TomPlate
02-03 02:54 PM
I am going to travel to India.
I am in H1B and have valid Advanced Parole and expired EAD.
What are the documents needed for Advanced Parole in Port Of Entry. Also my lawyer is going to file the EAD this week.
1. 485 Receipt Notice.
2. Copy of 140 Approval Notice.
3. Employment Verification Letter.
Anything else? Please let me know.
I am in H1B and have valid Advanced Parole and expired EAD.
What are the documents needed for Advanced Parole in Port Of Entry. Also my lawyer is going to file the EAD this week.
1. 485 Receipt Notice.
2. Copy of 140 Approval Notice.
3. Employment Verification Letter.
Anything else? Please let me know.
purgan
01-22 11:35 AM
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/5585.html
The Immigrant Technologist:
Studying Technology Transfer with China
Q&A with: William Kerr and Michael Roberts
Published: January 22, 2007
Author: Michael Roberts
Executive Summary:
Immigrants account for almost half of Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers in the U.S., and are prime drivers of technology development. Increasingly, however, Chinese technologists and entrepreneurs are staying home to pursue opportunities. Is this a brain drain? Professor William Kerr discusses the phenomena of technology transfer and implications for U.S.-based businesses and policymakers.
The trend of Chinese technologists and entrepreneurs staying home rather than moving to the United States is a trend that potentially offers both harm and opportunity to U.S.-based interests.
Immigrants account for almost half of Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers in the U.S. and are strong contributors to American technology development. It is in the United States' interest to attract and retain this highly skilled group.
U.S. multinationals are placing larger shares of their R&D into foreign countries, around 15 percent today. U.S.-based ethnic scientists within multinationals help facilitate the operation of these foreign direct investment facilities in their home countries.
Immigrants account for almost half of Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers in the U.S., and are prime drivers of technology development. Increasingly, however, Chinese technologists and entrepreneurs are staying home to pursue opportunities. Is this a brain drain?
Q: Describe your research and how it relates to what you observed in China.
A: My research focuses on technology transfer through ethnic scientific and entrepreneurial networks. Traditional models of technology diffusion suggest that if you have a great idea, people who are ten feet away from you will learn about that idea first, followed by people who are 100 miles away, and so forth in concentric circles. My research on ethnic networks suggests this channel facilitates faster knowledge transfer and faster adoption of foreign technologies. For example, if the Chinese have a strong presence in the U.S. computer industry, relative to other ethnic groups, then computer technologies diffuse faster to China than elsewhere. This is true even for computer advances made by Americans, as the U.S.-based Chinese increase awareness and tacit knowledge development regarding these advances in their home country.
Q: Is your research relevant to other countries as well?
China is at a tipping point for entrepreneurship on an international scale.A: Yes, I have extended my empirical work to include over thirty industries and nine ethnicities, including Indian, Japanese, Korean, and Hispanic. It is very important to develop a broad sample to quantify correctly the overall importance of these networks. The Silicon Valley Chinese are a very special case, and my work seeks to understand the larger benefit these networks provide throughout the global economy. These macroeconomic findings are important inputs to business and policy circles.
Q: What makes technology transfer happen? Is it entrepreneurial opportunity in the home country, a loyalty to the home country, or government policies that encourage or require people to come home?
A: It's all of those. Surveys of these diasporic communities suggest they aid their home countries through both formal business relationships and informal contacts. Formal mechanisms run the spectrum from direct financial investment in overseas businesses that pursue technology opportunities to facilitating contracts and market awareness. Informal contacts are more frequent�the evidence we have suggests they are at least twice as common�and even more diverse in nature. Ongoing research will allow us to better distinguish these channels. A Beijing scholar we met on the trip, Henry Wang, and I are currently surveying a large population of Chinese entrepreneurs to paint a more comprehensive picture of the micro-underpinnings of this phenomena.
Q: What about multinational corporations? How do they fit into this scenario?
A: One of the strongest trends of globalization is that U.S. multinationals are placing larger shares of their R&D into foreign countries. About 5 percent of U.S.-sponsored R&D was done in foreign countries in the 1980s, and that number is around 15 percent today. We visited Microsoft's R&D center in Beijing to learn more about its R&D efforts and interactions with the U.S. parent. This facility was founded in the late 1990s, and it has already grown to house a third of Microsoft's basic-science R&D researchers. More broadly, HBS assistant professor Fritz Foley and I are working on a research project that has found that U.S.-based ethnic scientists within multinationals like Microsoft help facilitate the operation of these foreign direct investment facilities in their home countries.
Q: Does your research have implications for U.S. policy?
A: One implication concerns immigration levels. It is interesting to note that while immigrants account for about 15 percent of the U.S. working population, they account for almost half of our Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers. Even within the Ph.D. ranks, foreign-born individuals have a disproportionate number of Nobel Prizes, elections to the National Academy of Sciences, patent citations, and so forth. They are a very strong contributor to U.S. technology development, so it is in the United States' interest to attract and retain this highly skilled group. It is one of the easiest policy levers we have to influence our nation's rate of innovation.
Q: Are countries that send their scholars to the United States losing their best and brightest?
A: My research shows that having these immigrant scientists, entrepreneurs, and engineers in the United States helps facilitate faster technology transfer from the United States, which in turn aids economic growth and development. This is certainly a positive benefit diasporas bring to their home countries. It is important to note, however, that a number of factors should be considered in the "brain drain" versus "brain gain" debate, for which I do not think there is a clear answer today.
Q: Where does China stand in relation to some of the classic tiger economies that we've seen in the past in terms of technology transfer?
A: Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, and similar smaller economies have achieved a full transition from agriculture-based economies to industrialized economies. In those situations, technology transfer increases labor productivity and wages directly. The interesting thing about China and also India is that about half of their populations are still employed in the agricultural sector. In this scenario, technology transfer may lead to faster sector reallocation�workers moving from agriculture to industry�which can weaken wage growth compared with the classic tiger economy example. This is an interesting dynamic we see in China today.
Q: The export growth that technology may engender is only one prong of the mechanism that helps economic development. Does technology also make purely domestic industries more productive?
A: Absolutely. My research shows that countries do increase their exports in industries that receive large technology infusions, but non-exporting industries also benefit from technology gains. Moreover, the technology transfer can raise wages in sectors that do not rely on technology to the extent there is labor mobility across sectors. A hairdresser in the United States, for example, makes more money than a hairdresser in China, and that is due in large part to the wage equilibrium that occurs across occupations and skill categories within an economy. Technology transfer may alter the wage premiums assigned to certain skill sets, for example, increasing the wage gaps between skilled and unskilled workers, but the wage shifts can feed across sectors through labor mobility.
Q: What are the implications for the future?
A: Historically, the United States has been very successful at the retention of foreign-born, Ph.D.-level scientists, inventors, and entrepreneurs. As China and India continue to develop, they will become more attractive places to live and to start companies. The returnee pattern may accelerate as foreign infrastructures become more developed for entrepreneurship. This is not going to happen over the next three years, but it is quite likely over the next thirty to fifty years. My current research is exploring how this reverse migration would impact the United States' rate of progress.
About the author
Michael Roberts is a senior lecturer in the Entrepreneurial Management unit at Harvard Business School.
The Immigrant Technologist:
Studying Technology Transfer with China
Q&A with: William Kerr and Michael Roberts
Published: January 22, 2007
Author: Michael Roberts
Executive Summary:
Immigrants account for almost half of Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers in the U.S., and are prime drivers of technology development. Increasingly, however, Chinese technologists and entrepreneurs are staying home to pursue opportunities. Is this a brain drain? Professor William Kerr discusses the phenomena of technology transfer and implications for U.S.-based businesses and policymakers.
The trend of Chinese technologists and entrepreneurs staying home rather than moving to the United States is a trend that potentially offers both harm and opportunity to U.S.-based interests.
Immigrants account for almost half of Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers in the U.S. and are strong contributors to American technology development. It is in the United States' interest to attract and retain this highly skilled group.
U.S. multinationals are placing larger shares of their R&D into foreign countries, around 15 percent today. U.S.-based ethnic scientists within multinationals help facilitate the operation of these foreign direct investment facilities in their home countries.
Immigrants account for almost half of Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers in the U.S., and are prime drivers of technology development. Increasingly, however, Chinese technologists and entrepreneurs are staying home to pursue opportunities. Is this a brain drain?
Q: Describe your research and how it relates to what you observed in China.
A: My research focuses on technology transfer through ethnic scientific and entrepreneurial networks. Traditional models of technology diffusion suggest that if you have a great idea, people who are ten feet away from you will learn about that idea first, followed by people who are 100 miles away, and so forth in concentric circles. My research on ethnic networks suggests this channel facilitates faster knowledge transfer and faster adoption of foreign technologies. For example, if the Chinese have a strong presence in the U.S. computer industry, relative to other ethnic groups, then computer technologies diffuse faster to China than elsewhere. This is true even for computer advances made by Americans, as the U.S.-based Chinese increase awareness and tacit knowledge development regarding these advances in their home country.
Q: Is your research relevant to other countries as well?
China is at a tipping point for entrepreneurship on an international scale.A: Yes, I have extended my empirical work to include over thirty industries and nine ethnicities, including Indian, Japanese, Korean, and Hispanic. It is very important to develop a broad sample to quantify correctly the overall importance of these networks. The Silicon Valley Chinese are a very special case, and my work seeks to understand the larger benefit these networks provide throughout the global economy. These macroeconomic findings are important inputs to business and policy circles.
Q: What makes technology transfer happen? Is it entrepreneurial opportunity in the home country, a loyalty to the home country, or government policies that encourage or require people to come home?
A: It's all of those. Surveys of these diasporic communities suggest they aid their home countries through both formal business relationships and informal contacts. Formal mechanisms run the spectrum from direct financial investment in overseas businesses that pursue technology opportunities to facilitating contracts and market awareness. Informal contacts are more frequent�the evidence we have suggests they are at least twice as common�and even more diverse in nature. Ongoing research will allow us to better distinguish these channels. A Beijing scholar we met on the trip, Henry Wang, and I are currently surveying a large population of Chinese entrepreneurs to paint a more comprehensive picture of the micro-underpinnings of this phenomena.
Q: What about multinational corporations? How do they fit into this scenario?
A: One of the strongest trends of globalization is that U.S. multinationals are placing larger shares of their R&D into foreign countries. About 5 percent of U.S.-sponsored R&D was done in foreign countries in the 1980s, and that number is around 15 percent today. We visited Microsoft's R&D center in Beijing to learn more about its R&D efforts and interactions with the U.S. parent. This facility was founded in the late 1990s, and it has already grown to house a third of Microsoft's basic-science R&D researchers. More broadly, HBS assistant professor Fritz Foley and I are working on a research project that has found that U.S.-based ethnic scientists within multinationals like Microsoft help facilitate the operation of these foreign direct investment facilities in their home countries.
Q: Does your research have implications for U.S. policy?
A: One implication concerns immigration levels. It is interesting to note that while immigrants account for about 15 percent of the U.S. working population, they account for almost half of our Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers. Even within the Ph.D. ranks, foreign-born individuals have a disproportionate number of Nobel Prizes, elections to the National Academy of Sciences, patent citations, and so forth. They are a very strong contributor to U.S. technology development, so it is in the United States' interest to attract and retain this highly skilled group. It is one of the easiest policy levers we have to influence our nation's rate of innovation.
Q: Are countries that send their scholars to the United States losing their best and brightest?
A: My research shows that having these immigrant scientists, entrepreneurs, and engineers in the United States helps facilitate faster technology transfer from the United States, which in turn aids economic growth and development. This is certainly a positive benefit diasporas bring to their home countries. It is important to note, however, that a number of factors should be considered in the "brain drain" versus "brain gain" debate, for which I do not think there is a clear answer today.
Q: Where does China stand in relation to some of the classic tiger economies that we've seen in the past in terms of technology transfer?
A: Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, and similar smaller economies have achieved a full transition from agriculture-based economies to industrialized economies. In those situations, technology transfer increases labor productivity and wages directly. The interesting thing about China and also India is that about half of their populations are still employed in the agricultural sector. In this scenario, technology transfer may lead to faster sector reallocation�workers moving from agriculture to industry�which can weaken wage growth compared with the classic tiger economy example. This is an interesting dynamic we see in China today.
Q: The export growth that technology may engender is only one prong of the mechanism that helps economic development. Does technology also make purely domestic industries more productive?
A: Absolutely. My research shows that countries do increase their exports in industries that receive large technology infusions, but non-exporting industries also benefit from technology gains. Moreover, the technology transfer can raise wages in sectors that do not rely on technology to the extent there is labor mobility across sectors. A hairdresser in the United States, for example, makes more money than a hairdresser in China, and that is due in large part to the wage equilibrium that occurs across occupations and skill categories within an economy. Technology transfer may alter the wage premiums assigned to certain skill sets, for example, increasing the wage gaps between skilled and unskilled workers, but the wage shifts can feed across sectors through labor mobility.
Q: What are the implications for the future?
A: Historically, the United States has been very successful at the retention of foreign-born, Ph.D.-level scientists, inventors, and entrepreneurs. As China and India continue to develop, they will become more attractive places to live and to start companies. The returnee pattern may accelerate as foreign infrastructures become more developed for entrepreneurship. This is not going to happen over the next three years, but it is quite likely over the next thirty to fifty years. My current research is exploring how this reverse migration would impact the United States' rate of progress.
About the author
Michael Roberts is a senior lecturer in the Entrepreneurial Management unit at Harvard Business School.
learning01
05-03 10:09 AM
They are not going to help resolve issues of backlogs, delays in processing and visa numbers for employment based GCs.
Clearly, these counter-protesters are doing them under the gard of supporting legal immigrants. My advise - ignore them and don't post or start new threads here. Instead write letters to editors clearly drawing their attention to issues facing legal employment based immigrants.
I browsed the link provided and nowhere it is mentioned about specific issues of legal immigrants.
Suggest folks write back personal stories and ask the editor to highlight the need to raise Legal Immigration issues.. the writer has clearly expressed how the legal immigrants needs to be given consideration : Contact Jessie Mangaliman at jmangaliman@mercurynews. com or (408) 920-5794.
They are organising a counter protest against Illegal Immigrants rally :
Amnesty foes respond
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/immigration_debate/14488543.htm
Clearly, these counter-protesters are doing them under the gard of supporting legal immigrants. My advise - ignore them and don't post or start new threads here. Instead write letters to editors clearly drawing their attention to issues facing legal employment based immigrants.
I browsed the link provided and nowhere it is mentioned about specific issues of legal immigrants.
Suggest folks write back personal stories and ask the editor to highlight the need to raise Legal Immigration issues.. the writer has clearly expressed how the legal immigrants needs to be given consideration : Contact Jessie Mangaliman at jmangaliman@mercurynews. com or (408) 920-5794.
They are organising a counter protest against Illegal Immigrants rally :
Amnesty foes respond
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/immigration_debate/14488543.htm
Munna Bhai
07-12 11:47 AM
any more help??
more...
santb1975
05-15 06:27 PM
This is a very important Action Item. I was pleased to hear a few IV'ans called when I called the offices of the reps today
jvs
09-23 02:27 PM
I applied for my second AP on 08/11/2009, was approved on 09/03/2009, was received at the attorney's office on 09/10/2009. Service center NSC.
No FP was done. FWIW my last FP was in Jan 09.
Did you guys have to go through FP for the APs? Will they take FP again even if they have done that before.
No FP was done. FWIW my last FP was in Jan 09.
Did you guys have to go through FP for the APs? Will they take FP again even if they have done that before.
more...
thomachan72
03-31 03:29 PM
Congratulations!
You have a Oct 04 priority date. Your date was current for quite some time. What took them so long? Did you switch from Eb3 to Eb2?
Congrads. I have the same question. why so long? are there still people with 04 PD out there waiting? Why is it that we are seeing "card recieved" posts very rarely these days? Have they slowed issuing GC to those with PD current?
You have a Oct 04 priority date. Your date was current for quite some time. What took them so long? Did you switch from Eb3 to Eb2?
Congrads. I have the same question. why so long? are there still people with 04 PD out there waiting? Why is it that we are seeing "card recieved" posts very rarely these days? Have they slowed issuing GC to those with PD current?
gcseeker2002
05-29 03:50 PM
I have a early 2004 Priority date (EB3 India) and asked my attorney if it is wise to reapply in Eb2 as it is current in that date, and she says she believes my Eb3 PD to get current by july. Folks, what do you think ?
more...
waitforgc1
05-07 03:34 PM
They are not random. The do have some logic.
At every center cases are filed in order they are received (at least that is what they claim). "Received" does not mean in order of RD you see on your receipt. It is when physically a center accepted your paper case, and decided to enter in the system. PD plays role only for casesfrom retrogressed countries (EB and FB, both). For majority of cases, it has no relevance. PD of cases is nowhere maintained in the system (at least until a case is looked at the first time, which is sometime referred to as "preadjudication"), except on your paper filing. When your file turns out to be next in que for adjudication, in order or receive date (as defined above), the IO has no idea about your PD. Physical file is processed and checked for docs (birth certificates, photos, etc. etc.), AND the PD. At this time you might see a LUD. If nothing further progresses (due to PD not being current) LUD remains a soft LUD, and your case is put aside. If by luck your file was seen when your PD was current, you get lucky and get a GC (and several hard LUDs). PD sequence and received date sequence have no relationship, that's why the whole process seems random.
THanks for the information. Now its little encouraging. could you clear one of my other questions.. whats the difference between LUD and soft LUD. I logged in the USCIS website
and i see the date changed at the LUD to 04/28/2009. What is that is that a soft lud or LUD
Thanks
At every center cases are filed in order they are received (at least that is what they claim). "Received" does not mean in order of RD you see on your receipt. It is when physically a center accepted your paper case, and decided to enter in the system. PD plays role only for casesfrom retrogressed countries (EB and FB, both). For majority of cases, it has no relevance. PD of cases is nowhere maintained in the system (at least until a case is looked at the first time, which is sometime referred to as "preadjudication"), except on your paper filing. When your file turns out to be next in que for adjudication, in order or receive date (as defined above), the IO has no idea about your PD. Physical file is processed and checked for docs (birth certificates, photos, etc. etc.), AND the PD. At this time you might see a LUD. If nothing further progresses (due to PD not being current) LUD remains a soft LUD, and your case is put aside. If by luck your file was seen when your PD was current, you get lucky and get a GC (and several hard LUDs). PD sequence and received date sequence have no relationship, that's why the whole process seems random.
THanks for the information. Now its little encouraging. could you clear one of my other questions.. whats the difference between LUD and soft LUD. I logged in the USCIS website
and i see the date changed at the LUD to 04/28/2009. What is that is that a soft lud or LUD
Thanks
Sree1965
05-22 04:48 PM
New filings will not effect to move the dates either you file on 1st or 30th. The Visa(GC) numbers will be deducted only after the approval of I-485. Any of these new filings will not be touched(Approved) for 4-5 months. USCIS has to consume the balance visas(GCs) before October 1st 2007.
If The Number of Visas > The number of Approved + To be approved(Mostly filed at least 4-5 months before) in the coming months.....then you can expect further movement from the State Department..
Ask(Pray) the USCIS(God) not to approve any 485's till June 15th....
So...the move movement is not depended even all of them file on the day 1....It depended on the Number of approvals .....Keep watching the approvals atleast till June 10th ...
Sree
I also think this is a good idea, 10 days will not make much difference. Please help other members people.... Who knows, if there are too many applications USCIS might decide to not move dates in the July Visa Bulletin.
If The Number of Visas > The number of Approved + To be approved(Mostly filed at least 4-5 months before) in the coming months.....then you can expect further movement from the State Department..
Ask(Pray) the USCIS(God) not to approve any 485's till June 15th....
So...the move movement is not depended even all of them file on the day 1....It depended on the Number of approvals .....Keep watching the approvals atleast till June 10th ...
Sree
I also think this is a good idea, 10 days will not make much difference. Please help other members people.... Who knows, if there are too many applications USCIS might decide to not move dates in the July Visa Bulletin.
more...
forgerator
09-05 01:08 AM
I hope EB3 ROW date moves to Nov 2008, this way I can file for my I485 :D
MunnaBhai
12-21 10:48 AM
If you are from a minority community then she might help. Following her papa and UPA Govt.'s policies
:D:D:D:D
:D:D:D:D
more...
jsb
08-15 02:14 PM
One of my buddies got his GC approved yesterday and his Priority Date is June 2005, EB2 India. I am here waiting since 2004 March to file for my I485. There are no methods to USCIS Madness.
This is possible, if LC of your buddy was approved within months. In 2005 most categories were Current, so he/she filed I-140 and I-485 in 2005, which concluded with a GC now.
This is possible, if LC of your buddy was approved within months. In 2005 most categories were Current, so he/she filed I-140 and I-485 in 2005, which concluded with a GC now.
michael_trs
05-13 03:35 PM
Smisachu, I agree, I need to add alternative education… thank you for your advice.
What about “requirements normal for the occupation” is this Yes or No for Master's + 5 years ?
What is your experience?
What about “requirements normal for the occupation” is this Yes or No for Master's + 5 years ?
What is your experience?
more...
bigboy007
10-11 01:31 PM
Consult with your current company immigration attorney and find out why your current job will not qualify for EB2.
Just in case start your EB3 GC and port your PD to this new GC I-140. That will help you with the H1B renewal for 3 years. You have got 14 more months. you should be able to get I-140 filed by then, do a premium for I-140 to get it approved by the time you renew your H1B.
Renewing your H1B based on the revoked I-140 would be risky.
Did USCIS sent you any notice that your 485 is not valid ?
Just in case start your EB3 GC and port your PD to this new GC I-140. That will help you with the H1B renewal for 3 years. You have got 14 more months. you should be able to get I-140 filed by then, do a premium for I-140 to get it approved by the time you renew your H1B.
Renewing your H1B based on the revoked I-140 would be risky.
Did USCIS sent you any notice that your 485 is not valid ?
nixstor
02-23 04:22 PM
AFAIK States that do not have state income tax do not let H4 visa holders pay instate and make Green Card as a requirement for instate qualification.
WA state is a good example of the above situation. I don't know about TX,FL,SD,NV,AK,WY which also do not have state income taxes. You might want to look at the instate qualification website for the state you are interested in.
MD doesn't allow instate
DC has no instate concept at all :)
VA,NY,CA,MA,IL allow instate as of my knowledge.
WA state is a good example of the above situation. I don't know about TX,FL,SD,NV,AK,WY which also do not have state income taxes. You might want to look at the instate qualification website for the state you are interested in.
MD doesn't allow instate
DC has no instate concept at all :)
VA,NY,CA,MA,IL allow instate as of my knowledge.
more...
bostonian28
05-16 11:35 AM
I have just called all the Representatives mentioned in the above thread and conveyed the message. Similar experience, nice people (I am sure they are supposed to be nice, as they would take calls from voters!!), I also heard similar responses saying they have been getting many calls.
Aah_GC
06-06 09:13 PM
Don't worry about your I140 getting revoked, AC21 is built for your career, security and comfort keeping in mind the USCIS delays. Go ahead and use it and Good luck. Make sure you are careful with SOC codes, and do a good job of keeping your status and career in accordance with the rules. The rest will take care of itself.
If you are sure about your I140 getting revoked, make sure you let USCIS know of your AC21 portability. Good luck.
If you are sure about your I140 getting revoked, make sure you let USCIS know of your AC21 portability. Good luck.
coopheal
04-13 12:13 AM
That is incorrect. USCIS would send a copy of RFE to you as well.
My wife got a medical RFE and I'm looking at the letter from USCIS as I type.
Yes, We did sign the lawyer form. Lawyer first got a copy and informed us. He also told us that we would be getting one. And we got one.
For me I never got a any communication directly from USCIS for the RFE.
My wife got a medical RFE and I'm looking at the letter from USCIS as I type.
Yes, We did sign the lawyer form. Lawyer first got a copy and informed us. He also told us that we would be getting one. And we got one.
For me I never got a any communication directly from USCIS for the RFE.
Munna Bhai
01-09 12:44 PM
I have filed I-140 in May 2007 and it is still pending. Is there anyone in this same situation??Please let me know to whom to contact.
-M
-M
rongha_2000
07-17 03:55 PM
I am ashamed to read these comments coming from "highly skilled" people. Administrators please take preventive steps. We dont want some sickos malign IV. :mad: :mad:
Murthy is a she...and I would but I'm not single. ;)
Murthy is a she...and I would but I'm not single. ;)
0 comments:
Post a Comment