sanju
04-04 03:47 PM
if this bill is signed into law...most desi consultant companies with one h4 aunty doing the accounting work + recruiting + administrative work will have to shut down
That is not the intent of the bill. The intent of this bill is to make H1 process so difficult that it will be almost impossible to file for someone's H1 application. IEEE has lobbied to reduce the H1 numbers for very long time. Now that they realized that H1 numbers are not likely to decrease, they want to make the H1 program so difficult/strict that, for all practical purposes, employers will not be able to hire someone on H1.
And, even if the bill would do that you have said, how would it help speed up the green card process?
That is not the intent of the bill. The intent of this bill is to make H1 process so difficult that it will be almost impossible to file for someone's H1 application. IEEE has lobbied to reduce the H1 numbers for very long time. Now that they realized that H1 numbers are not likely to decrease, they want to make the H1 program so difficult/strict that, for all practical purposes, employers will not be able to hire someone on H1.
And, even if the bill would do that you have said, how would it help speed up the green card process?
wallpaper two wedding rings
Macaca
07-17 09:42 AM
Immigration bill ignites grass-roots fire (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=89612&postcount=461) The conservative group NumbersUSA has seen its numbers skyrocket. Activists pressure wavering senators. By Nicole Gaouette (nicole.gaouette@latimes.com), Times Staff Writer, June 24, 2007
Grass Roots Roared and Immigration Plan Collapsed By JULIA PRESTON New York Times, June 10, 2007: part 1 (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=80626&postcount=203), part 2 (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=80627&postcount=204)
Grass Roots Roared and Immigration Plan Collapsed By JULIA PRESTON New York Times, June 10, 2007: part 1 (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=80626&postcount=203), part 2 (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=80627&postcount=204)
singhsa3
07-28 12:31 PM
Hello All,
Very interesting thread. instead of focusing on our mission of this forum we are focussing on all the ways to destroy it. Good work guys, keep it up!
Very interesting thread. instead of focusing on our mission of this forum we are focussing on all the ways to destroy it. Good work guys, keep it up!
2011 AMARILLO PROSPECTORS
feedfront
09-21 12:23 PM
Hi Guys,
I am in tough spot. I was laid off from my GC sponsoring employer (A) in 2008 and joined another employer B . I did not do a AC21 notification. My dates are current and now I received an RFE to provide employment letter from current employer. The exact words of RFE are as follows:
"Submit a letter of employment attesting to applicant's current employment. This letter should be written on the company's official letterhead, citing the date the applicant began working, if a permanent full time position, the position offered, the position the applicant is currently working and the salary offered. Include corroborating evidence such as recent pay stubs, income tax returns, with all W2s or other evidence as appropriate. "
Now I am not working for original GC employer. I don't have a problem providing above from my current employer B. But whether the EVL should also mention that I am not working for GC sponsoring employer and that my current employers job profile is in same classification as previous based on AC21. Do I mention about the AC21 also in the letter? My current employer's attorneys are not that great but my current employer only wants me to use their own attorney.
Now here is the situation:
I have a job offer from another employer (Employer C) and they are in the middle of doing a H-1 transfer. In fact by tomorrow they will file the H1 paperwork. Now I don't know whether I should provide the letter from my potential new employer C . In that case, I won't be able to provide W2 or pay stubs until I join them. I have an opportunity to use my own attorney here (like murthy, Ron Gothcer..)
OR
should I provide a letter from my current employer using their attorneys and whether or not I should mention about AC21 in the employment letter.
Also they sent the RFE to my previous employer's attorney even though my current employer's attorney had sent the new G-28 forms. Can my current attorney respond to the RFE or will the response get rejected because USCIS still has old attorney on file.
Thanks.
Don't worry too much, just follow the instructions and respond. Well, I will suggest to use your current employer and their attorney as paperword will be smooth, efficient and fast.
You can hold your H1 transfer for a week or two till you don't respond.
I think your attorney (whoever you pick to work on RFE) will definitely mention AC-21 to keep it issueless.
I have also switched my employer and not filed AC-21. I've been sent RFE and that's what my attorney will do (I assume). I had asked him before (after switching job) if I needed to file AC21 letter. He said it's not mandatory and added that it can be handled if any RFEs are issued. Well, I did not send AC21 because he was asking for fee and I did not want to DIY project on such important. He's my previous employer's attorney.
I think for these RFEs you don't need great attorney as case is not complex. I think anything will work as long as you've not misused any GC's requirements.
Good Luck!
I am in tough spot. I was laid off from my GC sponsoring employer (A) in 2008 and joined another employer B . I did not do a AC21 notification. My dates are current and now I received an RFE to provide employment letter from current employer. The exact words of RFE are as follows:
"Submit a letter of employment attesting to applicant's current employment. This letter should be written on the company's official letterhead, citing the date the applicant began working, if a permanent full time position, the position offered, the position the applicant is currently working and the salary offered. Include corroborating evidence such as recent pay stubs, income tax returns, with all W2s or other evidence as appropriate. "
Now I am not working for original GC employer. I don't have a problem providing above from my current employer B. But whether the EVL should also mention that I am not working for GC sponsoring employer and that my current employers job profile is in same classification as previous based on AC21. Do I mention about the AC21 also in the letter? My current employer's attorneys are not that great but my current employer only wants me to use their own attorney.
Now here is the situation:
I have a job offer from another employer (Employer C) and they are in the middle of doing a H-1 transfer. In fact by tomorrow they will file the H1 paperwork. Now I don't know whether I should provide the letter from my potential new employer C . In that case, I won't be able to provide W2 or pay stubs until I join them. I have an opportunity to use my own attorney here (like murthy, Ron Gothcer..)
OR
should I provide a letter from my current employer using their attorneys and whether or not I should mention about AC21 in the employment letter.
Also they sent the RFE to my previous employer's attorney even though my current employer's attorney had sent the new G-28 forms. Can my current attorney respond to the RFE or will the response get rejected because USCIS still has old attorney on file.
Thanks.
Don't worry too much, just follow the instructions and respond. Well, I will suggest to use your current employer and their attorney as paperword will be smooth, efficient and fast.
You can hold your H1 transfer for a week or two till you don't respond.
I think your attorney (whoever you pick to work on RFE) will definitely mention AC-21 to keep it issueless.
I have also switched my employer and not filed AC-21. I've been sent RFE and that's what my attorney will do (I assume). I had asked him before (after switching job) if I needed to file AC21 letter. He said it's not mandatory and added that it can be handled if any RFEs are issued. Well, I did not send AC21 because he was asking for fee and I did not want to DIY project on such important. He's my previous employer's attorney.
I think for these RFEs you don't need great attorney as case is not complex. I think anything will work as long as you've not misused any GC's requirements.
Good Luck!
more...
keshtwo
08-15 05:22 PM
Well, I mean no offense to anybody but why is EB3 ROW so far back while EB2 India and China are as per June bulletin or better?
I thought for India the approved cases were 5 times the country quota for 2007? Good for those guys that were approved but I still don't get it why ROW is 2002!
yeah pretty weird. What does that mean to spillover in next June on wards? I hope its not a negative, too soon to tell though.
I thought for India the approved cases were 5 times the country quota for 2007? Good for those guys that were approved but I still don't get it why ROW is 2002!
yeah pretty weird. What does that mean to spillover in next June on wards? I hope its not a negative, too soon to tell though.
sriramkalyan
06-08 11:21 AM
I am doing MS in Technology Management from Howee School of Technology Management at Stevens Institute of Technology!!
Similar ones are offered at Penn State, Rutgers, MIT .. totally on Web.
Similar ones are offered at Penn State, Rutgers, MIT .. totally on Web.
more...
hara_patta_for_rico
07-09 07:54 PM
I feel that they did not violate any clause. Till June 30 which is end of third quarter, they are authorized to approve (3*27%*140K) 113,400. However they approved only 66,400 till May 31. That yields about 47,000 for June alone(10%+any number not used in previous months). The reamining visas are eligible for Jul 1, which is 13,000. Put together June and July1, it comes 60,000. Therefore they did not violate any law. This makes only 126,000. The remaining number was splitted for Consular processing.
my 2 cents...
Do you know that July 1st was a Sunday? A non-working day.
my 2 cents...
Do you know that July 1st was a Sunday? A non-working day.
2010 and the wedding rings are
franklin
07-03 06:34 PM
with out a reliable website, we can't communicate and do all the important things(productive) you are talking. maintaining a reliable website doesn't need much funds.
Anti immigrants will not know our plans if we may this a paid website.
Yes, there are other ways that in an emergency you can keep in touch with IV. Total waste of valuable money, for the couple of occasions it has happened
Anti immigrants will not know our plans if we may this a paid website.
Yes, there are other ways that in an emergency you can keep in touch with IV. Total waste of valuable money, for the couple of occasions it has happened
more...
gsc999
04-22 02:56 PM
Decipher and GSC999 have totally contradictory opinions . Not sure whom to believe here .:D . There seems to have been 2 sets of opinons here of the members who attended the rally.
---
I think you mean the conclusions we drew are different. Yes, as Congressman Gutierrez himself said yesterday. Some people, he was referring to Latinos who were opposing STRIVE, see STRIVE as glass half-empty. Others as half-full.
I will want to be in the latter category anyday.
The objective of the meeting was to show support for STRIVE, I think we acheived that. If your expectation was that there will only be IV members in the group and the congressman would focus exclusively on that issue. Sorry for the disappointment, welcome to politics. Lets learn from this.
Also, most members think that only anti-immigrants oppose STRIVE. That is not true. Undocumented immigrants also oppose STRIVE. When someone says ,"oh the whole thing was regarding undocumented," well yes but you have to go deeper. Within that group, there are people who oppose STRIVE.
---
I think you mean the conclusions we drew are different. Yes, as Congressman Gutierrez himself said yesterday. Some people, he was referring to Latinos who were opposing STRIVE, see STRIVE as glass half-empty. Others as half-full.
I will want to be in the latter category anyday.
The objective of the meeting was to show support for STRIVE, I think we acheived that. If your expectation was that there will only be IV members in the group and the congressman would focus exclusively on that issue. Sorry for the disappointment, welcome to politics. Lets learn from this.
Also, most members think that only anti-immigrants oppose STRIVE. That is not true. Undocumented immigrants also oppose STRIVE. When someone says ,"oh the whole thing was regarding undocumented," well yes but you have to go deeper. Within that group, there are people who oppose STRIVE.
hair Celtic Wedding Ring
lazycis
12-21 10:03 PM
lazycis,
According to 245(k), does it mean that "unauthorized stay" (or stay with expired I-94) of more than 1 year is wiped out if a nonimmigrant went out of the country, entered back with a new I-94 and maintained legal status ever since? He/she should not have any problems in adjusting status with 485?
I like your insight into immigration policies and the way you express them.
Thanks.
8 USC 1182(a)(9)(B) Aliens unlawfully present
(ii) Construction of unlawful presence For purposes of this paragraph, an alien is deemed to be unlawfully present in the United States if the alien is present in the United States after the expiration of the period of stay authorized by the Attorney General or is present in the United States without being admitted or paroled.
Unlawful presence is different from out of status.
The period for unlawful presence begins on:
1) The expiration date* of the visa "status" document (I-94 Arrival/Departure Card), or
2) status violation, determined by an immigration judge, or
3) status violation, determined by the USCIS during the course of adjudicating a benefit application.
245(k) allows up to 180 days of "out of status".
If a person overstays (expired I-94) more than one year, leaves and re-enters within 10 years, it will be a problem for I-485 (if the USCIS finds about it, of course). More likely it will result in removal proceedings and permanent bar to reentry to the US. The only exception is if that person has an immediate relative who is a US citizen (see 8 USC 1255(i)).
So the moral of the story is to never leave the US until you get a green card if you accumulated more than 180 days of unlawful presence.
However if a person left and was allowed to re-enter, there is a chance that a person did not accumulated unlawful presence to trigger re-entry ban. Refer to this CIS memo for details regarding "period of authorized stay".
http://www.mnllp.com/GOVbcisnOOSunlawful0403.pdf
According to 245(k), does it mean that "unauthorized stay" (or stay with expired I-94) of more than 1 year is wiped out if a nonimmigrant went out of the country, entered back with a new I-94 and maintained legal status ever since? He/she should not have any problems in adjusting status with 485?
I like your insight into immigration policies and the way you express them.
Thanks.
8 USC 1182(a)(9)(B) Aliens unlawfully present
(ii) Construction of unlawful presence For purposes of this paragraph, an alien is deemed to be unlawfully present in the United States if the alien is present in the United States after the expiration of the period of stay authorized by the Attorney General or is present in the United States without being admitted or paroled.
Unlawful presence is different from out of status.
The period for unlawful presence begins on:
1) The expiration date* of the visa "status" document (I-94 Arrival/Departure Card), or
2) status violation, determined by an immigration judge, or
3) status violation, determined by the USCIS during the course of adjudicating a benefit application.
245(k) allows up to 180 days of "out of status".
If a person overstays (expired I-94) more than one year, leaves and re-enters within 10 years, it will be a problem for I-485 (if the USCIS finds about it, of course). More likely it will result in removal proceedings and permanent bar to reentry to the US. The only exception is if that person has an immediate relative who is a US citizen (see 8 USC 1255(i)).
So the moral of the story is to never leave the US until you get a green card if you accumulated more than 180 days of unlawful presence.
However if a person left and was allowed to re-enter, there is a chance that a person did not accumulated unlawful presence to trigger re-entry ban. Refer to this CIS memo for details regarding "period of authorized stay".
http://www.mnllp.com/GOVbcisnOOSunlawful0403.pdf
more...
ksairi
08-15 04:32 PM
D. EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCE VISA AVAILABILITY FOR SEPTEMBER
Due to the return of unused July numbers by consular posts abroad, and the limited amount of pending demand eligible for final processing at consular posts, it has been possible to reestablish cut-off dates in many of the Employment preference categories.
Please link it.
Due to the return of unused July numbers by consular posts abroad, and the limited amount of pending demand eligible for final processing at consular posts, it has been possible to reestablish cut-off dates in many of the Employment preference categories.
Please link it.
hot wedding
Eternal_Hope
12-10 01:56 PM
Another reason for the slow movement is people getting married.. a spouse potentially accounts for yet another visa number and this adds to the unpredictability of the system. It gets even worse with non-US born kids.
The solution to all our visa backlog issues is:
1. Stop marrying.......
2. Dont have children ...or atleast not in your home country
Brilliant!
The solution to all our visa backlog issues is:
1. Stop marrying.......
2. Dont have children ...or atleast not in your home country
Brilliant!
more...
house Joined Wedding Bands
Rajeev
12-19 10:47 AM
Hi Varsha
I will join the conference. My e-mail address is rajeevm100@hotmail.com
I will join the conference. My e-mail address is rajeevm100@hotmail.com
tattoo much - we kowtow to
go_gc_way
12-27 10:52 PM
Thanks Pappu.
IV members :
Need help !! .. finding regional web sites. As an example
atlantadesi.com in Atlanta.
I have listed cities below , can IV members help find regional web site of the cities below, then we can post in the sites .. We need to take these action items with a SENSE OF URGENCY, just like we MADE CALLS in Lame duck. PREPARATION IS IMPORTANT, INCREASING MEMBERSHIP WILL HELP SOLVE MANY PROBLEMS APART FROM FUNDING.
LET'S COMPLETE THIS EFFORT ASAP.
I am bumping this thread , with a classified in atlantadesi.com
Cities ,I am looking for most popular regional web sites.
1)New York
2)Los Angeles
3)Chicago
4)Houston
5)Philadelphia
6)Phoenix
7)San Antonio
8)San Diego
9)Dallas
10)San Jose
11)Detroit
12)Indianapolis
13)Jacksonville
14)San Fransisco
15)Columbus
16)Austin
17)Memphis
18)Baltimore
19)Fort Worth
20)Charlotte
21)El Paso
22)Milwaukee
23)Seattle
24)Boston
25)Denver
26)Luisville
27)Washington
28)Nashville
29)Las Vegas
30)Portland
31)Oklahoma City
32)Tuscon
IV members :
Need help !! .. finding regional web sites. As an example
atlantadesi.com in Atlanta.
I have listed cities below , can IV members help find regional web site of the cities below, then we can post in the sites .. We need to take these action items with a SENSE OF URGENCY, just like we MADE CALLS in Lame duck. PREPARATION IS IMPORTANT, INCREASING MEMBERSHIP WILL HELP SOLVE MANY PROBLEMS APART FROM FUNDING.
LET'S COMPLETE THIS EFFORT ASAP.
I am bumping this thread , with a classified in atlantadesi.com
Cities ,I am looking for most popular regional web sites.
1)New York
2)Los Angeles
3)Chicago
4)Houston
5)Philadelphia
6)Phoenix
7)San Antonio
8)San Diego
9)Dallas
10)San Jose
11)Detroit
12)Indianapolis
13)Jacksonville
14)San Fransisco
15)Columbus
16)Austin
17)Memphis
18)Baltimore
19)Fort Worth
20)Charlotte
21)El Paso
22)Milwaukee
23)Seattle
24)Boston
25)Denver
26)Luisville
27)Washington
28)Nashville
29)Las Vegas
30)Portland
31)Oklahoma City
32)Tuscon
more...
pictures 3D wedding rings joined
Administrator2
06-10 09:20 PM
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE SEND THE MESSAGE. WE WILL ALSO START WITH THE PHONE CAMPAIGN IN THE MORNING.
Reason being, the other side is writing letters to other Senators to seek their support. They want to see this amendment pass. Here is the letter.
************************************************** ***************
COMPANIES LAYING-OFF THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN WORKERS DON’T NEED GUEST WORKERS
Please Support the Sanders-Grassley Employ America Amendment to the Tax Extenders bill
Dear Colleague:
Since the recession started in December of 2007, nearly 8 million Americans have lost their jobs and the unemployment rate has nearly doubled. In total, 15 million Americans are officially unemployed, another 8.8 million Americans are working part-time only because they cannot find a full-time job, and more than one million workers have given up looking for work altogether.
With the unemployment rate still unacceptably high and millions of people looking for a job, we have a responsibility to ensure that companies do not use temporary visa programs to replace American workers with cheaper labor from overseas.
Therefore, during the consideration of the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act, we will be offering an amendment that would prohibit companies which have announced mass lay-offs over the past year from hiring guest workers, unless they can prove that their overall employment will not be reduced as a result of these lay-offs.
At a time when millions of Americans are out of work, the notion that we need to import labor from abroad because there are not enough qualified, willing or able American workers in this country rings hollow.
Recently, some of the very companies that have hired tens of thousands of guest-workers from overseas have announced large scale lay-offs of American workers. The high-tech industry, a major employer of H-1B guest workers, has announced over 330,000 job cuts since 2008. The construction industry, a major employer of H-2B guest-workers, has laid-off 1.9 million workers since December of 2007.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, signed into law last February, included a provision to prevent companies receiving assistance through the Troubled Asset Relief Program from replacing laid-off American workers with guest-workers from overseas.
The Employ America Act expands upon this provision to prevent any company engaged in a mass lay-off of American workers from importing cheaper labor from abroad through temporary guest-worker programs. Those companies that are truly facing labor shortages would not be impacted by this legislation and could continue to obtain employer-sponsored visas. Only companies that are laying-off a large number of Americans would be barred from importing foreign workers through guest worker programs.
If you would like to co-sponsor this amendment, please have your staff contact Warren Gunnels in Sen. Sanders’ office at 8-6358 or Kathy Nuebel Kovarik in Sen. Grassley's office at 4-3744.
Sincerely,
____________________ ____________________
BERNARD SANDERS CHARLES E. GRASSLEY
UNITED STATES SENATOR UNITED STATES SENATOR
************************************************** ***************
Reason being, the other side is writing letters to other Senators to seek their support. They want to see this amendment pass. Here is the letter.
************************************************** ***************
COMPANIES LAYING-OFF THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN WORKERS DON’T NEED GUEST WORKERS
Please Support the Sanders-Grassley Employ America Amendment to the Tax Extenders bill
Dear Colleague:
Since the recession started in December of 2007, nearly 8 million Americans have lost their jobs and the unemployment rate has nearly doubled. In total, 15 million Americans are officially unemployed, another 8.8 million Americans are working part-time only because they cannot find a full-time job, and more than one million workers have given up looking for work altogether.
With the unemployment rate still unacceptably high and millions of people looking for a job, we have a responsibility to ensure that companies do not use temporary visa programs to replace American workers with cheaper labor from overseas.
Therefore, during the consideration of the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act, we will be offering an amendment that would prohibit companies which have announced mass lay-offs over the past year from hiring guest workers, unless they can prove that their overall employment will not be reduced as a result of these lay-offs.
At a time when millions of Americans are out of work, the notion that we need to import labor from abroad because there are not enough qualified, willing or able American workers in this country rings hollow.
Recently, some of the very companies that have hired tens of thousands of guest-workers from overseas have announced large scale lay-offs of American workers. The high-tech industry, a major employer of H-1B guest workers, has announced over 330,000 job cuts since 2008. The construction industry, a major employer of H-2B guest-workers, has laid-off 1.9 million workers since December of 2007.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, signed into law last February, included a provision to prevent companies receiving assistance through the Troubled Asset Relief Program from replacing laid-off American workers with guest-workers from overseas.
The Employ America Act expands upon this provision to prevent any company engaged in a mass lay-off of American workers from importing cheaper labor from abroad through temporary guest-worker programs. Those companies that are truly facing labor shortages would not be impacted by this legislation and could continue to obtain employer-sponsored visas. Only companies that are laying-off a large number of Americans would be barred from importing foreign workers through guest worker programs.
If you would like to co-sponsor this amendment, please have your staff contact Warren Gunnels in Sen. Sanders’ office at 8-6358 or Kathy Nuebel Kovarik in Sen. Grassley's office at 4-3744.
Sincerely,
____________________ ____________________
BERNARD SANDERS CHARLES E. GRASSLEY
UNITED STATES SENATOR UNITED STATES SENATOR
************************************************** ***************
dresses men#39;s wedding bands
rustum
08-21 11:10 AM
Hi,
My company filed EAD for me and my wife along with 485 recently. I am on L1 and My wife is on L2. Is is possible to file one more EAD on L2 status. Looks like, we can get EAD on L2 faster than EAD with 485. My company attorney is suggesting me not to file one more EAD because one with 485 is pending with USCIS. Is it ok to file one more with L2? how long it will take to get EAD on 485 and EAD on L2. Any help??
My company filed EAD for me and my wife along with 485 recently. I am on L1 and My wife is on L2. Is is possible to file one more EAD on L2 status. Looks like, we can get EAD on L2 faster than EAD with 485. My company attorney is suggesting me not to file one more EAD because one with 485 is pending with USCIS. Is it ok to file one more with L2? how long it will take to get EAD on 485 and EAD on L2. Any help??
more...
makeup Joined Wedding Rings
bodhi_tree
06-06 02:40 PM
My 485 packet went to Nebraska from where it was transferred to Texas. My I140 was approved from Texas too.
===========
Was your I485 Approval from Neb or Texas ?
===========
Was your I485 Approval from Neb or Texas ?
girlfriend unique wedding rings. Six
gondalguru
07-11 02:03 PM
I think all the unused EB1 and EB2-ROW visa number trickles down to EB2 - India/China and thats the main reason for a big jump in EB2-India cut off dates.
hairstyles comfort-fit-wedding-ring-
pappu
01-15 11:26 PM
Bumping /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
dont give up!
I am sure many members will come forward tomorrow to help you with this task. This is an ongoing task and is helping us a lot. Our membership and search engine rankings are growing too.
dont give up!
I am sure many members will come forward tomorrow to help you with this task. This is an ongoing task and is helping us a lot. Our membership and search engine rankings are growing too.
abc1125
05-17 09:37 PM
Presume you got your GC last year. I am in the same boat this year - PD is current and expecting an RFE. Did you have to submit anything more than the Employment verification letter?
boreal
04-22 01:54 PM
Decipher and GSC999 have totally contradictory opinions . Not sure whom to believe here .:D . There seems to have been 2 sets of opinons here of the members who attended the rally.
Oh well!! Some things are going on in the background too and i was one of those ppl that shifted from the first group (disappointed) to the second group (optimistic) after talking with Aman. So, if you are not sure which group you are falling into, try calling someone in the core group.
Oh well!! Some things are going on in the background too and i was one of those ppl that shifted from the first group (disappointed) to the second group (optimistic) after talking with Aman. So, if you are not sure which group you are falling into, try calling someone in the core group.
No comments:
Post a Comment