Sideliner
07-17 07:33 AM
Hello freinds :
I would appreciate if anyone can guide me through the situation I am in..
I am sorry, this is happening to you. I am more or less in the same condition. Can you try talking to some one like VP / CEO / President of your company regarding this? Also, I am not sure how far this is true, but I saw a post in this site saying that if you have paystubs you could file 485 yourself without employment letter.
Good luck.
I would appreciate if anyone can guide me through the situation I am in..
I am sorry, this is happening to you. I am more or less in the same condition. Can you try talking to some one like VP / CEO / President of your company regarding this? Also, I am not sure how far this is true, but I saw a post in this site saying that if you have paystubs you could file 485 yourself without employment letter.
Good luck.
wallpaper Debra Messing#39;s hair color is
jonty_11
07-31 01:54 PM
u have to file 140 for ur old labor..once that get approved....u can interfile the approved 140 onto ur pending 485..(filed with PERM labor/140) and request USCIS to use the PD of the old Labor/140...
Confirm with lawyer...
Confirm with lawyer...
lostinbeta
10-21 01:51 AM
lol. Yeah I know your just kidding about that 3rd grader stuff mr. Iworkedforeidosandnike :P
2011 lindsay lohan hair color dark.
same_old_guy
08-16 03:11 PM
1) The company has to send a letter to USCIS to withdraw the I-129.
2) It can withdraw at any time before or after approval. In fact it wont matter to you if you never work for the company.
3) If USCIS rejects it, as in not selected in lottery, you will get back USCIS fee. If you withdraw it there is no refund. In any case, you dont get back lawyer's fee.
4) Withdraw can be done anytime.
5) No form. The company has to send a letter in letterhead stating the receipt number, asking to revoke the application.
6) I dont think USCIS sends any confirmation if H1 is revoked by employer. In any case of H1, you dont have to worry so much. It's all responsibility of the company. It's perfectly valid to have more than 1 H1 at any time.
2) It can withdraw at any time before or after approval. In fact it wont matter to you if you never work for the company.
3) If USCIS rejects it, as in not selected in lottery, you will get back USCIS fee. If you withdraw it there is no refund. In any case, you dont get back lawyer's fee.
4) Withdraw can be done anytime.
5) No form. The company has to send a letter in letterhead stating the receipt number, asking to revoke the application.
6) I dont think USCIS sends any confirmation if H1 is revoked by employer. In any case of H1, you dont have to worry so much. It's all responsibility of the company. It's perfectly valid to have more than 1 H1 at any time.
more...
iheartindia79
05-14 03:40 AM
I am e-filing for EAD renewal.
Are the following options correct for :
1. Manner of Last Entry into the U.S.: "DA:ADVANCE PAROLE (DISTRICT AUTH)"
Same for
2. Current Immigration Status:"DA:ADVANCE PAROLE (DISTRICT AUTH)"
and for Eligibility Status: "(c)(9) Filed I-485"
Please someone who filed EAD renewal.
Are the following options correct for :
1. Manner of Last Entry into the U.S.: "DA:ADVANCE PAROLE (DISTRICT AUTH)"
Same for
2. Current Immigration Status:"DA:ADVANCE PAROLE (DISTRICT AUTH)"
and for Eligibility Status: "(c)(9) Filed I-485"
Please someone who filed EAD renewal.
paskal
02-22 06:14 PM
Not sure if people understood the question. Based on this data it shows India got much more then what was in the quota and there were more GC given than the yearly total limit. If this is true, why do I keep hearing that in forums that there were 250K visa's over the last 5 years that were lost because they GC's were not processed in time? If anything there were more visa's given and a disproportionately higher # for India.
suggest you read the ombudsman report.
and yes the numbers available were higher because
1. a recapture was in progress
2. recaptured visas were fifo not by country quota
and country quota is deceptive. when ROW is current, eg last july, uscis gives out GC numbers by fifo availability not by country quota.
of course last july was a freak...not coming back anytime soon!
suggest you read the ombudsman report.
and yes the numbers available were higher because
1. a recapture was in progress
2. recaptured visas were fifo not by country quota
and country quota is deceptive. when ROW is current, eg last july, uscis gives out GC numbers by fifo availability not by country quota.
of course last july was a freak...not coming back anytime soon!
more...
a.j.2048
01-14 07:52 PM
Here's one with an Indian connection collecting money for a Haitian NGO-
Sewa USA | Service to humanity is service to God (http://www.sewausa.org/)
Sewa USA | Service to humanity is service to God (http://www.sewausa.org/)
2010 lindsay lohan hair color dark.
sugaur
05-05 11:45 PM
Transaction ID: 15509419M155420
You sent a payment of $100.00 USD to Immigration Voice (donations@immigrationvoice.org)
It may take a few moments for this transaction to appear in your account.
You sent a payment of $100.00 USD to Immigration Voice (donations@immigrationvoice.org)
It may take a few moments for this transaction to appear in your account.
more...
geesee
04-13 12:18 PM
I recently closed my Simple IRA (small version of 401K) account and requested the checks (they give seperate check for each fund) for myself. Generally there is a 60 days window to move those funds to a new IRA account in order to avoid 10% penalty and taxes. I have setup an IRA account with TDAmeritrade and planning to manage the funds on my own.
hair Lindsay emerged yesterday
skdskd
10-15 03:32 PM
Sorry to add to the confusion and I had replied to the same question in another thread, but my lawyer told me I can be on H1 and do additional work on EAD since H1 is a dual intent visa. He also told me that nothing needs to be informed to the immigration authorities once I start using my EAD. I know this is contrary to what everyone said in the comments above, but this is the reply I got talking personally to my lawyer.
Even my lawyer told me that I can be on Both H1-B and EAD
But It is not true for H4 , You can not be on Both H4 and EAD
Even my lawyer told me that I can be on Both H1-B and EAD
But It is not true for H4 , You can not be on Both H4 and EAD
more...
Anysia
03-03 10:08 AM
FYI: Illinois Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, Administrative Code:
Title 68: Professions and Occupations
Chapter VII: Dept of Finacial and Professional Regulation
Subchapter b: Professions and Occupations
Part 1340 Illinois Physical Therapy
Section 1340.20 (a)(2)
Prior to January 1, 2002, the applicant's curriculum shall have a minimum of 120 semester hours which shall include a minimum of 50 semester hours credit in general education and at least the following subject areas in professional education (a minimum of 57 semester hours required)
Section 1340.20 (a)(3)
"Applicants graduating after January 1, 2002 must have a minimum of a master's degree in physical therapy"
Title 68: Professions and Occupations
Chapter VII: Dept of Finacial and Professional Regulation
Subchapter b: Professions and Occupations
Part 1340 Illinois Physical Therapy
Section 1340.20 (a)(2)
Prior to January 1, 2002, the applicant's curriculum shall have a minimum of 120 semester hours which shall include a minimum of 50 semester hours credit in general education and at least the following subject areas in professional education (a minimum of 57 semester hours required)
Section 1340.20 (a)(3)
"Applicants graduating after January 1, 2002 must have a minimum of a master's degree in physical therapy"
hot taking care of dark hair
seekerofpeace
04-23 03:33 PM
I am in similar situation. While my street address will also stay the same the building is same I am just changing floors...going from a 1 bed to 2 bed which I have to and can't avoid.
I checked with USPS and they told me that they do automatic mail forwarding for 3 months and which could be expanded...I am not going to intimate USCIS till I have to...I mean delay it as long as you receive your mails you won't miss a thing + the attorney also gets the RFE and their address is fixed and you will get that anyway.
The postal people can mess up delivery too and i have had friends who did not receive letters from USCIS due to delivery problems .....anything and everything can happen.
Point is to delay the notification to avoid an RFE....but if everything else is fine and legit I won't mind filling up the address change notification.
SoP
I checked with USPS and they told me that they do automatic mail forwarding for 3 months and which could be expanded...I am not going to intimate USCIS till I have to...I mean delay it as long as you receive your mails you won't miss a thing + the attorney also gets the RFE and their address is fixed and you will get that anyway.
The postal people can mess up delivery too and i have had friends who did not receive letters from USCIS due to delivery problems .....anything and everything can happen.
Point is to delay the notification to avoid an RFE....but if everything else is fine and legit I won't mind filling up the address change notification.
SoP
more...
house lindsay lohan hair color. long
gconmymind
10-29 04:25 PM
which service center?
Send email or call your consulate in India. They will either be able to update it or let you know what to do. You should be able to correct by hand when you go for the interview.
Send email or call your consulate in India. They will either be able to update it or let you know what to do. You should be able to correct by hand when you go for the interview.
tattoo Lindsay Lohan Blonde Hair. Decked. May 5, 07:36 AM
rockstart
04-23 04:17 PM
Thanks for the response guys. I think it is better to change address because address forwarding does not work with USCIS letters. I have seen the trouble my friend had to go through to get his GC.
more...
pictures Medium Ash Brown Hair Color
cjain
10-30 05:49 PM
is it from the receipt date or notice date?
dresses lindsay lohan hair blonde
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...
makeup lindsay lohan hair color dark.
sanjay
09-06 10:42 AM
Contact Lou Dobbs and tell him to do a story so he knows what we are going through :)
LOL... This is the best suggestion I had seen so far in this thread.;)
LOL... This is the best suggestion I had seen so far in this thread.;)
girlfriend Lindsay emerged from her hair
gchopes
11-05 07:37 PM
What happens if primary 485 gets approved and spouse 485 not filed due to PD not being current or the primary missed the short time given to file spouse 485?
hairstyles Lindsay Lohan#39;s ponytail
greenguru
04-03 12:29 PM
I was in the same situation.
First : Get your new passport.
Then schedule an appointment in the Consulate ( Canada ) and go for stamping.
All canadian Cons. take passport for the scheduling appointment.
First : Get your new passport.
Then schedule an appointment in the Consulate ( Canada ) and go for stamping.
All canadian Cons. take passport for the scheduling appointment.
nyte_crawler
03-06 01:47 PM
It has been taking for ever to move. I had missed 3 times already to get it approved during the last 5 years. Lets see if it moves to 2002
DarkChild
03-08 02:21 AM
Dark Child has no votes, someones gotta vote for him, hes got a really good layout.
thx man :thumb:
but it doesn't matter that much, dave's is better, i can handle that ;)
thx man :thumb:
but it doesn't matter that much, dave's is better, i can handle that ;)