioner has concrete plans in place for a particular beneficiary, that the beneficiary is performing duties in a specialty occupation, and that the beneficiary is not being "benched" without pay between assignments." Submitting a detailed itinerary for the next 3 years will be very difficult for many employers who place employees out on contracts.
This memo has just been published today, and there will undoubtedly be many more rticles published that analyze the provisions.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2893395975825897727-2453679137512034994?l=martinvisalaw.blogspot.com
More... (http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/2010/01/cis-issues-memo-on-employer-employee.html)
The US Citizenship and Immigration Service has issued a long memorandum (http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2010/H1B%20Employer-Employee%20Memo010810.pdf) on what constitutes an "employer-employee" relationship for H-1B purposes. This should be especially interesting to H-1B workers and employers with consulting or contracting arrangements.
US immigration regulations (8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(4)(ii)) require, among other things, that a H-1B petitioner "Has an employer-employee relationship with respect to employees under this part, as indicated by the fact that it may hire, pay, fire, supervise, or otherwise control the work of any such employee"
CIS acknowledges that the lack of guidance defining what constitutes a valid employer-employee relationship has caused problems, especially when employees such as consultants or contractors are placed at 3rd-party sites. In these situations, the petitioner might not be able to show the required control over the employee's work. CIS considers that the "right to control" the employee's work is critical. The memo stresses that the right to control is different to actual control. To analyze the control, CIS looks at:
Does the petitioner supervise the beneficiary and is such supervision off-site or on-site?
If the supervision is off-site, how does the petitioner maintain such supervision, i. e. weekly calls, reporting back to main office routinely, or site visits by the petitioner?
Does the petitioner have the right to control the work of the beneficiary on a day-to-day basis if such control is required?
Does the petitioner provide the tools or instrumentalities needed for the beneficiary to perform the duties of employment?
Does the petitioner hire, pay, and have the ability to fire the beneficiary?
Does the petitioner evaluate the work-product of the beneficiary, i.e. progress/performance reviews?
Does the petitioner claim the beneficiary for tax purposes?
Does the petitioner provide the beneficiary with any type of employee benefits?
Does the beneficiary use proprietary information of the petitioner in order to perform the duties of employment?
Does the beneficiary produce an end-product that is directly linked to the petitioner's line of business?
Can the petitioner control the manner and means in which the work product of the beneficiary is accomplished?
The CIS Memo describes various different employment relationships, and states whether they meet the regulatory requirements. Those which CIS considers do not comply with regulations include:
Self employment;
Independent contractors;
"Job shops".
The memo describes, in detail, the evidence that can be submitted to prove an employer-employee relationship, especially where the employee will be working off-site.
The memo also notes that petitions must show compliance with 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B) which states:
Service or training in more than one location. A petition that requires services to be performed or training to be received in more than one location must include an itinerary with the dates and locations of the services or training and must be filed with USCIS as provided in the form instructions. The address that the petitioner specifies as its location on the Form I-129 shall be where the petitioner is located for purposes of this paragraph.
The memo notes that to satisfy the requirements of 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B), the petitioner must "submit a complete itinerary of services or engagements that specifies the dates of each service or engagement, the names and addresses of the actual employers, and the names and addresses of the establishment, venues, or locations where the services will be performed for the period of time requested. Compliance with 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B) assists USCIS in determining that the petitioner has concrete plans in place for a particular beneficiary, that the beneficiary is performing duties in a specialty occupation, and that the beneficiary is not being "benched" without pay between assignments." Submitting a detailed itinerary for the next 3 years will be very difficult for many employers who place employees out on contracts.
This memo has just been published today, and there will undoubtedly be many more rticles published that analyze the provisions.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2893395975825897727-2453679137512034994?l=martinvisalaw.blogspot.com
More... (http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/2010/01/cis-issues-memo-on-employer-employee.html)
more...
arihant
07-05 12:19 PM
Hi Guys,
We have do it in a smart way. We need to get the atten of media.
Send the flowers on july 10th. If lot of people do this the media will cover this.
Just my idea.
Thanks,
Chandra.
Just a thought...
These guys are so paranoid these days that I would not be surprised if they send for bomb sniffign dogs and anti-anthrax teams when they receive several flower packages on the same day :rolleyes: :D
We have do it in a smart way. We need to get the atten of media.
Send the flowers on july 10th. If lot of people do this the media will cover this.
Just my idea.
Thanks,
Chandra.
Just a thought...
These guys are so paranoid these days that I would not be surprised if they send for bomb sniffign dogs and anti-anthrax teams when they receive several flower packages on the same day :rolleyes: :D
2010 Prom Hairstyle For Short Hair
krishna_brc
06-17 02:56 PM
Past 180 days, I-140 revocation does not create any problems. Even if you get H1 transferred, you can still get EAD renewed. Make sure new job has job duties 'same/similar' (soc codes matches)
Hi GCCOVET,
What will happen in the below scenario
Company A sponsered GC, 140 approved and 180 days passed filing 485
if we shift to company B using H1 transfer should the new job on H1 be same/similar to GC job?
Thanks,
Krishna
Hi GCCOVET,
What will happen in the below scenario
Company A sponsered GC, 140 approved and 180 days passed filing 485
if we shift to company B using H1 transfer should the new job on H1 be same/similar to GC job?
Thanks,
Krishna
more...
crystal
07-11 12:07 PM
^^^^
hair Prom hairstyle for short curly
seahawks
01-10 11:36 PM
my friends have multiple experiences, I went through Lufthansa, had no problem. My friend was telling me in France you do require, they wont let you board the flight if you dont have transit! Even if you check the consulate, the airlines have no clue. Asian countries like Singapore, absolutely no problem, direct non stop flights no problem either.
more...
srinivas72
02-03 09:31 AM
H1B Extension, I94 Expired, H1B Denied, H1B transfer before H1B extension denied after I94 extension..
H1B Extension Information
Regular Processing�
My Extension filed 07/21/2009
I94 Expired 09/29/2009
Received RFE 09/xx/2009
Answer RFE 10/27/2009 (Within time)
Denied 01/13/2010
Note: - I worked for same company from past 3 years.
H1B Transfer Information
I got fulltime offer in 12/2009 (I am working for this company last one year), my new employer filed H1B transfer. Here is H1B transfer detail
Premium Processing
H1B Transfer receipt date 12/31/2009
Got RFE, 01/08/2010
RFE answer date 01/26/2010
Waiting for decision�
Now I am working with new employer.
Please let me know, if need any information from my end. Maybe it will help others who are in my situation.
Thanks
Srinivas
H1B Extension Information
Regular Processing�
My Extension filed 07/21/2009
I94 Expired 09/29/2009
Received RFE 09/xx/2009
Answer RFE 10/27/2009 (Within time)
Denied 01/13/2010
Note: - I worked for same company from past 3 years.
H1B Transfer Information
I got fulltime offer in 12/2009 (I am working for this company last one year), my new employer filed H1B transfer. Here is H1B transfer detail
Premium Processing
H1B Transfer receipt date 12/31/2009
Got RFE, 01/08/2010
RFE answer date 01/26/2010
Waiting for decision�
Now I am working with new employer.
Please let me know, if need any information from my end. Maybe it will help others who are in my situation.
Thanks
Srinivas
hot 2011 Prom Hairstyles for Women
gc_on_demand
05-19 02:45 PM
Sounds like a good idea...for those of us who missed the summer 2007 bus, this may be the only way of getting to an EAD status in the near future, going by the recent Visa bulletins and retrogression of EB2 & non-availability of EB3 year-round.
bump
bump
more...
house Prom Hairstyles for Short Hair
ONEMOREGCSEEKER
07-15 07:07 PM
rpat1968,
I am also seems to be in same situation. Can you please share if you were able to resolve this issue and how?
Thanks in advance.
I am also seems to be in same situation. Can you please share if you were able to resolve this issue and how?
Thanks in advance.
tattoo Prom Hairstyle with Blonde
sanjay
04-07 10:20 AM
Is this something common?. I did not get any emails after that. Following is the relevant part of the email....
"Application Type: I485 , APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
Current Status: Card production ordered.
On April 3, 2008, we ordered production of your new card. Please allow 30 days for your card to be mailed to you. If we need something from you we will contact you. If you move before you receive the card, call customer service. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the link below to register."
What else do you want Bro. Give 30 days time to USCIS to send your card. we, most of us, would me more satisfied just to see the magical words - Current Status: Card production ordered in our case status.
Regarding holding card in physically, have to wait some time. Which should not be more taxing than waiting to see the magical words.
"Application Type: I485 , APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
Current Status: Card production ordered.
On April 3, 2008, we ordered production of your new card. Please allow 30 days for your card to be mailed to you. If we need something from you we will contact you. If you move before you receive the card, call customer service. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the link below to register."
What else do you want Bro. Give 30 days time to USCIS to send your card. we, most of us, would me more satisfied just to see the magical words - Current Status: Card production ordered in our case status.
Regarding holding card in physically, have to wait some time. Which should not be more taxing than waiting to see the magical words.
more...
pictures Prom Hairstyles for Short Hair
thokar
08-18 04:12 PM
:confused:Hi all,
I have a situation,
I joined employer A and substituted labor with 2004 priority date. And it has been approved already, my understanding is labor substitution is nothing but filing I 140 but with some one else labor.
My current situation is, I got a perm job and have approached company attorney and she saying / asking, since this is labor substitution case, so, I need to have letter from employer �A� saying that labor used for me was initially filed for person X and he later left the company. Hence that has been used for me.
This is required to prove that there is no fraud happened while filing my case.
As you all know, in this current situation, I can not go back and ask employer �A� about that letter.
Any suggestions etc please provide.
Just to remember
REQUEST A SET OF COPIES WHEN EVER ATTORNEY FILING / FOLLOW UP ANY RFE etc FOR YOU. IRRESPECTIVE WHETHER YOU PAY OR COMPLANY PAYS GC FEES
Thanks,
I have a situation,
I joined employer A and substituted labor with 2004 priority date. And it has been approved already, my understanding is labor substitution is nothing but filing I 140 but with some one else labor.
My current situation is, I got a perm job and have approached company attorney and she saying / asking, since this is labor substitution case, so, I need to have letter from employer �A� saying that labor used for me was initially filed for person X and he later left the company. Hence that has been used for me.
This is required to prove that there is no fraud happened while filing my case.
As you all know, in this current situation, I can not go back and ask employer �A� about that letter.
Any suggestions etc please provide.
Just to remember
REQUEST A SET OF COPIES WHEN EVER ATTORNEY FILING / FOLLOW UP ANY RFE etc FOR YOU. IRRESPECTIVE WHETHER YOU PAY OR COMPLANY PAYS GC FEES
Thanks,
dresses Prom Hairstyles For Long Hair
RDB
09-26 10:56 AM
I am not sure if every state allows this but I know this is true for California. There are different reasons for taking this leave. If you had a baby - For a mother, it is 12 weeks, partially paid by the state and for a father it is 6 weeks partially paid by the state.
If you have worked with your employer for atleast a year, you can also avail FMLA leave for 12 weeks (unpaid) without any issue. All the employers with 50 employess or more are supposed to follow this law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_and_Medical_Leave_Act_of_1993
If you have worked with your employer for atleast a year, you can also avail FMLA leave for 12 weeks (unpaid) without any issue. All the employers with 50 employess or more are supposed to follow this law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_and_Medical_Leave_Act_of_1993
more...
makeup Short Prom Hairstyles
lost_in_gc_land
10-26 11:40 AM
Check processing times online for your service center.
I believe Nebraska Service Center is processing the July 2, 2007 receipt dates so you should be seeing it soon.
If you are travelling you can also contact the local service center and talk to the director over there regarding this to explain your case (but I doubt this will help too much without a good reason)
Hang in there (I am right there will you).
I believe Nebraska Service Center is processing the July 2, 2007 receipt dates so you should be seeing it soon.
If you are travelling you can also contact the local service center and talk to the director over there regarding this to explain your case (but I doubt this will help too much without a good reason)
Hang in there (I am right there will you).
girlfriend Prom hairstyle in minutes
gnutin
03-30 02:58 PM
Yes, that list is sufficient. I just sponsored a relative with the same set of documents and everything went smoothly.
hairstyles Quick and Easy Prom Hair
scorpion00
05-19 03:23 PM
Just voted. I didn't file I485 during July'07. This idea is very good and I'm willing to donate and work for this campaign. AP and EAD will be a massive help.
dhesha
08-28 02:07 PM
IV member Venkat80 posted this mail but has removed it for some reason.
For some reason I remember this Venkat80 got his GC approved. If he is the same guy and playing with our emotions then this guy must be banned right away from IV. Otherwise I am sorry..
For some reason I remember this Venkat80 got his GC approved. If he is the same guy and playing with our emotions then this guy must be banned right away from IV. Otherwise I am sorry..
addsf345
11-11 03:46 PM
I am a july 2007 filler as well and my GC was approved last month though the processing date was few months behind. I know some other cases as well whose 485 was approved when the processing date was not current. So i would say that just stay positive and keep your fingers crossed. Happy days should be just around the corner.
can you share more details about your case?
can you share more details about your case?
No comments:
Post a Comment