snhn
11-06 10:57 AM
Thanks bro for great information.
however, I have some questions. You say that the officer told you that your AP was approved on Oct 1, 2007. Did you see a LUD change that day in your status. If you did, what did it say. I ask because I got a LUD change on our AP on Nov 2 but the message is still the same as it was when i got the receipt notice. No mention of AP approved.
My recetip date is August 14, and NOtice date is Oct 2, 2007. SO the TExas website states 3 months. Is it 3 months after notice date or receipt date.
I have heard people getting their AP without their online status being changed. Is this true. Anyhows, I have yet to go and do my finger prints. It is scheduled for Nov 21. Maybe they need to wait for finger print to before the AP is approved. or is this not the case.
Anyhows, comments are appreciated.
Thanks
however, I have some questions. You say that the officer told you that your AP was approved on Oct 1, 2007. Did you see a LUD change that day in your status. If you did, what did it say. I ask because I got a LUD change on our AP on Nov 2 but the message is still the same as it was when i got the receipt notice. No mention of AP approved.
My recetip date is August 14, and NOtice date is Oct 2, 2007. SO the TExas website states 3 months. Is it 3 months after notice date or receipt date.
I have heard people getting their AP without their online status being changed. Is this true. Anyhows, I have yet to go and do my finger prints. It is scheduled for Nov 21. Maybe they need to wait for finger print to before the AP is approved. or is this not the case.
Anyhows, comments are appreciated.
Thanks
wallpaper Nature HD Wallpaper Nature
Ramba
02-12 02:58 PM
The adv of 485 route compare to CP is EAD/AP/AC21. In CP, the applicant is getting immigrant visa in a foreign post/consulate. How can USCIS give EAD/AP for a person who is staying outside of US to grant EAD/AP?. There is no technical ground for this request. If you/IV want to lobby, lobby for EAD/AP for the guys whose 140 was approved and staying in US legally on a non-immigrant visa. This may be possible thro, USCIS regulation w/o law change.
Though, law does not force any one to chose only 485 route, while you anyone already in US. Very very few guys will opt for CP while in US due to lot of hurdles in CP. Forget about retrogression, EAD, AP. Opting CP, cost you to fly to home country to get immigrant visa. There is no gurentee that US consulate will give you a immigrant visa based on approved 140 in CP process. That is always risk of denial at interview. It is something similar like, H1B approval by USCIS does not guartee the H1B visa at consulate.
Though, law does not force any one to chose only 485 route, while you anyone already in US. Very very few guys will opt for CP while in US due to lot of hurdles in CP. Forget about retrogression, EAD, AP. Opting CP, cost you to fly to home country to get immigrant visa. There is no gurentee that US consulate will give you a immigrant visa based on approved 140 in CP process. That is always risk of denial at interview. It is something similar like, H1B approval by USCIS does not guartee the H1B visa at consulate.
pkjena
08-01 10:41 PM
Sorry forgot to give the link
http://www.ilw.com/immigdaily/news/2005,0520-ac21.pdf
http://www.ilw.com/immigdaily/news/2005,0520-ac21.pdf
2011 wallpapers hd widescreen high
dsva
01-11 12:39 PM
I sent the letter to the President and copy to IV on 01/08/2007.
more...
shamu
01-13 08:15 PM
We are not sure of the chronology of events such as your wife's pregnancy, Your job change, your insurance start date. If you guys had individual insurance before your wife's conceiving, insurance cannot deny coverage as pre existing condition. Make sure you put these events in a time line and rule out the possibility of coverage. if you have done so, you have to explore other options.
As far as changing job is concerned, make sure your job requirement matches the same and similar concept. If you have used AC21, why not use it one more time? Of course, your PD and other personal issues might be stopping you from doing so. But if you are just thinking about using AC21 again, dont worry. Talk to a good attorney and drink the kool aid again.
The easiest way to get through this is to get under group coverage. I will let you know if there is any way you can sneak into group coverage. but the one I can think right on top of my head is joining an employer with health insurance
Thank you nixtor.
As far as changing job is concerned, make sure your job requirement matches the same and similar concept. If you have used AC21, why not use it one more time? Of course, your PD and other personal issues might be stopping you from doing so. But if you are just thinking about using AC21 again, dont worry. Talk to a good attorney and drink the kool aid again.
The easiest way to get through this is to get under group coverage. I will let you know if there is any way you can sneak into group coverage. but the one I can think right on top of my head is joining an employer with health insurance
Thank you nixtor.
kaisersose
06-05 11:48 AM
That post was intended towards EB3 category, particularly EB3-India. Ever since starting of this Fiscal Year there are very few EB3-India approvals (Can anybody dispute that?). So how come USCIS used up all the visas already?? Most of the guys here always talk about EB2-India which is not highly effected category in the first place. We suppose to be taking care of effected categories.
How do you know there have been very few EB3 approvals? There is no tracker accurate enough for us to know that.
How do you know there have been very few EB3 approvals? There is no tracker accurate enough for us to know that.
more...
nrk
10-26 10:49 PM
Thanks i will talk to the attorney tomorrow and take an info pass accordingly.
Take an infopass appt ASAP.
The officer in the local USCIS office will be able to give more details about your case.
Take an infopass appt ASAP.
The officer in the local USCIS office will be able to give more details about your case.
2010 nature wallpaper hd widescreen. wallpaper hd widescreen nature
kumara121
04-29 12:40 PM
Quick Chain of events .
India rejected both Boeing and Lockheed Martin's proposal of fighters . I am not debating the reasons or the merits of this decision if this was right or wrong . I am just discussing the potential repercussions this has had so far and might have .
'Exclusion of US firms from IAF jet deal a setback for ties' (http://www.indianexpress.com/news/exclusion-of-us-firms-from-iaf-jet-deal-a-setback.../783401/)
1) The issue is so serious that Tim Roemer , US Ambassador to India submitted his resignation immediately since he was on the hook for making this deal work .This shows the measure of disappointment they had.
2) India was seeking US assurances in security a Permanent Security council seat , which looks far fetched now .
4) Pentagon , Whitehouse and the DoD very upset that deal fell through . This sentiment will certainly percolate to the USCIS and the State department and might embolden Anti Immigration senators whose measures will get more support in the house and senate.
5) Prosecution of companies entangled in cases like Infosys might find more support and favor with the Govt.
Question is how/if there will be a backlash against India / Indian's get back at us at least in the short term .Increased scrutiny and visa denials , PoE Harassment , GC audits etc.
Will the US take a Tit-for-Tat reaction on this issue is what remains to be seen.
it will be shortsightedness on the US part if it wants to revenge... According to the reports, India went with the technical evaluation where as US in the name of transparency wanted a political decision. There is also end-user agreement US wanted India to sign, which allows US to come and check the planes whenever and wherever it wanted to... so blaming India in this is not right... US has to look at its own back first..
India rejected both Boeing and Lockheed Martin's proposal of fighters . I am not debating the reasons or the merits of this decision if this was right or wrong . I am just discussing the potential repercussions this has had so far and might have .
'Exclusion of US firms from IAF jet deal a setback for ties' (http://www.indianexpress.com/news/exclusion-of-us-firms-from-iaf-jet-deal-a-setback.../783401/)
1) The issue is so serious that Tim Roemer , US Ambassador to India submitted his resignation immediately since he was on the hook for making this deal work .This shows the measure of disappointment they had.
2) India was seeking US assurances in security a Permanent Security council seat , which looks far fetched now .
4) Pentagon , Whitehouse and the DoD very upset that deal fell through . This sentiment will certainly percolate to the USCIS and the State department and might embolden Anti Immigration senators whose measures will get more support in the house and senate.
5) Prosecution of companies entangled in cases like Infosys might find more support and favor with the Govt.
Question is how/if there will be a backlash against India / Indian's get back at us at least in the short term .Increased scrutiny and visa denials , PoE Harassment , GC audits etc.
Will the US take a Tit-for-Tat reaction on this issue is what remains to be seen.
it will be shortsightedness on the US part if it wants to revenge... According to the reports, India went with the technical evaluation where as US in the name of transparency wanted a political decision. There is also end-user agreement US wanted India to sign, which allows US to come and check the planes whenever and wherever it wanted to... so blaming India in this is not right... US has to look at its own back first..
more...
kaisersose
06-05 03:00 PM
if they did what u say they did.. they violated the law. thats what gotcher is talking about.
Where is the law that says they can release visa numbers only on a quarterly basis? If that is true, then
1. The Feb bulletin would not have said EB-2 India had used up its annual limit.
2. The June Bulletin would not have said EB-3 will retrogress or become unavailable starting July [which starts a new quarter].
Both make no sense. Or alternatively, there is no such law and DOS can release visa numbers without the "quarterly" constraint. It may have been a practise in the past, but clearly since 2007, they have become keen to see visa numbers not go waste and they appear to have changed the trend.
Only a tiny fraction of applications are on . It really is nowhere enough to draw a meaningful analysis of approval trends.
Where is the law that says they can release visa numbers only on a quarterly basis? If that is true, then
1. The Feb bulletin would not have said EB-2 India had used up its annual limit.
2. The June Bulletin would not have said EB-3 will retrogress or become unavailable starting July [which starts a new quarter].
Both make no sense. Or alternatively, there is no such law and DOS can release visa numbers without the "quarterly" constraint. It may have been a practise in the past, but clearly since 2007, they have become keen to see visa numbers not go waste and they appear to have changed the trend.
Only a tiny fraction of applications are on . It really is nowhere enough to draw a meaningful analysis of approval trends.
hair hd wallpaper nature widescreen
Student with no hopes
04-23 11:04 AM
You say all these because you understand. Most of these police officers out there (and even Immigration Enforcement officers) dont understand the laws they are enforcing. I once asked an american embassy consular officer during an H1B renewal interview how long I had to stay in the US if I get laid off from my job. She smiled and said she doesnt know. Ironic right? That is US Immigration laws for you. So complex yet so unreasonable.
Arrived F1: Dec. 2001
H1-B: May 2005
Labor Applied: No
I-140 Applied: No
I-485 Applied: No
Laid off: April 2009
Departed USA: May 2009
You left US?
Arrived F1: Dec. 2001
H1-B: May 2005
Labor Applied: No
I-140 Applied: No
I-485 Applied: No
Laid off: April 2009
Departed USA: May 2009
You left US?
more...
Macaca
09-03 08:50 AM
In a key finding, government data document that a moratorium on legal immigrants entering the country could devastate the Social Security system by ballooning the size of the actuarial deficit by almost one-third -- 31 percent -- over a 50-year period. (page 1)
To compensate for the loss of revenue caused by a moratorium would require increasing Social Security taxes on Americans by $506 billion in present value over 50 years and $611 billion over 75 years. Such a tax increase would cost an American earning $60,000 in 2004 more than $1,860 in higher payroll taxes over the next 10 years.
A forty-one percent reduction in legal immigration, which Congress considered in 1996, would increase the actuarial deficit by 13 percent over 50 years and require $212 billion in tax increases (in present value) over 50 years (and $246 billion over 75 years) to make up for the lost revenue caused by the severe legal immigration reductions.
A thirty-three percent reduction in legal immigration would increase the actuarial deficit by 10 percent over 50 years and result in lost revenues of $163 billion in present value over 50 years and $207 billion over 75 years, which would need to be made up for through higher taxes or other means.
Such a tax increase would cost an American earning $60,000 in 2004 more than $720 in higher payroll taxes over the next 10 years, in the case of a 41% reduction in legal immigration, and $600 over the next 10 years for a 33% legal immigration reduction.
Increases in legal immigration would provide a significant boost to Social Security. The size of the actuarial deficit would be reduced over 50 years by 10 percent if legal immigration increased 33 percent (an additional 264,000 immigrants a year) and by 6 percent for a 20 percent rise in legal immigration annually (160,000 more immigrants a year.)
A 33 percent increase in legal immigration would increase revenues to Social Security by a present value of $169 billion over 50 years and $216 billion over 75 years. A 20 percent legal immigration increase would add $101 billion in present value to the trust fund over 50 years and $128 billion over a 75-year period.
A thirty-three percent increase in legal immigration would mean that an
American earning $60,000 in 2004 could have their Social Security taxes reduced by $600 over 10 years (or $360 in the case of a 160,000 legal immigration rise) and Social Security would maintain the actuarial balance that is currently projected over that period.
Halting legal immigration to the United States would reduce both the growth rate of the U.S. labor force and the rate of the country�s economic growth (the rate of growth of the nation�s Gross Domestic Product) by approximately one quarter of one percent (0.25%) per year, initially, a notable amount.
To compensate for the loss of revenue caused by a moratorium would require increasing Social Security taxes on Americans by $506 billion in present value over 50 years and $611 billion over 75 years. Such a tax increase would cost an American earning $60,000 in 2004 more than $1,860 in higher payroll taxes over the next 10 years.
A forty-one percent reduction in legal immigration, which Congress considered in 1996, would increase the actuarial deficit by 13 percent over 50 years and require $212 billion in tax increases (in present value) over 50 years (and $246 billion over 75 years) to make up for the lost revenue caused by the severe legal immigration reductions.
A thirty-three percent reduction in legal immigration would increase the actuarial deficit by 10 percent over 50 years and result in lost revenues of $163 billion in present value over 50 years and $207 billion over 75 years, which would need to be made up for through higher taxes or other means.
Such a tax increase would cost an American earning $60,000 in 2004 more than $720 in higher payroll taxes over the next 10 years, in the case of a 41% reduction in legal immigration, and $600 over the next 10 years for a 33% legal immigration reduction.
Increases in legal immigration would provide a significant boost to Social Security. The size of the actuarial deficit would be reduced over 50 years by 10 percent if legal immigration increased 33 percent (an additional 264,000 immigrants a year) and by 6 percent for a 20 percent rise in legal immigration annually (160,000 more immigrants a year.)
A 33 percent increase in legal immigration would increase revenues to Social Security by a present value of $169 billion over 50 years and $216 billion over 75 years. A 20 percent legal immigration increase would add $101 billion in present value to the trust fund over 50 years and $128 billion over a 75-year period.
A thirty-three percent increase in legal immigration would mean that an
American earning $60,000 in 2004 could have their Social Security taxes reduced by $600 over 10 years (or $360 in the case of a 160,000 legal immigration rise) and Social Security would maintain the actuarial balance that is currently projected over that period.
Halting legal immigration to the United States would reduce both the growth rate of the U.S. labor force and the rate of the country�s economic growth (the rate of growth of the nation�s Gross Domestic Product) by approximately one quarter of one percent (0.25%) per year, initially, a notable amount.
hot nature wallpaper in hd
CADude
12-28 02:21 AM
PD: July 2001 RD: July 2007 ND: Oct 2007 NSC. Still waiting for USCIS decision.
more...
house wide screen hd wallpapers.
JunRN
12-20 01:37 PM
I agree with you. It's not required by law to file any AC21 papers so the USCIS cannot do much. Also, the green card cannot be revoked after 5 years so by the time you apply for citizenship, the USCIS cannot do anything bad to you. Worst case, they will ask about it during the citizenship interview so it's a good idea to keep your employment offer handy. But it's very unlikely and I really doubt they can deny your citizenship based on this. That's why I see no drawbacks in not filing AC21 and no benefits in filing it if you know that I-140 won't be withdrawn. My advice would be to take an employment letter from current employer and keep it in case the USCIS asks for it. There is no need to cause troubles for yourself by letting the USCIS know about it.
There are so many things not required by law but you have to do which if you did not do is fraud or lie by ommision. Any material change to your case which could affect the decision of USCIS in awarding you with GC should be reported and USCIS "expects" us to do that.
I am telling all of you, there is a similar case on going right now. A couple apply for citizenship and got denied because of the discovery of fraud on their GC process. They are now in "removal proceedings".
There are so many things not required by law but you have to do which if you did not do is fraud or lie by ommision. Any material change to your case which could affect the decision of USCIS in awarding you with GC should be reported and USCIS "expects" us to do that.
I am telling all of you, there is a similar case on going right now. A couple apply for citizenship and got denied because of the discovery of fraud on their GC process. They are now in "removal proceedings".
tattoo images nature wallpaper hd
InTheMoment
08-15 04:04 PM
In the letter from the new employer include the following (start date, title, job description, salary and position type):
This letter is to verify that Mr. Cool Dude (SSN: ) has been employed by our company as a full-time employee. He has been working with us since Oct 32, 1666 as a Full Time Gamer.
Mr. Dude's primary job duties include:
Put Bulletized description here
Mr. Dude is compensated with an annual salary of $xxx,xxx. The postion is for permanent at will employment and we have continued interest in employing Mr. Dude.
I trust that this letter would assist Mr. and Mrs. Dude in adjusting their status to a permanent resident as soon as possible. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Joe Employer
As far as docs are concerned add the following with the EVL:
Your covering letter
AC21 Yates Memo
3 latest paystubs
I-485 receipt
that would be it ;)
IntheMoment,
I am in similar situation, I have already changed my job after 180 days of filing my 485 (140 approved) and working with a small consulting company. Currently where I am working client willing to hire me as a fulltime employee with the same titile and giving me the supporting letter with the same job duties mentioned in my LC (I have added few more technologies it).
Even my attorney says the same, no need to inform CIS - when we get the RFE we will see.
Can you kindly let me know all the documents I need to gather and what I need to request from new employer in order to submit AC21 bunch to CIS.
Here are job discriptions with titles.
Old Employer.
Title: Computer Systems Analyst.
Analyze systems requirements, procedures & problems to automate process. Write description of user needs, program functions & steps to develop and modify systems. Script, design, modify, code, debug, test & document applications systems & solutions. Deploy & maintain developed technology. Engaged in disaster recovery. Use Windows, Unix, Linux, LAN/WAN, SQL. VB & Perl Scripting, IBM RS 6000 & E-servers, Dell/EMS SAN Storage.
With New Emaployer
Title: Systems Analyst
Analyze systems requirements, procedures and problems to automate process. Write description of user needs, program functions & steps to develop and modify systems. Debug, Script, Modify, Design, Test and document applications systems & solutions. Design and deploy the backup solutions. Deploy and maintain developed technology. Engaged in disaster recovery procedures. Used technologies Windows, Unix, Linux, LAN/WAN, MS SQL, MySql, VB & Shell Scripting, Dell PowerEdge Servers, Dell/EMC/NetA pp SAN Storages, Dell PowerVault Tape Libraries.
Note: I will be getting a offer letter from new employer, what all I need to mention in the offer, please help me.
Appreciate you prompt reply. I have meeting with my manager with new employer (client).
This letter is to verify that Mr. Cool Dude (SSN: ) has been employed by our company as a full-time employee. He has been working with us since Oct 32, 1666 as a Full Time Gamer.
Mr. Dude's primary job duties include:
Put Bulletized description here
Mr. Dude is compensated with an annual salary of $xxx,xxx. The postion is for permanent at will employment and we have continued interest in employing Mr. Dude.
I trust that this letter would assist Mr. and Mrs. Dude in adjusting their status to a permanent resident as soon as possible. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Joe Employer
As far as docs are concerned add the following with the EVL:
Your covering letter
AC21 Yates Memo
3 latest paystubs
I-485 receipt
that would be it ;)
IntheMoment,
I am in similar situation, I have already changed my job after 180 days of filing my 485 (140 approved) and working with a small consulting company. Currently where I am working client willing to hire me as a fulltime employee with the same titile and giving me the supporting letter with the same job duties mentioned in my LC (I have added few more technologies it).
Even my attorney says the same, no need to inform CIS - when we get the RFE we will see.
Can you kindly let me know all the documents I need to gather and what I need to request from new employer in order to submit AC21 bunch to CIS.
Here are job discriptions with titles.
Old Employer.
Title: Computer Systems Analyst.
Analyze systems requirements, procedures & problems to automate process. Write description of user needs, program functions & steps to develop and modify systems. Script, design, modify, code, debug, test & document applications systems & solutions. Deploy & maintain developed technology. Engaged in disaster recovery. Use Windows, Unix, Linux, LAN/WAN, SQL. VB & Perl Scripting, IBM RS 6000 & E-servers, Dell/EMS SAN Storage.
With New Emaployer
Title: Systems Analyst
Analyze systems requirements, procedures and problems to automate process. Write description of user needs, program functions & steps to develop and modify systems. Debug, Script, Modify, Design, Test and document applications systems & solutions. Design and deploy the backup solutions. Deploy and maintain developed technology. Engaged in disaster recovery procedures. Used technologies Windows, Unix, Linux, LAN/WAN, MS SQL, MySql, VB & Shell Scripting, Dell PowerEdge Servers, Dell/EMC/NetA pp SAN Storages, Dell PowerVault Tape Libraries.
Note: I will be getting a offer letter from new employer, what all I need to mention in the offer, please help me.
Appreciate you prompt reply. I have meeting with my manager with new employer (client).
more...
pictures wallpaper hd widescreen nature
help_please
07-13 06:24 PM
By the way, AILA reports the bill numbers for the Dream Act as follows (the bills were introduced in both house and senate)...S. 774 and H.R. 1275...it doesn't mention anything about being below 30, z visas, or being undocumented...!!!
dresses Desert Widescreen Wallpaper
dpp
08-10 03:26 PM
LS is not illegal until the employers sell the labor. LS is legal channel where in employer fill the position with somebody else, if primary applicant it not available for some reason.
But some employers are exploiting the law and selling it. This is ILLEGAL. I agree with that LS is LEGAL until it goes in a legal way. But selling or getting other benefits/gifts from the employee is completely ILLEGAL.
Since USCIS cannot find who is selling and who is not selling, they banned it. It is a good move from USCIS, but it is too late. Too many got like this and enjoying the benefits leaving other poor souls who are waiting in line from years.
But some employers are exploiting the law and selling it. This is ILLEGAL. I agree with that LS is LEGAL until it goes in a legal way. But selling or getting other benefits/gifts from the employee is completely ILLEGAL.
Since USCIS cannot find who is selling and who is not selling, they banned it. It is a good move from USCIS, but it is too late. Too many got like this and enjoying the benefits leaving other poor souls who are waiting in line from years.
more...
makeup nature wallpaper hd widescreen. The Best of Nature - High Res.
sanprabhu
07-14 12:29 PM
If they can attach Dream Act as an amendment to the Defence policy Act why cannot they attach SKILL to the same. That is the question we should be acting on.
I think expecting Sen. Cornyn to do something now is kind of remote. He is going to be facing elections soon in 08. May be Cantwell is the one to do it.
What do you guys think?
I think expecting Sen. Cornyn to do something now is kind of remote. He is going to be facing elections soon in 08. May be Cantwell is the one to do it.
What do you guys think?
girlfriend nature wallpapers hd widescreen. hd nature wallpapers; hd nature wallpapers
dixie
12-04 09:44 PM
Personally, if I am not going to get a GC, I would much prefer loosing 20-25% of the PPF and have some chance of recovering the remainder from the "babus" than loosing all of it to the US government that considers me ineligible for benefits that I have already paid for in full. Its a positive sign that the Indian govt, whatever its vested interest may be, has at least considered taking up this issue.
Lets not nitpick on corruption and nepotism in our home countries. Its no secreat that it exists here as well - except that it goes by different names such as premium processing, amnesty etc and the whole thing is more streamlined and marketed with a positive spin on it.Nobody has experienced that more than us. And yeah, I am being cynical here.
Lets not nitpick on corruption and nepotism in our home countries. Its no secreat that it exists here as well - except that it goes by different names such as premium processing, amnesty etc and the whole thing is more streamlined and marketed with a positive spin on it.Nobody has experienced that more than us. And yeah, I am being cynical here.
hairstyles nature wallpapers hd widescreen. space wallpaper hd widescreen.
lj_rr
08-25 06:24 PM
485 and 1st EAD/AP filed at TSC in July 2007
Paper Filed EAD and AP Renewal for me and spouse on 7/1/08
NSC Receipt Date:7/2/08
EAD Approved:8/18 (There was no FP)
AP Approved:8/20
EAD Card Received: 8/23 with 2 years validity from date of issue(not from date of 1st EAD expiry) .Lost only 1 month though.
Paper Filed EAD and AP Renewal for me and spouse on 7/1/08
NSC Receipt Date:7/2/08
EAD Approved:8/18 (There was no FP)
AP Approved:8/20
EAD Card Received: 8/23 with 2 years validity from date of issue(not from date of 1st EAD expiry) .Lost only 1 month though.
kpatel_29
12-20 02:33 PM
NY consulate is even worst than others. After a month of trying to reach them regarding my passport application, they told me they never received my application nor my passport. I had to sent them shipping tracking info and eventually they found my application sitting in a drawer. Never bother to opened it till than. I had to go through some higher level rank person to get my case resolved. The customer rep. phone is always busy, never able to get a hold.. I don't have to visit them for next 10 years,,,, thank GOD..
lc1978
05-30 12:37 AM
:)
No comments:
Post a Comment