- Image: Facebook
- as Chief Financial Officer
- Facebook CFO in two places at
- Facebook botched the way it
- ballesteros facebook scott
- former CFO of Facebook
- David Ebersman Facebook CFO
- Gideon Yu, Facebook#39;s former
- Barely Blind Facebook Contest
- Facebook#39;s competitors include
- Officer | Facebook
- Google CFO Patrick Pichette
- Firing of Facebook#39;s CFO
- #39;But, you#39;re my CFO,
- Twitter; Facebook; Share
- Twitter; Facebook; Share
- chief financial officer
- Yu joined Facebook as CFO
- Cfo-for-berlin-based-startup-
images Gideon Yu, Facebook#39;s former 
wallpaper Image: Facebook
2011 as Chief Financial Officer
more...
more...
2010 Facebook CFO in two places at
more...
hair Facebook botched the way it
more...
hot ballesteros facebook scott
more...
house chief financial officer
tattoo former CFO of Facebook
more...
pictures David Ebersman Facebook CFO
dresses Google CFO Patrick Pichette
more...
makeup Barely Blind Facebook Contest
girlfriend #39;But, you#39;re my CFO,
hairstyles Officer | Facebook
Source URL: https://geofflow.blogspot.com/2011/06/cfo-of-facebook.html
Visit tattoo makjruss for Daily Updated Hairstyles Collection
nojoke
09-17 09:51 PM
Oh my God, i am screwed, end of the world, life sucks, dont know what to do, i am crying, i am bleeding, screaming, God, superpower help meeeee, save meeee
Get a life dude, you werent born thinking america
If you don't like my rant stop reading it. What the hell is 'born thinking america'. Why do you rant about GC then? Why do you care being on this board? You go get a life. I never compelled to comment on my rant? Did I? You must have gone crazy
Get a life dude, you werent born thinking america
If you don't like my rant stop reading it. What the hell is 'born thinking america'. Why do you rant about GC then? Why do you care being on this board? You go get a life. I never compelled to comment on my rant? Did I? You must have gone crazy
wallpaper Image: Facebook
richi121175
01-16 10:21 PM
Contributed $20 in Dec and just signed up for $20 per month.
Can anyone please confirm that we are still going for I-485 provision attached to the appropriation bills in February??
Can anyone please confirm that we are still going for I-485 provision attached to the appropriation bills in February??
coldcloud
06-11 09:22 AM
Sent.
2011 as Chief Financial Officer
prakgc
07-24 07:26 PM
Folks,
Although i did not miss the EVL i sent an incomplete G325A form without the foreign address and the foreign occupation.
I already have an approved I-140. Can i send a updated G325A based on my A#? or should i wait for a RN and then send it.
My worry is what if i don't even get a RN and get a reject?
Although i did not miss the EVL i sent an incomplete G325A form without the foreign address and the foreign occupation.
I already have an approved I-140. Can i send a updated G325A based on my A#? or should i wait for a RN and then send it.
My worry is what if i don't even get a RN and get a reject?
more...
senthil1
04-03 08:46 PM
What is the meaning of this?
The bill also includes a variety of other provisions, including one that would prohibit employers from hiring H-1B workers and then outsourcing them to other businesses and another that would require companies to pay prevailing wages to both H-1B and L-1 visa holders
Is that means Bodyshopping cannot be done by H1 or L1?
?? A new bill in senate to reform H1B ???
I was just watching LuDobb's show on CNN and saw a clip on a proposed bill (being prepared by Sen.Durbin and another whose name I forgot) to revamp/reform H1B program. From the brief discussion, got the impression that the bill is more concentrated on controlling the h1B program with more checks and rules etc. Obviously Dobbs liked it - not sure if there are any other measures in that bill. Also not sure why another bill if CIR/STRIVE act is in works which is supposed to cover all immigration issues. Anyone else saw any related news elsewhere?
Also saw this article (sorry if its already discussed somewhere):
http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/04/03/HNsenateh1bbill_1.html
The bill also includes a variety of other provisions, including one that would prohibit employers from hiring H-1B workers and then outsourcing them to other businesses and another that would require companies to pay prevailing wages to both H-1B and L-1 visa holders
Is that means Bodyshopping cannot be done by H1 or L1?
?? A new bill in senate to reform H1B ???
I was just watching LuDobb's show on CNN and saw a clip on a proposed bill (being prepared by Sen.Durbin and another whose name I forgot) to revamp/reform H1B program. From the brief discussion, got the impression that the bill is more concentrated on controlling the h1B program with more checks and rules etc. Obviously Dobbs liked it - not sure if there are any other measures in that bill. Also not sure why another bill if CIR/STRIVE act is in works which is supposed to cover all immigration issues. Anyone else saw any related news elsewhere?
Also saw this article (sorry if its already discussed somewhere):
http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/04/03/HNsenateh1bbill_1.html
DesBhakt
03-09 10:06 PM
HAHAAHA, Yu guys are still dreaming. No more egreen cards for H1Bs doesnt matter what stage you are in. You will get queries like 'when there are so many americans without jobs, why do you need immigrants?' can any company wants to respond to this query?
Already several companies (especially american companies)received this type of audit, And they stopped filing labor and I140.Dont know what type of new audits come at 485 stage.I lost hopes of green card. I have 3.6 years left on H1. I will save whatever I can n go back to india, open a groceyr store, run it on no profit no loss purpose.
:) You will have to fight the Reliance Freshs and subhikshas etc as competitors on that grocery store.
Already several companies (especially american companies)received this type of audit, And they stopped filing labor and I140.Dont know what type of new audits come at 485 stage.I lost hopes of green card. I have 3.6 years left on H1. I will save whatever I can n go back to india, open a groceyr store, run it on no profit no loss purpose.
:) You will have to fight the Reliance Freshs and subhikshas etc as competitors on that grocery store.
more...
ramus
07-03 08:41 PM
Thanks for your contribution..
In all 400$ to date.
In all 400$ to date.
2010 Facebook CFO in two places at
vkrishn
07-16 11:32 AM
Don't know about his company...but the attorney definitely must be quite rich with all the legal charges :D
Its all about investing in the employee and has worked so far. ROI to the company is huge if the employee is taken care of (atleast on immigration issues). Employee can just concentrate on getting the job done and making sure the best products come out of the door on time to the end user making the company profitable.
My take: Money they spend on immigration issues (Law Firm, Renewals) should be peanuts to the profit the company makes.
Its all about investing in the employee and has worked so far. ROI to the company is huge if the employee is taken care of (atleast on immigration issues). Employee can just concentrate on getting the job done and making sure the best products come out of the door on time to the end user making the company profitable.
My take: Money they spend on immigration issues (Law Firm, Renewals) should be peanuts to the profit the company makes.
more...
gc_mania_03
07-09 07:43 PM
http://www.ahslaw.com/documents/AHSLawsuit.pdf
This document gives lot of legal details, states what the lawsuits exactly is..
P.S : I Think its just filed, not accepted by the court as of now
What are we fighting for now? We are expending all energies for temporary relief. I do not mean to belittle how important this step is for people who have been waiting to file for their 485s/EADs.
But, couldnt these organization sue USCIS over the past years for being inefficient and squandering so many visa that could have helped a lot of us...Why isnt anyone talking about that? Should the new law suit also include the complaints of inefficiencies at USCIS and the cause of lost visas...
Or am I just being naive with this thought...
This document gives lot of legal details, states what the lawsuits exactly is..
P.S : I Think its just filed, not accepted by the court as of now
What are we fighting for now? We are expending all energies for temporary relief. I do not mean to belittle how important this step is for people who have been waiting to file for their 485s/EADs.
But, couldnt these organization sue USCIS over the past years for being inefficient and squandering so many visa that could have helped a lot of us...Why isnt anyone talking about that? Should the new law suit also include the complaints of inefficiencies at USCIS and the cause of lost visas...
Or am I just being naive with this thought...
hair Facebook botched the way it
sammas
07-12 03:57 PM
E. APPLICABILITY OF INA SECTION 202(a)(5)(A)AS IT RELATES TO THE ALLOCATION OF �OTHERWISE UNUSED� NUMBERS
INA Section 202(a)(5)(A), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act (AC21), provides that if total demand will be insufficient to use all available numbers in a particular Employment preference category in a calendar quarter, then the otherwise unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limits. This provision helps to assure that all available Employment preference numbers may be used. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5)(A) has occasionally allowed oversubscribed countries such as China-mainland born and India to utilize large quantities of Employment First and Second preference numbers that would have otherwise gone unused.
For example, let us assume that 11,600 Employment Second preference numbers are available in a calendar quarter. There is heavy Employment Second preference demand by China-mainland born and India applicants; however, each country is oversubscribed and would ordinarily be limited to about 800 of the available numbers due to the prorating provisions of INA Section 202(e). Applicants from other countries that have not yet reached their per-country limit have reported a total demand of 6,500 numbers. After taking the worldwide demand into account, it is determined that as a result of the China-mainland born and India per-country limits only 8,100 of the total available Employment Second preference numbers would be used in that quarter. In this instance, the otherwise unused 3,500 numbers could then be made available to China-mainland born and India regardless of their per-country limits. Should that occur, the same cut-off date would be applied to each country, since numbers must be provided strictly in priority date order regardless of chargeability. In this instance, greater number use by one country would indicate a higher rate of demand by applicants from that country with earlier priority dates.
INA Section 202(a)(5)(A), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act (AC21), provides that if total demand will be insufficient to use all available numbers in a particular Employment preference category in a calendar quarter, then the otherwise unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limits. This provision helps to assure that all available Employment preference numbers may be used. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5)(A) has occasionally allowed oversubscribed countries such as China-mainland born and India to utilize large quantities of Employment First and Second preference numbers that would have otherwise gone unused.
For example, let us assume that 11,600 Employment Second preference numbers are available in a calendar quarter. There is heavy Employment Second preference demand by China-mainland born and India applicants; however, each country is oversubscribed and would ordinarily be limited to about 800 of the available numbers due to the prorating provisions of INA Section 202(e). Applicants from other countries that have not yet reached their per-country limit have reported a total demand of 6,500 numbers. After taking the worldwide demand into account, it is determined that as a result of the China-mainland born and India per-country limits only 8,100 of the total available Employment Second preference numbers would be used in that quarter. In this instance, the otherwise unused 3,500 numbers could then be made available to China-mainland born and India regardless of their per-country limits. Should that occur, the same cut-off date would be applied to each country, since numbers must be provided strictly in priority date order regardless of chargeability. In this instance, greater number use by one country would indicate a higher rate of demand by applicants from that country with earlier priority dates.
more...
rajuram
11-11 10:33 PM
With democrats in control, at the very minimum we should try to push recapture of lost visa numbers. Tie that with the ability of immigrants to buy houses, we could have a game winner...
hot ballesteros facebook scott
delhiguy
07-09 04:08 PM
If the class is certified, we may want to join that class rather than have separate lawsuits.
Yes , we are in that class.
Yes , we are in that class.
more...
house chief financial officer
kumar1
11-10 11:40 PM
PCS - What you are suffering from is known as PVBS (Post Visa Bulletin Syndrome). It is very common in Indian and Chinese community living in the US.
This condition stays with the patient/sufferer for 15 days or so and then disappears like a f*a*r*t in the wind. It is more likely to happen to those who fall under EB-2 category and especially those who are 6 months or so from priority date to be current. This condition keeps re-appearing till the patient gets green card and then it gives birth to another condition call PGCS (Post Green Card Syndrome). Typically, that condition lasts for 5 years till the patient gets US citizenship. There are some documented evidences that Amway and QuickStar have tried to fix this condition but medical community is yet to approve that.
Laughter is the only known cure of this condition. Returning back to home country can also cure this condition.
This condition stays with the patient/sufferer for 15 days or so and then disappears like a f*a*r*t in the wind. It is more likely to happen to those who fall under EB-2 category and especially those who are 6 months or so from priority date to be current. This condition keeps re-appearing till the patient gets green card and then it gives birth to another condition call PGCS (Post Green Card Syndrome). Typically, that condition lasts for 5 years till the patient gets US citizenship. There are some documented evidences that Amway and QuickStar have tried to fix this condition but medical community is yet to approve that.
Laughter is the only known cure of this condition. Returning back to home country can also cure this condition.
tattoo former CFO of Facebook
gcformeornot
03-16 12:54 PM
dude, you don't know jack.........there is no "eligibility" when it comes to EB2 or EB3.
The FUC@#NG job has to demand a Master's for EB2.
It's not like the monkey-jobs that you fools do for fuc@#ng two-bit desi employers who are anywhere from 5-100 people strong NEED an EB2 !!!!
any monkey can do 99% of the jobs that desi EB3 people do on the West Coast and the East Coast...........that's reality. It's YOUR problem if you cannot stomach this reality.
And all these folks have the audacity to call themselves "highly skilled"!!! hahahahahaha..............errr, by the way, what school did most of these people go to? Lemme guess..........some SDNMDFDF Institute of Tech in some freakin village in India??
If they did not qualify for EB2, then they should have FU@#%NG worked HARDER when they could.............should have gotten a good degree........and landed a respectable job in a BIG company....
And don't preach what you have no knowledge about, ok buddy?
For the record, i have NEVER used any legal shortcut ever.
that's the best way to get rid of such fools......
The FUC@#NG job has to demand a Master's for EB2.
It's not like the monkey-jobs that you fools do for fuc@#ng two-bit desi employers who are anywhere from 5-100 people strong NEED an EB2 !!!!
any monkey can do 99% of the jobs that desi EB3 people do on the West Coast and the East Coast...........that's reality. It's YOUR problem if you cannot stomach this reality.
And all these folks have the audacity to call themselves "highly skilled"!!! hahahahahaha..............errr, by the way, what school did most of these people go to? Lemme guess..........some SDNMDFDF Institute of Tech in some freakin village in India??
If they did not qualify for EB2, then they should have FU@#%NG worked HARDER when they could.............should have gotten a good degree........and landed a respectable job in a BIG company....
And don't preach what you have no knowledge about, ok buddy?
For the record, i have NEVER used any legal shortcut ever.
that's the best way to get rid of such fools......
more...
pictures David Ebersman Facebook CFO
GooblyWoobly
03-20 02:09 PM
I have no idea why u guys get riled up about EB3->EB2 conversion? It's Not your Ration line FIFO. Are you trying to say someone who has 10 years of experience (5 years in the last company, so EB3) stands to get GC AFTER someone with no experience but a MS? There are many other loopholes through which EB3's can fall through. Just because you are frustrated with the wait, don't take it out on someone who is also on the same boat.
Also your assumption of "Reputed companies don't do EB3->EB2" is outright wrong. I work for one of the most reputed companies in the valley, and they do it on a selective basis (read, if you're good enough, they'll do it for you).
Remember this, someone can move to EB2 only if he qualifies to. It's not that you can just jump boat with no qualification. And if someone qualifies, I don't see why he/she should stay back!!
I'm a original EB2 filer (no EB3->EB2 conversion) and not a LC transfer. EB3->EB2 increases timeline for getting my GC. But I do not believe that's wrong.
Each one to his own!! My 2c.
Hi Coopheal:
With Due respects to your Seniority and Agony/ Frustration being retrogessed.
Standard Companies donot opt for having two I140s approved for a particular employees which is a "Logical Fallacy" of EB concept. Leave alone Rat Desi Companies.. They can do anything and turn the boards off..
If your arguement is right: first you have to stop L1s getting Gcs in less than 10 months.. (on an average). Porting EB3 to Eb2 is a big junk and disrepct to the EB2 Qualifier. Now, Qualifying Eb2, if you feel, is not a big deal, why the companies did not preferred it out for Eb3s in first place because lack of Job Requirements. (infact, this portings have to be highlighted to USCIS as Junk technique and illegal).
So the whole arguement doesnot workout. Soon, wait and see Portings would bestopped, with Desi companies messing itaround like Approved labors (infact, it isa refined version of approved labor scams).
Please donot jump on me.. its a waste of time.. But the logic holds good EB2 Vs. EB3. If allowed, People may even qualify for EB1, (People would work it out also sooner or later) Let's respect each other profiles.. and its a matter of time we are all there.
This is my Honest Advice.. Trust me. I am a 2003 eb3 victim.. No way to jump lines.. its inhuman.
Thanks,
Also your assumption of "Reputed companies don't do EB3->EB2" is outright wrong. I work for one of the most reputed companies in the valley, and they do it on a selective basis (read, if you're good enough, they'll do it for you).
Remember this, someone can move to EB2 only if he qualifies to. It's not that you can just jump boat with no qualification. And if someone qualifies, I don't see why he/she should stay back!!
I'm a original EB2 filer (no EB3->EB2 conversion) and not a LC transfer. EB3->EB2 increases timeline for getting my GC. But I do not believe that's wrong.
Each one to his own!! My 2c.
Hi Coopheal:
With Due respects to your Seniority and Agony/ Frustration being retrogessed.
Standard Companies donot opt for having two I140s approved for a particular employees which is a "Logical Fallacy" of EB concept. Leave alone Rat Desi Companies.. They can do anything and turn the boards off..
If your arguement is right: first you have to stop L1s getting Gcs in less than 10 months.. (on an average). Porting EB3 to Eb2 is a big junk and disrepct to the EB2 Qualifier. Now, Qualifying Eb2, if you feel, is not a big deal, why the companies did not preferred it out for Eb3s in first place because lack of Job Requirements. (infact, this portings have to be highlighted to USCIS as Junk technique and illegal).
So the whole arguement doesnot workout. Soon, wait and see Portings would bestopped, with Desi companies messing itaround like Approved labors (infact, it isa refined version of approved labor scams).
Please donot jump on me.. its a waste of time.. But the logic holds good EB2 Vs. EB3. If allowed, People may even qualify for EB1, (People would work it out also sooner or later) Let's respect each other profiles.. and its a matter of time we are all there.
This is my Honest Advice.. Trust me. I am a 2003 eb3 victim.. No way to jump lines.. its inhuman.
Thanks,
dresses Google CFO Patrick Pichette
sanjaymk
07-16 06:48 PM
I think we have crossed the stage of educating these guys, and I personally don't think these guys are in a mental state of responding to reason and rationality.
The best way to teach them a lesson and make them ineffective is to simply prove their points are clear blatant lies and put their credibility under question.
We should create a webfax through IV to senators and legislators that reveals their lies and hits them in their core, and let the senators know that believing in these type of immigration-KKK type of organizations will put their credibility among the general public in question and is very badly detrimental to their future.
Sanjay.
The best way to teach them a lesson and make them ineffective is to simply prove their points are clear blatant lies and put their credibility under question.
We should create a webfax through IV to senators and legislators that reveals their lies and hits them in their core, and let the senators know that believing in these type of immigration-KKK type of organizations will put their credibility among the general public in question and is very badly detrimental to their future.
Sanjay.
more...
makeup Barely Blind Facebook Contest
skamma
05-17 01:22 PM
Admin,
Can you pl. comment on this issue, since it is a potential and growing problem, we need to do something about it.
Thanks
skamma
Can you pl. comment on this issue, since it is a potential and growing problem, we need to do something about it.
Thanks
skamma
girlfriend #39;But, you#39;re my CFO,
logiclife
01-31 02:07 PM
What if the employer is an NGO or NPO? I believe, it is not counted against the H-1 quota but in that case, can he start working right away?
That depends. I dont know how the H1s that are issued outside of quota for educational and non-profit organizations work. If they have the validity date sooner than 1st Oct 2007, then yes, you can start working based on that date.
Whatever the case, the H1 Approval letter (I - 797 ) will have start-date and end-date on it and that when you can work legally.
That depends. I dont know how the H1s that are issued outside of quota for educational and non-profit organizations work. If they have the validity date sooner than 1st Oct 2007, then yes, you can start working based on that date.
Whatever the case, the H1 Approval letter (I - 797 ) will have start-date and end-date on it and that when you can work legally.
hairstyles Officer | Facebook
ajay
01-18 11:27 AM
I definitely agree and I had similar experience first hand. I realized this when I went to renew my DL ..I had 2 consecutive EAD's in hand ..one expiring on 5th and the other starting from the 6th ..I asked the DL office to renew my license (I went there 1 week early) but they refused ..they wanted me to come on the next day and drive to the office on expired license ..no matter what I said ..they said sorry (not that courteous) ..I said "do I take a holiday just to renew on 6th" ..they said we don't care ..I said I have to drive on expired license and what if cop catches me ..they said "not our problem" ..talk to immigration people ..I said do you know how broken that is ....same attitude from my manager ..his reply ..well you guys decided to come to US..
soo I guess same thing will happen if u have immovable assets ..they will say ..well you shd have realized this before u bought something on a temporary status ..or in few words they will say "we don't care ..not our problem" !!!
Are there such people around? Sorry to hear your experience. And we don't have anything to defend ourselves here!!!
soo I guess same thing will happen if u have immovable assets ..they will say ..well you shd have realized this before u bought something on a temporary status ..or in few words they will say "we don't care ..not our problem" !!!
Are there such people around? Sorry to hear your experience. And we don't have anything to defend ourselves here!!!
mheggade
07-14 01:22 PM
link does not work
ajay
04-13 10:12 AM
A very useful piece of information has been brought to our attention by shiankuraaf.
Thank you very much!
http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/LPR08.shtm
Table 6 Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status by Type and Major Class of Admission: Fiscal Years 1999 to 2008
http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/YrBk04Im.shtm
Table 4 Immigrants admitted by type and selected class of admission: fiscal years 1986-2004
Employment-based preferences (Total Number)
Year QUOTA ISSUED Unused/Excessively used
1986 140000 56617 83383
1987 140000 57519 82481
1988 140000 58727 81273
1989 140000 57741 82259
1990 140000 58192 81808
1991 140000 59525 80475
1992 140000 116198 23802
1993 140000 147012 -7012
1994 140000 123291 16709
1995 140000 85336 54664
1996 140000 117499 22501
1997 140000 90607 49393
1998 140000 77517 62483
1999 140000 56678 83322
2000 140000 106642 33358
2001 140000 178702 -38702
2002 140000 173814 -33814
2003 140000 81727 58273
2004 140000 155330 -15330
2005 140000 246877 -106877
2006 140000 159081 -19081
2007 140000 162176 -22176
2008 140000 166511 -26511
Sum total of the differences from 1986 to 2008: 626,681. Vow!!!
So when looked between the period of 1986 and 2008,
there were a total of 626,681 un-used visa numbers that can be re-captured.
This is based on the BIG assumption that the yearly quota for EB categories is 140,000 from 1986 to 2008.
Does anybody know how to verify this important assumption online --a link to a gov website perhaps?
It would be good to verify when the law specifying 140,000 visa numbers per year was passed and
what were the criteria for visa number usage prior to the existence of the law.
It is clearly a well prepared format and nobody has brought this kind of helpful information to our group. We would need people like you and I am sure I will also support this if we are aggressively pursuing it. But again as somebody here said in this discussion that we should be careful about the seriousness of the situation being counted by the lawmakers.
Kudos to you.
Thank you very much!
http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/LPR08.shtm
Table 6 Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status by Type and Major Class of Admission: Fiscal Years 1999 to 2008
http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/YrBk04Im.shtm
Table 4 Immigrants admitted by type and selected class of admission: fiscal years 1986-2004
Employment-based preferences (Total Number)
Year QUOTA ISSUED Unused/Excessively used
1986 140000 56617 83383
1987 140000 57519 82481
1988 140000 58727 81273
1989 140000 57741 82259
1990 140000 58192 81808
1991 140000 59525 80475
1992 140000 116198 23802
1993 140000 147012 -7012
1994 140000 123291 16709
1995 140000 85336 54664
1996 140000 117499 22501
1997 140000 90607 49393
1998 140000 77517 62483
1999 140000 56678 83322
2000 140000 106642 33358
2001 140000 178702 -38702
2002 140000 173814 -33814
2003 140000 81727 58273
2004 140000 155330 -15330
2005 140000 246877 -106877
2006 140000 159081 -19081
2007 140000 162176 -22176
2008 140000 166511 -26511
Sum total of the differences from 1986 to 2008: 626,681. Vow!!!
So when looked between the period of 1986 and 2008,
there were a total of 626,681 un-used visa numbers that can be re-captured.
This is based on the BIG assumption that the yearly quota for EB categories is 140,000 from 1986 to 2008.
Does anybody know how to verify this important assumption online --a link to a gov website perhaps?
It would be good to verify when the law specifying 140,000 visa numbers per year was passed and
what were the criteria for visa number usage prior to the existence of the law.
It is clearly a well prepared format and nobody has brought this kind of helpful information to our group. We would need people like you and I am sure I will also support this if we are aggressively pursuing it. But again as somebody here said in this discussion that we should be careful about the seriousness of the situation being counted by the lawmakers.
Kudos to you.
Source URL: https://geofflow.blogspot.com/2011/06/cfo-of-facebook.html
Visit tattoo makjruss for Daily Updated Hairstyles Collection
