gc_75
07-17 08:00 PM
How did you file the AOS with company A when you are not working for that company any more? You need to attach the employment letter from Company A along with I-485 application.
For applying with Company B, you need to have fresh a PERM Labor approved from Company B.
Hope this helps.
I have a unique situation and I would really appreciate if someone can answer.
My LC and 140 was approved (March 2006) for Company A when I was working there on H1. After retrogration I changed jobs (November 2006) and went to work for Company B. My lawyer said we can apply for AOS using the approved 140 from company A. I did send the application which reached there on July 2nd. Now, do I have to go and work for Company A (which actually is not an option any more)? Or I can keep working for Company B and if 180 days are passed since the filing/receipt date I will be safe to obtain the GC? Company B is ready to start a new process for GC but if I can use the previously approved 140 and get AOS/GC approved, I really would like to do that.
Please help...:confused:
For applying with Company B, you need to have fresh a PERM Labor approved from Company B.
Hope this helps.
I have a unique situation and I would really appreciate if someone can answer.
My LC and 140 was approved (March 2006) for Company A when I was working there on H1. After retrogration I changed jobs (November 2006) and went to work for Company B. My lawyer said we can apply for AOS using the approved 140 from company A. I did send the application which reached there on July 2nd. Now, do I have to go and work for Company A (which actually is not an option any more)? Or I can keep working for Company B and if 180 days are passed since the filing/receipt date I will be safe to obtain the GC? Company B is ready to start a new process for GC but if I can use the previously approved 140 and get AOS/GC approved, I really would like to do that.
Please help...:confused:
wallpaper Glass Of Wine
Calouste
07-28 03:51 PM
I'm getting fed up with people on this forum who assume that India is the only country from which people immigrate to the US, and always only mention the India dates when talking about cut off dates, and assume that are the only dates people want to talk about.
Even though India is by far the country of birth with the most high skilled immigrants to the US, it still takes up less than half of the number of high skilled immigrants. By some discussions going on on this forum, you would think 95% of the high skilled immigrants come from India.
Even though India is by far the country of birth with the most high skilled immigrants to the US, it still takes up less than half of the number of high skilled immigrants. By some discussions going on on this forum, you would think 95% of the high skilled immigrants come from India.
nageshwarraoj
06-15 04:15 PM
I filed I-140 and I-485 before retrogression and
My I-140 is approved May 30th 2006
CATEGORY: EB2 (NIW)
FP1: 10/16/2005
FP2:05/24/2007
Medical: 07/02/2006
Can I expect my Green Cards in July, 2007 please anyone?
My I-140 is approved May 30th 2006
CATEGORY: EB2 (NIW)
FP1: 10/16/2005
FP2:05/24/2007
Medical: 07/02/2006
Can I expect my Green Cards in July, 2007 please anyone?
2011 Clip art, red icon glass gift,
Kalidindi
07-26 02:12 PM
Mine was EB2 and am from India
more...
Better_Days
11-20 07:00 PM
Come one folks. Since posting this, I had another beautiful addition to my family and then a minor surgery. Any insights or opinion will be highly appreciarted.
The quoted post above describes my situation. I140 and I485 were pending. I140 got denied and ended up with AAO. Second I140 got approved and I485 is linked with this 2nd approved I140 even though the priority date was not current.
Called USCIS twice to get the receipt number of the 140 underlying my 485 and got the receipt number for the second, approved 140 everytime.
The company has received an RFE from the AAO and they simply are in no mood to respond to it. They are going to withdraw the first 140. The lawyer retained by my company is absolutely clueless about how and why the second,approved 140 got linked with the pending 485 without the priority date being current. He is trying to play it safe by covering his own behind by saying statements like "USCIS made a mistake and if they every discovered this mistake in future, I will be regarded as being out of status from the day I used any EAD based on this pending 485", He is suggesting that we file a new 485 when the dates being current ( I am EB3/ROW).
Now I know that there are a lot of people who have had their 485s linked to their second, approved 140 automatically. Did this happen to any of you without the PD being current? Please do respond if you are in this boat.
Also, is there a policy or memo that explicitly refers to it? Can anyone please provide me a reference?
If the first 140 is withdrawn? Will it have ANY impact on the second 140 or the pending 485? The reason I ask this question is that after the AAO issed an RFE, the status on both my 140's changed to "Post Decisioon Activity". This is what worries me the most.
Any comment on any of the above questions will be highly appreciated.
Thanks for you time.
The quoted post above describes my situation. I140 and I485 were pending. I140 got denied and ended up with AAO. Second I140 got approved and I485 is linked with this 2nd approved I140 even though the priority date was not current.
Called USCIS twice to get the receipt number of the 140 underlying my 485 and got the receipt number for the second, approved 140 everytime.
The company has received an RFE from the AAO and they simply are in no mood to respond to it. They are going to withdraw the first 140. The lawyer retained by my company is absolutely clueless about how and why the second,approved 140 got linked with the pending 485 without the priority date being current. He is trying to play it safe by covering his own behind by saying statements like "USCIS made a mistake and if they every discovered this mistake in future, I will be regarded as being out of status from the day I used any EAD based on this pending 485", He is suggesting that we file a new 485 when the dates being current ( I am EB3/ROW).
Now I know that there are a lot of people who have had their 485s linked to their second, approved 140 automatically. Did this happen to any of you without the PD being current? Please do respond if you are in this boat.
Also, is there a policy or memo that explicitly refers to it? Can anyone please provide me a reference?
If the first 140 is withdrawn? Will it have ANY impact on the second 140 or the pending 485? The reason I ask this question is that after the AAO issed an RFE, the status on both my 140's changed to "Post Decisioon Activity". This is what worries me the most.
Any comment on any of the above questions will be highly appreciated.
Thanks for you time.
sash
06-19 09:48 PM
I am not sure I understand your comments. Can you elaborate on the risks and required travel documents?
more...
rb_248
01-21 08:01 AM
hi dionysus
i got this from some requirement agencies
Dear sansas,
We have seen a lot of such rumors. Can you be more specific and provide sources ? Logically thinking, this cannot be true at all.
Admins, May I request you to close this thread if sansas is not able/willing to provide sources for his post.
Thanks
i got this from some requirement agencies
Dear sansas,
We have seen a lot of such rumors. Can you be more specific and provide sources ? Logically thinking, this cannot be true at all.
Admins, May I request you to close this thread if sansas is not able/willing to provide sources for his post.
Thanks
2010 Cartoon Wine Glasses
nixstor
08-26 11:41 AM
Does MBA help you qualify under STEM?
Is it accredited university?
You will get some relief if SKIL goes through because so many people will be exempted from cap. why do you want to break your back by studying for another degree whihc you are not interested 100%
Is it accredited university?
You will get some relief if SKIL goes through because so many people will be exempted from cap. why do you want to break your back by studying for another degree whihc you are not interested 100%
more...
WillIBLucky
12-13 12:58 PM
That was my thought process too. If the immigration systems is corrected then I believe EB3 and EB2 will become current. Then it does not make a difference. Even late 90's the retrogression was there for both Eb2 and Eb3. IN 1999 they opened up for Y2K and then again retrogressed in 2001-2002 I believe. But again after that it was all current till the current retrogression.
Given the gross uncertainity about retrogression and GC, I would not give undue importance to the GC timeline factor. Eventually job / skills are more important than the distant GC.
I was in a similar situation a few months back. I abandoned my GC process with my former employer for a new and much more promising job. I am yet to start the GC process with the new employer. For me JOB was the deciding factor.
My reasoning was simple:
In the current scenario with a broken immigration system if we are to maintain our sanity and move on in our careers he, we have to stop thinking that GC is above everything. Work on it as much as you can, but do not trade it in for good career moves.
Do what you feel is best for you and what you can make peace with. My 2 cents..
Given the gross uncertainity about retrogression and GC, I would not give undue importance to the GC timeline factor. Eventually job / skills are more important than the distant GC.
I was in a similar situation a few months back. I abandoned my GC process with my former employer for a new and much more promising job. I am yet to start the GC process with the new employer. For me JOB was the deciding factor.
My reasoning was simple:
In the current scenario with a broken immigration system if we are to maintain our sanity and move on in our careers he, we have to stop thinking that GC is above everything. Work on it as much as you can, but do not trade it in for good career moves.
Do what you feel is best for you and what you can make peace with. My 2 cents..
hair Wine Glass clipart / Free clip
Munna Bhai
02-08 11:59 AM
You want to keep your 140 intact for 2 reasons:
1. To port the priority date for future use in a subsequent Greencard petition.
2. To get more H1 extensions based on this 140, until you have another labor and 140 going on with new employer.
First, about 1:
There is a lot of information on this thread about priority date transfers (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=912)from old approved 140 to a new 140. Read that thread and you will learn all you want to learn and all the information out there in the immigration world about PD transfer from one 140 to another 140.
In a nutshell:
Its a grey area of the law. If your 140 is never revoked, you would be fine and able to port your priority date. If it is revoked for fraud and willful misrepresentation, then you cannot port that PD under any circumstances. If 140 is revoked by employer then it falls into grey area. USCIS adjudicator's field manual says that you can still port your PD. The code of federal regulations says that you cannot. Currently USCIS is porting priority dates even if employer has revoked that 140, and they are following the AFM(adjudicator's field manual). However that can change in future. Legislation trumps regulation and regulation trumps the adjudicator's field manual. For now, things are great as AFM is being followed.
About 2:
If you have an H1 approved for 3 years after 140 approval, and you transfer jobs to a new employer and get another H1. You should be fine. If your previous employer cancels your I-140 after you leave and go to another employer, then USCIS will not go back and cancel your H1 because it was based on an approved 140 that is now revoked. This is what is happening as of now. At the time of H1 transfer to your new employer, your 140 should be in good status and you should have a photocopy of your approved 140. Once your H1 transfer is done (probably will have same end-date as the current 3-year H1 from your current employer), if the 140 is revoked AFTER that, then you should be fine. I am saying this based on advice from a very good lawyer.
Now, in far future, USCIS may decide to go and look for H1s that were approved based on approved 140 and then if that 140 is revoked, then they would go and cancel that H1 also. Its very very unlikely that they would do that even in future. They dont have that kind of resources to keep track of H1s based on 140 approvals and then go back and cancel them whenever some disappointed employer revokes 140.
About preventing 140 from being revoked:
I do not think that by changing lawyers, you can stop the previous 140 from being revoked. Your previous employer, for any reason, can get that 140 revoked with any lawyer they choose, regardless of who your current lawyer is. Lawyers are tied to clients, not petitions and cases. However, if someone knows more about this, please post here.
Thanks, please let everyone know if by changing lawyers is there anyway of protecting I-140 from being revoked?? or is there any other way out??
1. To port the priority date for future use in a subsequent Greencard petition.
2. To get more H1 extensions based on this 140, until you have another labor and 140 going on with new employer.
First, about 1:
There is a lot of information on this thread about priority date transfers (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=912)from old approved 140 to a new 140. Read that thread and you will learn all you want to learn and all the information out there in the immigration world about PD transfer from one 140 to another 140.
In a nutshell:
Its a grey area of the law. If your 140 is never revoked, you would be fine and able to port your priority date. If it is revoked for fraud and willful misrepresentation, then you cannot port that PD under any circumstances. If 140 is revoked by employer then it falls into grey area. USCIS adjudicator's field manual says that you can still port your PD. The code of federal regulations says that you cannot. Currently USCIS is porting priority dates even if employer has revoked that 140, and they are following the AFM(adjudicator's field manual). However that can change in future. Legislation trumps regulation and regulation trumps the adjudicator's field manual. For now, things are great as AFM is being followed.
About 2:
If you have an H1 approved for 3 years after 140 approval, and you transfer jobs to a new employer and get another H1. You should be fine. If your previous employer cancels your I-140 after you leave and go to another employer, then USCIS will not go back and cancel your H1 because it was based on an approved 140 that is now revoked. This is what is happening as of now. At the time of H1 transfer to your new employer, your 140 should be in good status and you should have a photocopy of your approved 140. Once your H1 transfer is done (probably will have same end-date as the current 3-year H1 from your current employer), if the 140 is revoked AFTER that, then you should be fine. I am saying this based on advice from a very good lawyer.
Now, in far future, USCIS may decide to go and look for H1s that were approved based on approved 140 and then if that 140 is revoked, then they would go and cancel that H1 also. Its very very unlikely that they would do that even in future. They dont have that kind of resources to keep track of H1s based on 140 approvals and then go back and cancel them whenever some disappointed employer revokes 140.
About preventing 140 from being revoked:
I do not think that by changing lawyers, you can stop the previous 140 from being revoked. Your previous employer, for any reason, can get that 140 revoked with any lawyer they choose, regardless of who your current lawyer is. Lawyers are tied to clients, not petitions and cases. However, if someone knows more about this, please post here.
Thanks, please let everyone know if by changing lawyers is there anyway of protecting I-140 from being revoked?? or is there any other way out??
more...
gc1024
07-17 07:00 PM
Thanks man.
hot Art Wine Bottle and Glass
snathan
02-15 01:54 AM
i have signed non compete , but when i signed it , he explained me that i should not go to the client through some other vendor , but i can join end client as end client has contract with Prime vendor that they can hire me full time .
But now he is claiming that i cant join full time with the client as well.
During my stay with that employer , he newer paid me on time and once he held my paycheck , just to harass me.
Do you think that these grounds fall under employee undue stress to be sufficient to turn down Non Compete in court ?
Didnt you read the paper before sign the paper. Also dont you have the copy of that
But now he is claiming that i cant join full time with the client as well.
During my stay with that employer , he newer paid me on time and once he held my paycheck , just to harass me.
Do you think that these grounds fall under employee undue stress to be sufficient to turn down Non Compete in court ?
Didnt you read the paper before sign the paper. Also dont you have the copy of that
more...
house Two Wine Glasses Clipart
stueym
07-07 11:57 AM
Just wanted folks to know that our family recorded a video entry on Youtube for the CNN-YouTube presidential debate competition.
CNN-YouTube Democratic debate contest (http://www.youtube.com/contest/DemocraticDebate)
They are looking for a few winners that will be used to pose questions to democratic presidential contenders. My son who is an International Affairs/Poli-Sci student wanted to do this and wanted our support.
You can see our video here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt3AkZ1ID0w
The higher rating and more views/comments we get the more attention we will get from CNN.
CNN-YouTube Democratic debate contest (http://www.youtube.com/contest/DemocraticDebate)
They are looking for a few winners that will be used to pose questions to democratic presidential contenders. My son who is an International Affairs/Poli-Sci student wanted to do this and wanted our support.
You can see our video here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt3AkZ1ID0w
The higher rating and more views/comments we get the more attention we will get from CNN.
tattoo Tom Wine Glass clip art vector
BECsufferer
01-21 12:39 PM
rumour say retrogression may lift on march 2009, is it true????
Dil ko khush rakhne ke leye, Ghalib yeh khyal be aacha hain. :rolleyes:
(Atleast his thought is good, to keep your mind at peace)
Dil ko khush rakhne ke leye, Ghalib yeh khyal be aacha hain. :rolleyes:
(Atleast his thought is good, to keep your mind at peace)
more...
pictures wine glasses
mps
08-15 05:00 PM
:p You just killed spirit of "AC21"
:D Now you may want to add that - USCIS should request proof of employement each year from anyone who gets GC in EB category right !
I noticed a flaw in GC process with respect to �Ability to pay� and �AC21�
Here are the definitions
Ability to pay - Suppose a company files for I-140, it has to prove its ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary.
AC21 states that an employee can change jobs to a similar position if I-485 is pending for more than 180 days. This could happen when I-485 is pending for more than 180 days or after its approval.
Let�s consider the following scenario
1) Company A files for I-140 and I-485 concurrently and proves its ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary at I-140 stage.
2) I-140 gets approved and I-485 is pending for more than 180 days.
3) The employee quits employer A and remains idle (or) becomes self employed (or) joins employer B in a different position.
4) During the I-485 adjudication he provides an offer letter from employer C with similar roles, responsibilities and wage as the proposed GC position with Company A and says that he intends to work with employer C after I-485 approval.
5) I-485 gets approved.
Here is the flaw. USCIS doesn�t check if employer C has the ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary. All it asks for is an offer letter with wage, duties and annual salary.
What if company C is running in loss and not in a position to pay the proffered wage.
Why should USCIS make a big deal out of ability to pay when it�s not checked across all employers where the beneficiary intends to work?
:D Now you may want to add that - USCIS should request proof of employement each year from anyone who gets GC in EB category right !
I noticed a flaw in GC process with respect to �Ability to pay� and �AC21�
Here are the definitions
Ability to pay - Suppose a company files for I-140, it has to prove its ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary.
AC21 states that an employee can change jobs to a similar position if I-485 is pending for more than 180 days. This could happen when I-485 is pending for more than 180 days or after its approval.
Let�s consider the following scenario
1) Company A files for I-140 and I-485 concurrently and proves its ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary at I-140 stage.
2) I-140 gets approved and I-485 is pending for more than 180 days.
3) The employee quits employer A and remains idle (or) becomes self employed (or) joins employer B in a different position.
4) During the I-485 adjudication he provides an offer letter from employer C with similar roles, responsibilities and wage as the proposed GC position with Company A and says that he intends to work with employer C after I-485 approval.
5) I-485 gets approved.
Here is the flaw. USCIS doesn�t check if employer C has the ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary. All it asks for is an offer letter with wage, duties and annual salary.
What if company C is running in loss and not in a position to pay the proffered wage.
Why should USCIS make a big deal out of ability to pay when it�s not checked across all employers where the beneficiary intends to work?
dresses wine glasses clipart. wine
BPforGC
05-11 01:51 PM
This guy has no clue on anything...
He says he gets back after talking to the 'subject experts'....
A senator clearly asked him what to do on backlogs. If he has an iota of knowledge and real interest in immigration, he should have told to increase visa numbers, eliminate country limit and recapture legislation. All he said was he will get back to them and this opportunity has gone into thin air....
So, this statement clearly epitomizes why USCIS is an inefficient and hopeless agency. They talk too much, think less and do nothing.
Don't count on USCIS to do something to eliminate backlog. They are idiots and inefficient morons.
Out of 10+ members of Judiciary committee, only two to three really care about an agency that is trying to work on legal immigration and present for this hearing. Talk about illegal immigration, every one will start running out of their beds with their pants down to get attention... this is really disconcerting.
The whole hearing is a time waste for everyone. It did not achieve anything except patting each others back. Disgusting...
He says he gets back after talking to the 'subject experts'....
A senator clearly asked him what to do on backlogs. If he has an iota of knowledge and real interest in immigration, he should have told to increase visa numbers, eliminate country limit and recapture legislation. All he said was he will get back to them and this opportunity has gone into thin air....
So, this statement clearly epitomizes why USCIS is an inefficient and hopeless agency. They talk too much, think less and do nothing.
Don't count on USCIS to do something to eliminate backlog. They are idiots and inefficient morons.
Out of 10+ members of Judiciary committee, only two to three really care about an agency that is trying to work on legal immigration and present for this hearing. Talk about illegal immigration, every one will start running out of their beds with their pants down to get attention... this is really disconcerting.
The whole hearing is a time waste for everyone. It did not achieve anything except patting each others back. Disgusting...
more...
makeup Wine Glasses Clipart
Steve Mitchell
February 15th, 2004, 06:56 PM
Just added the Sony 717 to the list of cameras that the DOF calculator should give an accurate DOF reading. It is my understanding the the COC varies with varies digital cameras. I gathered this information from here (http://dfleming.ameranet.com/digital_coc.html). This is the guy who created the equations for one of Nikon's websites. That is the variable that changes and alters the DOF if I interpurt this correctly. This is the variable that is changed when determing the DOF in the DOF calculator (http://www.dphoto.us/forum/index.php?section=depthoffield) on Dphoto.us.
Your experiencing an effect called Depth of Field(DOF). This is commen and usally you want to minimize it for effect but not in your case.
You will need to learn to use a DOF calculator, there is one on this site but it does not include the 2/3" sensor sive you camera has. A better one for you right now may be this calculator here: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikoncp5700/page2.asp
Using this you can determine the distance you need, focal length and distance to subject to obtain the desired DOF. Currently on the wide end of your camera, you'll need to move about a 1.5 feet from the focus point with f8 to get the DOF you desire. If you get the WA adaptor you'll be able to move closer to about .9 feet from the focus point and still obtain the DOF you desire.
You'll never be able to be within 5 inches from the object and obtain the DOF you desire, it simply is not possible with you camera. As to which WA adaptor to get? I don't know. I've never used anything of the sort so I can not answer that question for you.
Scott
Your experiencing an effect called Depth of Field(DOF). This is commen and usally you want to minimize it for effect but not in your case.
You will need to learn to use a DOF calculator, there is one on this site but it does not include the 2/3" sensor sive you camera has. A better one for you right now may be this calculator here: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikoncp5700/page2.asp
Using this you can determine the distance you need, focal length and distance to subject to obtain the desired DOF. Currently on the wide end of your camera, you'll need to move about a 1.5 feet from the focus point with f8 to get the DOF you desire. If you get the WA adaptor you'll be able to move closer to about .9 feet from the focus point and still obtain the DOF you desire.
You'll never be able to be within 5 inches from the object and obtain the DOF you desire, it simply is not possible with you camera. As to which WA adaptor to get? I don't know. I've never used anything of the sort so I can not answer that question for you.
Scott
girlfriend wine glasses clipart.
chanduv23
11-06 10:11 AM
They are your in-laws!!! Are you sure you want them here? Think about it. :-) Jokes apart, its a pleasure to travel in Jet. My parents did travel - they can't speak English nor really read well - the crew helps them (in Hindi or Gujarati). You would have to be really knocked out to miss connecting flights in Brussells. So worry not - they'll be just fine.
Good to know, thanks.
Good to know, thanks.
hairstyles Wine Glass Empty clip art
ram04
02-03 06:14 PM
Infopass confirmed approved and I got it by mail after 30 days.
After on line status change it is 14 days.
After on line status change it is 14 days.
Leo07
07-21 10:02 AM
Taking the emotional quotient and any other 'angles' out of the issue. Fragomen is correct and so is your manager.
If it comes to that, it's not worth the risk for you, your manager and your company to do anything other than what's suggested by your attorney.(Fragomen)
Normally my wife is the one who is used to post or follow up on the latest here.
This came up a week ago. I have been working from home in a different state and we do not have any company office near my home. Nearest office location is about 3 hours. I had to move this far away due to personal reasons.
Now after working from home for 3 years (extending EAD, H1Bs etc) Fragomen (most of you know who they are) says I cannot do work from home anymore due to this conflict with uscis. it seems USCIS doesnt recognize your home as a Govt recognized work location. Hence I cannot work from home.
Now my manager wants me to only work from the office since folks reporting to me are also in that state. Now he is using Fragomen and HR emails as a reason for me to move back.
Anythoughts ? I am sure you all will agree that is the law. but why all this now ? even after working for 12 years.
One other point the fragomen lawyer said is - this is going to be the case for all thier clients.
If it comes to that, it's not worth the risk for you, your manager and your company to do anything other than what's suggested by your attorney.(Fragomen)
Normally my wife is the one who is used to post or follow up on the latest here.
This came up a week ago. I have been working from home in a different state and we do not have any company office near my home. Nearest office location is about 3 hours. I had to move this far away due to personal reasons.
Now after working from home for 3 years (extending EAD, H1Bs etc) Fragomen (most of you know who they are) says I cannot do work from home anymore due to this conflict with uscis. it seems USCIS doesnt recognize your home as a Govt recognized work location. Hence I cannot work from home.
Now my manager wants me to only work from the office since folks reporting to me are also in that state. Now he is using Fragomen and HR emails as a reason for me to move back.
Anythoughts ? I am sure you all will agree that is the law. but why all this now ? even after working for 12 years.
One other point the fragomen lawyer said is - this is going to be the case for all thier clients.
aj130346
03-15 08:29 PM
My comany is filing a second LC under PERM for a substantially different job position and job location.
My first LC ( PD Oct 2004) was filed in TR. My LC is "in Process" at PBEC. No I-140 yet. I am from India
The question is: Once the PERM LC gets approved, and I140 ( second LC) approved, can the first PD ( Oct 2004) PD be retained??
Thanks for your responses
My first LC ( PD Oct 2004) was filed in TR. My LC is "in Process" at PBEC. No I-140 yet. I am from India
The question is: Once the PERM LC gets approved, and I140 ( second LC) approved, can the first PD ( Oct 2004) PD be retained??
Thanks for your responses