aillarramendi
10-01 02:23 PM
I'm understanding now and thanks but I still didn't understand why a guy from EB3 ROW with PD March 2004 is receiving now I-485 approval (GC) if the last VB shows 01 AUG, 2002?
Thanks.
Thanks.
wallpaper quit or something happens
deletedUser459
06-11 08:52 PM
it would be more fun if we vote for the ones we don't like
perm2gc
11-06 10:33 AM
Dont Think only big companies will enforce NCA..now NCA's have become a source of revenue of consulting companies.If you are going to loose the case ,you will only pay their legal expenses.. Two of my friends are have done that and it took them 2 yrs of time and cool $30,000 dollars(from their own pockets) to settle at the end...
So Dont be over confident.Pay few hundred dollars to good attorny and get his legal opinion.
So Dont be over confident.Pay few hundred dollars to good attorny and get his legal opinion.
2011 can play something similar
ita
01-24 10:24 AM
When getting the date for interview is there one day of the week better that other like would Monday ,Tuesdays be better or towards the end of the week be better for Chennai Consulate? (DOes it even make any difference ?)
Thank you.
Thank you.
more...
saileshdude
09-04 11:37 AM
You can work on h1b - you will get H1b based on existing approved 140 and pending 485.
If 140 is revoked by employer you may get a RFE or NOID or in rare cases erroneous denial but you can continue on h1b while you respond to RFE or NOID oor through MTR to erroneous denial.
Sending AC21 docs does not necessarily mean you may not get NOID - AC21 docs seldom go into your file.
This is yet another inefficiency on their part. When it comes to AC21 your file does not even get updated even though you may have attached I-485 receipt along with AC21 filing. But when the employer revokes I-140 they don't forget to send you NOID or even I-485 denial.
If 140 is revoked by employer you may get a RFE or NOID or in rare cases erroneous denial but you can continue on h1b while you respond to RFE or NOID oor through MTR to erroneous denial.
Sending AC21 docs does not necessarily mean you may not get NOID - AC21 docs seldom go into your file.
This is yet another inefficiency on their part. When it comes to AC21 your file does not even get updated even though you may have attached I-485 receipt along with AC21 filing. But when the employer revokes I-140 they don't forget to send you NOID or even I-485 denial.
gc_lover
06-28 03:44 PM
O MY GOD !! You are so right............guys.. check out Rajiv Khanna's web site, Check out Sheela Murthy's web site, USCIS.....everyone is saying the same.........we are royally screwed. God Helppppppppppp
It's not funny!
It's not funny!
more...
maine_gc
04-20 10:41 AM
Hi,
My in-laws came to US last Firday along with my kid who is a US citizen.
Their passport has a stamp that says Admitted on Apr 17 at Chicago, Class B2 and "Until" is blank. There should be a date that tells they can stay until this date.
What are my options now. Do i need to let it go or contact some one and bring it to their notice etc..
Any help is appreciated
My in-laws came to US last Firday along with my kid who is a US citizen.
Their passport has a stamp that says Admitted on Apr 17 at Chicago, Class B2 and "Until" is blank. There should be a date that tells they can stay until this date.
What are my options now. Do i need to let it go or contact some one and bring it to their notice etc..
Any help is appreciated
2010 I had something similar happen
howzatt
11-14 02:22 PM
As per my family experience: for my husband and daughter they issued EADs without
FP 3 weeks befor FP app-t, but mine EAD was ordered, as I've been informed by e-mail,
in a 4 days after FP was done.
So, even if Biometricals are not mandatory for EAD, but EAD Card has place for FP on it,
in some cases they(USCIS) may pretend that there are a requirements( depends from officer)
Does it have anything to do with how recently you travelled out of the country? or How recently you came into this country? My wife came to US only 6 months back and I am not sure if this has got to do anything with the whole biometrics thing?
It is probably just this IO who has a different intepretation of the rules.
FP 3 weeks befor FP app-t, but mine EAD was ordered, as I've been informed by e-mail,
in a 4 days after FP was done.
So, even if Biometricals are not mandatory for EAD, but EAD Card has place for FP on it,
in some cases they(USCIS) may pretend that there are a requirements( depends from officer)
Does it have anything to do with how recently you travelled out of the country? or How recently you came into this country? My wife came to US only 6 months back and I am not sure if this has got to do anything with the whole biometrics thing?
It is probably just this IO who has a different intepretation of the rules.
more...
Blog Feeds
01-26 08:40 AM
Summary
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
hair Something seems to be
Vsach
07-01 12:50 PM
Dear ALL,
Please share the insights, my son will start applying soon.
Thanks
Please share the insights, my son will start applying soon.
Thanks
more...
Bpositive
01-02 01:59 AM
Happy New Year!
My new year begins with another immigration issue..need some urgent advice.
My wife went to the US Consulate in Chennai today for her first time H-1 stamping. She completed her Phd in Biology from the US and has been working for almost a year for a US biotech company. The consular officer has asked her to submit additional information -221(g); mostly about her job and the company. I can't understand it! Most of the information asked has already been submitted to the INS in reponse to a H-1 RFE.
My wife has an Advance Parole document and EAD based on my I-485 application.
Can you suggest options for her?
1. can she forget about the H-1, not respond to the 221(g) and travel back on advance parole and start working on EAD?
2. If after submission of 221(g) her visa gets rejected, can she still use the Advance Parole to travel to US and work on her EAD?
3. Any other options/advice?
My new year begins with another immigration issue..need some urgent advice.
My wife went to the US Consulate in Chennai today for her first time H-1 stamping. She completed her Phd in Biology from the US and has been working for almost a year for a US biotech company. The consular officer has asked her to submit additional information -221(g); mostly about her job and the company. I can't understand it! Most of the information asked has already been submitted to the INS in reponse to a H-1 RFE.
My wife has an Advance Parole document and EAD based on my I-485 application.
Can you suggest options for her?
1. can she forget about the H-1, not respond to the 221(g) and travel back on advance parole and start working on EAD?
2. If after submission of 221(g) her visa gets rejected, can she still use the Advance Parole to travel to US and work on her EAD?
3. Any other options/advice?
hot I think something might be
singhsa3
07-20 02:04 PM
Then why do they have two separate forms
It doesn't matter. You can file G-325 or G-325A.
It doesn't matter. You can file G-325 or G-325A.
more...
house VA - Boogie Woogie (2007)
am2006
12-08 08:34 AM
Called Senator Tom Price - 770-565-4990. Was asked the Bill #.
What's the Bill # and which house is it being introduced in?
What's the Bill # and which house is it being introduced in?
tattoo Bring the Boogie Woogie Back
eb3_nepa
04-13 09:56 AM
People on here mentioned that there was a special provision for a a further 3 month wait for the director of immigration studies to examine it. Is that true?
Now is 90 days a normal wait time, or is there something special in this bill?
Now is 90 days a normal wait time, or is there something special in this bill?
more...
pictures Boogie-Woogie String Along For
gsc999
02-16 01:39 AM
See you there on Sunday
dresses Mary Pat Henry
AVAKIL10
08-03 08:40 AM
It does look confusing though..Odd.
more...
makeup Rob Thomas Something To Be-
GC092003
04-13 12:50 PM
I have same concerned. I have been waiting for too long to get my GC procee done. I can't live with current employer any longer. I am waiting for 1-485 to be filled. My PD is sept 03. Do you guys have any feeling if we can file it before this summer (like July)? Another concern is based on current situation with USCIS, it is about 8 month wait for I-485 to be processed. As you mentioned, it might be longer waiting time for this process since many people who had waited, will be filing. Please give me your feeling of feasibility date. Thanx.
girlfriend Something About Mary
chanduv23
07-11 02:42 PM
My EAD and AP application was received June 19, 2009 at TSC. To my pleasant shocking & surprise USCIS approved mine and wife's application in 20 days and we received the card today.
We are happy with the speed and efficiency USCIS and wish they could do everything the same way. we received two year EAD but concerned as receiving a two year EAD indicates that it may take a while to get my PD (Dec 2005).
Thanks
Senthil.
My EAD and AP were receipted on June 9th from TSC. AP got approved, EAD still pending. So I guess these approvals are random.
We are happy with the speed and efficiency USCIS and wish they could do everything the same way. we received two year EAD but concerned as receiving a two year EAD indicates that it may take a while to get my PD (Dec 2005).
Thanks
Senthil.
My EAD and AP were receipted on June 9th from TSC. AP got approved, EAD still pending. So I guess these approvals are random.
hairstyles Nick Waterbury|Boogie woogie,
webpromo
03-24 12:37 AM
I am looking for some serious help and advice here , I hate to see any non-immigrant in US in my circumstances .Here some information about it , My company has sponsored my work visa , soon I entered into they customs and Immigration there is some mistake with my paper work , and they charged me and later deported me .In the middle we came to know the company has sponsored some other people B/J visas for their own benefits and officers acted so racially .when i got deported they never issued my passport back , I keep on calling them now , they always say , They can't hear , some times they mention call after 5 mins , 1hr .I am so vexed with all they do , I felt so victim in this . Please advice me can i get my passport back, and my case is in pending appeal , before I got deported
Abhinaym
08-13 02:49 PM
who is vld rao?
It's actually VDLRao, as far as I know...
It's actually VDLRao, as far as I know...
Sath thesmilingstar
02-24 02:29 PM
If you've used an AP to re-enter the country ..based on I-485 filing, you can apply for FAFSA.
well,i dont know what is AP can you please tell me what it is..??
well,i dont know what is AP can you please tell me what it is..??
No comments:
Post a Comment