peer123
07-17 10:43 AM
I am also in somewhat same situation. My Employer didnot pay me for one month and didnot provide paystubs for 4 months. ANy way I sucessfully joined a large corporation as they were willing to listen to my situation. When I ask for pay they say they will suit me as I have joined the client.
I feel for you man, This is the main reason why left consulting with Desi firms long time ago. The act like parasites,... I am only referring to people who are so, I am not commenting on the large community of good employers....
I feel for you man, This is the main reason why left consulting with Desi firms long time ago. The act like parasites,... I am only referring to people who are so, I am not commenting on the large community of good employers....
wallpaper they live in glass houses.
senthil
02-07 08:48 AM
folks - this is what ive been told.
we can file the spouse details and the mariage proof - for AOS ( I forgot the form number ) if you are married but you cant get your spouse into US for some reason. EG you have invoked AC21 using your EAD. which means you have lost H1B and there is NO H4 in scope. So unless you get your GC you cant bring.
In my case, I was on H1B when i got married, ( already filed 485 too before marriage, but did not use EAD till date ) so I could bring my spouse on H4. But the problem is there is no way you could add your spouse to my AOS process, unless my priority dates are current.
hope this helps. do you guys have any suggestions / questions
we can file the spouse details and the mariage proof - for AOS ( I forgot the form number ) if you are married but you cant get your spouse into US for some reason. EG you have invoked AC21 using your EAD. which means you have lost H1B and there is NO H4 in scope. So unless you get your GC you cant bring.
In my case, I was on H1B when i got married, ( already filed 485 too before marriage, but did not use EAD till date ) so I could bring my spouse on H4. But the problem is there is no way you could add your spouse to my AOS process, unless my priority dates are current.
hope this helps. do you guys have any suggestions / questions
nozerd
04-16 03:02 PM
I love H TOWN
Moving here is a decision you will not regret. Its probably the best place to live in the US if you take all factors into consideration.
As far as hot and humid - dont forget everything is Air Conditioned and even in the summers early mornings are not bad (if you are the outdoors type).
If you have any questions do let me know
Moving here is a decision you will not regret. Its probably the best place to live in the US if you take all factors into consideration.
As far as hot and humid - dont forget everything is Air Conditioned and even in the summers early mornings are not bad (if you are the outdoors type).
If you have any questions do let me know
2011 Johnson#39;s Glass House
ysiad
08-11 06:18 PM
why would address change delay processing ur 485? This is the most ridiculous question ever asked. Inviting panic, for the heck of it....
just make sure u have some overlap where u can receive mail on both addresses just to account for uscis delays in address update....they r not going to penalize u for moving.
Well, I read someone said if you change address, USCIS might think you changed the job and give you a REF. That might casue delay... Since I don't know how the process work, just want to make sure this will not happen.
just make sure u have some overlap where u can receive mail on both addresses just to account for uscis delays in address update....they r not going to penalize u for moving.
Well, I read someone said if you change address, USCIS might think you changed the job and give you a REF. That might casue delay... Since I don't know how the process work, just want to make sure this will not happen.
more...
kumarc123
01-23 06:48 PM
Hi
Can someone please tell me how to post a new thread, lately I saw a post reflecting on us citizenship for international students who will serve in army intelligence, if someone could please post that thread here, I tried looking for it.
Please help me out here,
Thank you
Can someone please tell me how to post a new thread, lately I saw a post reflecting on us citizenship for international students who will serve in army intelligence, if someone could please post that thread here, I tried looking for it.
Please help me out here,
Thank you
maheshf
07-31 12:10 PM
FYI: Last year, my wife (Dependent) got her EAD before mine was approved. Like i said, if u start looking for trends (and something that makes sense) the way USCIS works, u will most likely be disappointed.
They just work randomly---there are so many June/July EAD filers who got their EADs approved in 3-4 weeks time frame, and then there are May filers (like me) who've just started seeing some approvals and some are still waiting with applications pending over 90 days.
You are right...It's random..just received �Card Production� notification for my wife as well..
They just work randomly---there are so many June/July EAD filers who got their EADs approved in 3-4 weeks time frame, and then there are May filers (like me) who've just started seeing some approvals and some are still waiting with applications pending over 90 days.
You are right...It's random..just received �Card Production� notification for my wife as well..
more...
sands_14
12-05 02:54 PM
i think u need not get a new h1 stamp and can sill come in and out on AP without compromising yr h1 status.
Yes,You should get a multiple-entry AP.If it is one-time entry AP,then you need another AP.Genrally nowadays u get multiple-entry AP.
Yes,You should get a multiple-entry AP.If it is one-time entry AP,then you need another AP.Genrally nowadays u get multiple-entry AP.
2010 Joel from Glass Houses.
indyanguy
01-13 10:39 AM
Sure, I will try to do that. But the lawyer has a mind of his own, a very adamant one who would not listen to anyones suggestions. Also, I am racing against time. I have very little time to get new EVLs and have my lawyer submit them. Thanks for the suggestion.
more...
cygent
09-15 03:05 PM
EB3 I-140 is still March 30th, 2007, a whole year behind EB2. EB2 jumped from July 2007 to March 13th, 2008 UNBELIEVABLE :confused: Seems like they just want us to blow our brains out, or whatever little is left of it anyway... This is just so sick.
hair Modern glass houses have been
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
more...
pansy
05-14 12:29 PM
Initially I paid all the fees for I-485 and EAD filing. Now I need to renew my EAD, who should pay renewal fees [Employee or Employer]. Employer paid for H1B expired in March'08. Current EAD will expire in Sep' 08.:)
hot Glass Houses
Winner
04-23 12:46 PM
Raj,
Try to help if you can, if not just shut the **** up, only the person on the wrong side can feel the pain. He'll consult attorney anyways.
Hey Guys, I'm the OP. I'm not on the wrong side of the law, I was asking those "What if" questions to get more information on this subject and try to convince my employer to renew my H1B instead of using EAD.
Please don't start a fight here. Please try to respect each other in public forums.
Try to help if you can, if not just shut the **** up, only the person on the wrong side can feel the pain. He'll consult attorney anyways.
Hey Guys, I'm the OP. I'm not on the wrong side of the law, I was asking those "What if" questions to get more information on this subject and try to convince my employer to renew my H1B instead of using EAD.
Please don't start a fight here. Please try to respect each other in public forums.
more...
house Glass Houses
vdlrao
04-08 02:54 PM
On Page 3 they say total Employement based preferences number was 162,176
Than on page 6 they say total Employement based preferences number was 147,148
147,148 is the limit for EB category where as 162,176 are actual issued visa numbers for fiscal year 2007
Than on page 6 they say total Employement based preferences number was 147,148
147,148 is the limit for EB category where as 162,176 are actual issued visa numbers for fiscal year 2007
tattoo Contemporary Glass House
averagedesi
08-27 08:24 PM
The only way I got to a rep is not choosing any option, the system assumes you are on rotary dial and connects you to a human
more...
pictures The Glass House, New Canaan
Krilnon
01-01 11:49 PM
Are you considering actually stopping people from creating something in AS1? As you probably know anyway, AS2 is compiled to AS1 anyway, so a decision to limit entrants to only AS2 and AS3 would be totally arbitrary. :P
Besides, most people who claim to be using AS2 just use AS1 with type annotations…
Anyway, thanks for clarifying the background options. :)
Besides, most people who claim to be using AS2 just use AS1 with type annotations…
Anyway, thanks for clarifying the background options. :)
dresses glass house
akhilmahajan
04-30 10:44 AM
see we got some hope..........
thanks a lot for the update...........
thanks a lot for the update...........
more...
makeup lake house exterior
ilwaiting
06-15 03:19 PM
Thats your A number, Its not the I-94 number. Some people have it some don't. If you have it you need to include it. If you don't it would be assigned once you file you 485
Initially I thought its the number on I-94, but apparantly not. This is required to be filled on almost all forms which are required to be filed now that the dates are current. I485, 131, 765 etc.
Is this the number which is on my approved I-140 (A099 XXX XXX) ?
Initially I thought its the number on I-94, but apparantly not. This is required to be filled on almost all forms which are required to be filed now that the dates are current. I485, 131, 765 etc.
Is this the number which is on my approved I-140 (A099 XXX XXX) ?
girlfriend Glass House Design from House
nogc_noproblem
04-24 10:51 AM
Is there any formal announcement from IV for letter / flower campaign? We left with very short time.
Thanks Arnab221 for posting the schedule. April 30th is the hearing date, and we know the members of this committee:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_the_Judiciary
and the members of the sub-committee:
http://judiciary.house.gov/committeestructure.aspx?committee=4
What are we waiting for guys, lets start a letter campaign (to express our problems) OR flower campaign (to convey our thanks for looking into this important matter).
Thanks Arnab221 for posting the schedule. April 30th is the hearing date, and we know the members of this committee:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_the_Judiciary
and the members of the sub-committee:
http://judiciary.house.gov/committeestructure.aspx?committee=4
What are we waiting for guys, lets start a letter campaign (to express our problems) OR flower campaign (to convey our thanks for looking into this important matter).
hairstyles unveiling his Glass House,
sudhirdd
07-11 04:36 PM
As long as you are employed, and company is paying you decent salary (atleast salary mentioned on the L/C) you are fine, you must be employed at time of RFE/NOID etc..
Thanks a lot for your valuable input.
But I beleive all the input you mentioned, would be applicable for all kind of employer (Bigger or smaller) and get the RFE for ability to pay. I would like to know if you join the real small emplyer (about 35 employee) would it necessarly cause any other postential issue and/or must be a chance of getting the RFE as joining the such a small employer?
Please let me know.
Thanks for all your input in advance.
Thanks a lot for your valuable input.
But I beleive all the input you mentioned, would be applicable for all kind of employer (Bigger or smaller) and get the RFE for ability to pay. I would like to know if you join the real small emplyer (about 35 employee) would it necessarly cause any other postential issue and/or must be a chance of getting the RFE as joining the such a small employer?
Please let me know.
Thanks for all your input in advance.
simplistik
03-07 08:42 AM
I was the first to show my site, then paddy, then dark and then fern so i really dont see any influence may it be progressive or negative...Hmmm.... I thought paddy was first. Regaurdless that's just my opinion... I mean techincally you were all influenced by the sony site :P. But end dates on things like these types of compitetions are important, what you do is you give a specified time to have them linked up. Give somethin like a 6ish hr gap to have them up or post the link... then close it if they aren't up.
Anywho... gj guys... but I shall not say who I voted for :krazy: don't go tellin on me you silly Mods you. :p:
Anywho... gj guys... but I shall not say who I voted for :krazy: don't go tellin on me you silly Mods you. :p:
eb2_hope
08-22 06:55 PM
I support this..I call every second day .....
No comments:
Post a Comment