NKR
04-02 02:57 PM
D.R.D ??
OK It's D.E.D. D.E.D owes us an apology.
OK It's D.E.D. D.E.D owes us an apology.
wallpaper Photo from quot;Lauren Conrad and
swo
07-20 01:22 PM
It makes me laugh. Everyone screams and jumps up and down that they can't be part of a 750,000 person flood to USCIS.
And then they get that right.
And then they get all mad that they have to wait for their EADs.
I don't see how USCIS could ever make anyone happy!
And then they get that right.
And then they get all mad that they have to wait for their EADs.
I don't see how USCIS could ever make anyone happy!
9years
10-21 02:40 PM
Thank you all and I will contribute. to IV.
2011 Whatever happens with Lauren#39;s
apb
03-06 05:16 PM
Few observations based on thread postings
1) Last year around this same time not many RFE/LUD were seen.
2) Most of these cases with RFE/LUD are either EB2 around 2005-2006 or EB3 2003-2004
3) My Lawyer based out of IL confirming RFEs are in high volume and majority of these are Employment verification with Birth verification and Health letter verification as close second.
Now given the gov attitude and the current scenario it does not seem that they would be interested in pre-adjudication. There is something else that is going on. On the same note I am also seeing that people with dates which could possibly be current anytime this year are not seeing any LUD/RFE. If pre-adjudicating is the objective than these cases should have received the RFEs first.
Just my observation. Any input is appreciated.
1) Last year around this same time not many RFE/LUD were seen.
2) Most of these cases with RFE/LUD are either EB2 around 2005-2006 or EB3 2003-2004
3) My Lawyer based out of IL confirming RFEs are in high volume and majority of these are Employment verification with Birth verification and Health letter verification as close second.
Now given the gov attitude and the current scenario it does not seem that they would be interested in pre-adjudication. There is something else that is going on. On the same note I am also seeing that people with dates which could possibly be current anytime this year are not seeing any LUD/RFE. If pre-adjudicating is the objective than these cases should have received the RFEs first.
Just my observation. Any input is appreciated.
more...
dtekkedil
10-01 04:21 PM
A cut-off date avoids submission of AOS applications with PD after cut-off date. In my opinion, this was the only reason to retrogress on July 2: avoid AOS submission whose PDs became current in July.
Now nearly all AOS applications have been submitted. Hence, setting cut-off dates conservatively is not that motivating.
If let us say 20,000 visas were unallocated in 2007 and USCIS realized that on the 28th of September, 2007, they still wont be able to use up those 20,000 visas. Because the priority dates were pushed back so far that there probably isn't that many applications that have completed the fingerprinting and name check stage. So, we have another reason to believe that USCIS may not be able to use up all the visa numbers just because of the priority dates (even if they worked throughout the weekend).
So it makes sense "now" to put the cut off dates a little conservatively because USCIS has already received those applications. They should be allowed to approve them according to the visa number availability and the case status in a first come first serve basis (considering the receipt and priority dates).
Now nearly all AOS applications have been submitted. Hence, setting cut-off dates conservatively is not that motivating.
If let us say 20,000 visas were unallocated in 2007 and USCIS realized that on the 28th of September, 2007, they still wont be able to use up those 20,000 visas. Because the priority dates were pushed back so far that there probably isn't that many applications that have completed the fingerprinting and name check stage. So, we have another reason to believe that USCIS may not be able to use up all the visa numbers just because of the priority dates (even if they worked throughout the weekend).
So it makes sense "now" to put the cut off dates a little conservatively because USCIS has already received those applications. They should be allowed to approve them according to the visa number availability and the case status in a first come first serve basis (considering the receipt and priority dates).
newbie2020
05-02 02:45 PM
I don't see Visas Recapture bill going any where.
It seems USCIS wants to potray that they are doing great job by doing various Process improvements. USCIS indirectly wants to say that eventually USCIS process will be improved to the extent that there will be no Visas wasted.
I think this was the most straight forward and simple bill. Other bills like removing the country limit are more challenging.So I don't see anything happening from immigration point unless democrats take over both senate and House in late 2008.
Hope for any legislative changes only in 2009 and beyond and not in 2008.
It really appeared to me that by the way lofgren asked the questions, and her comments (So recapturing is first step, She mentions "i will let the co-author know that you like the bill to uscis/state dept officials" etc. See the video again if u missed it out) makes me think they will go ahead and introduce in house for voting. What happens in the house is upto your speculation. Lets cross the fingers and wait for updates.
by the way they have 5 business days to ask any questions or clarifications which will end on Wednesday, So until then lets sit tight.
It seems USCIS wants to potray that they are doing great job by doing various Process improvements. USCIS indirectly wants to say that eventually USCIS process will be improved to the extent that there will be no Visas wasted.
I think this was the most straight forward and simple bill. Other bills like removing the country limit are more challenging.So I don't see anything happening from immigration point unless democrats take over both senate and House in late 2008.
Hope for any legislative changes only in 2009 and beyond and not in 2008.
It really appeared to me that by the way lofgren asked the questions, and her comments (So recapturing is first step, She mentions "i will let the co-author know that you like the bill to uscis/state dept officials" etc. See the video again if u missed it out) makes me think they will go ahead and introduce in house for voting. What happens in the house is upto your speculation. Lets cross the fingers and wait for updates.
by the way they have 5 business days to ask any questions or clarifications which will end on Wednesday, So until then lets sit tight.
more...
digital2k
05-07 04:20 PM
Vowww
It feels great to have called everyone and making sure friends call as well ..
Pls Don't wait any longer, pick up your phone and be part of it NOW
Make sure you motivate others also
Let those phones be busy for the GOOD
For your convenience here are all the details :
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum85-action-items-for-everyone/1391371-cir-national-phone-campaign-29th-april-2010-to-14th-may-2010-a-post1751338.html#post1751338 (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum85-action-items-for-everyone/1391371-cir-national-phone-campaign-29th-april-2010-to-14th-may-2010-a-post1751338.html#post1751338)
This is The call
Don't miss the chance
IV and We suceeded in July, 2 Year EAD and many more ...
Pls pick up the phone and do your bit
IV is YOU and is Your Best Friend
It feels great to have called everyone and making sure friends call as well ..
Pls Don't wait any longer, pick up your phone and be part of it NOW
Make sure you motivate others also
Let those phones be busy for the GOOD
For your convenience here are all the details :
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum85-action-items-for-everyone/1391371-cir-national-phone-campaign-29th-april-2010-to-14th-may-2010-a-post1751338.html#post1751338 (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum85-action-items-for-everyone/1391371-cir-national-phone-campaign-29th-april-2010-to-14th-may-2010-a-post1751338.html#post1751338)
This is The call
Don't miss the chance
IV and We suceeded in July, 2 Year EAD and many more ...
Pls pick up the phone and do your bit
IV is YOU and is Your Best Friend
2010 lauren-conrad-kyle-howard
akhilmahajan
09-14 08:31 AM
ya Milind- I did contribute.
Danny, put the transaction details on there. Like the time and the transaction number.
Danny, put the transaction details on there. Like the time and the transaction number.
more...
makemygc
10-25 11:59 PM
I've sent the mails and strongly encourage everyone to come out and take an early action before this gets worse. Even if you are not affected right now, support the cause to make sure that you will not be affected in the future.
Also, just wanted to point out some notes that letter says that Yates memo is attached, so if you are blindly copy and pasting make sure that you attach the Memo to your email or a copy to your letter.
I would suggest OP to add the copy of yates memo and the follow up memo to the posting.
Thanks
MakeMyGC
Issue/Background:
It seems USCIS is not following AC21 regulations in some cases � especially when underlying I140 is revoked by previous employer � and are incorrectly denying I485 applications. As we know, AC21 regulations and related guidelines, provide some relief and allow job changes without affecting the I485 application. As per these rules if the employee changes employment after 180 days of submitting I485 application, there is no need to redo I140 even-if old employer revokes the old I140.
In recent days USCIS seems to be denying lot of I485 applications � ignoring their own AC21 regulations. A few of IV volunteers (pd_recapturing, gc4me, chanduv et al) have started an effort to address this. You can get more info on this, at this thread: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21716.
This issue can affect a lot of us and it negates all the flexibility/relief that we acquired by getting EAD�s and advantages we got thru recent admin reform.
What needs to be done:
After some initial discussions and planning (thanks to pd-capturing, chandu, et al) it is decided to write letters to Ombudsman and service center heads to point out this and request them to correct it ASAP. Please participate and send letters. To succeed we need to send it in thousands.
Pasting the letter and the addresses below.
More info: (thanks to gc4me for addresses and letter template):
======================
Everyone please send the letter/email to 3 persons.
1. Ombudsman
2. Director, NSC
3. Director, TSC
======================
Ombudsman:
cisombudsman@dhs.gov
Mailing Address:
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
ATTN: Recommendations
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
=======================
Nebraska Service Center
Director: Gerard Heinauer
General Correspondence (Inquiries) (Sending applications or petitions to this address will delay their processing)
USCIS NSC
P.O. Box 82521
Lincoln, NE 68501-2521
NOTE: If using overnight delivery by any private service provider, send your package to:
USCIS
Nebraska Service Center
850 S Street
P.O. Box (Insert Correct P.O. Box Number)
Lincoln, NE 68508
Be sure to include the appropriate P.O. Box number on the shipping label.
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Suite 7000
Washington, DC 20529
or email: USCIS-COMPLAINT@DHS.GOV
=====================
Director: David Roark
General
Correspondence:
USCIS TSC
PO Box 851488
Mesquite, TX 75185-1488
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Ste 7000, Washington, DC 20529
============================
Letter
============================
Date: Today()
To
Mr. Michael Timothy Dougherty
The Ombudsman
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Re: Issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines
Dear Sir,
This is to bring your attention to the issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines.
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) allows for a change of employer on any I-485 Adjustment of Status Application that has been pending for 180 days or more, without the need to file a new I-140 petition, provided the applicant�s new employment is in a similar/same occupation.
According to the Memo released by William R Yates on August 4th 2003, the original I-140 is valid if it is approvable and form I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days. (Attached for your reference is the memo dated August 4th 2003 from William R Yates and the follow-up memo dated May 12th 2005 with relevant sections highlighted).
Due to unreasonable delays caused by retrogression, many candidates have lawfully changed employers in accordance with the AC21 statute. Even though there is no requirement that USCIS be notified after a job change, some applicants have done so to prove that they are in compliance with this regulation. If the previous employer has withdrawn the previously approved I-140, AC21 guidelines state that if the applicant has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the applicant be sent an NOID (Notice of Intent to Deny) to deny the I-485 application or a RFE (Request for Evidence) . If the response to the NOID/RFE is timely and indicates that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, USCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485.
Over the past few months, a disturbing pattern has emerged with cases where the applicant has changed employers. USCIS has started to deny I-485applications where the underlying I-140 has been withdrawn by the previous employer without issuing an NOID or RFE. Even those applicants who have notified USCIS of change in employers have had their I-485 denied.
After the denial of I-485, the applicant has to file a MTR (Motion to reconsider) with USCIS to re-open the case. In addition to the financial burden of filing and legal fees, the applicant has to stop working because of the denial of the I-485 until the case is re-opened. This could be anywhere from a month to a few months. Needless to say, employers are unwilling to keep the job position open for such a long period and the applicant in most cases is looking at potential loss of employment. The applicant who has followed the law to the fullest extent is unfairly punished on account of USCIS not following the AC21 provisions.
This is a request for you to intervene to ensure that the AC21 regulations are followed when adjudicating an I-485 application. If the applicant notifies USCIS of a change in employment under AC21, this should be added the applicant�s physical file and electronic records. If there is no such notification and the previous employer withdraws the I-140, the applicant should be issued a NOID/RFE instead of denying the I-485 application.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact.
Thank you in advance for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Thanks,
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone Number
Also, just wanted to point out some notes that letter says that Yates memo is attached, so if you are blindly copy and pasting make sure that you attach the Memo to your email or a copy to your letter.
I would suggest OP to add the copy of yates memo and the follow up memo to the posting.
Thanks
MakeMyGC
Issue/Background:
It seems USCIS is not following AC21 regulations in some cases � especially when underlying I140 is revoked by previous employer � and are incorrectly denying I485 applications. As we know, AC21 regulations and related guidelines, provide some relief and allow job changes without affecting the I485 application. As per these rules if the employee changes employment after 180 days of submitting I485 application, there is no need to redo I140 even-if old employer revokes the old I140.
In recent days USCIS seems to be denying lot of I485 applications � ignoring their own AC21 regulations. A few of IV volunteers (pd_recapturing, gc4me, chanduv et al) have started an effort to address this. You can get more info on this, at this thread: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21716.
This issue can affect a lot of us and it negates all the flexibility/relief that we acquired by getting EAD�s and advantages we got thru recent admin reform.
What needs to be done:
After some initial discussions and planning (thanks to pd-capturing, chandu, et al) it is decided to write letters to Ombudsman and service center heads to point out this and request them to correct it ASAP. Please participate and send letters. To succeed we need to send it in thousands.
Pasting the letter and the addresses below.
More info: (thanks to gc4me for addresses and letter template):
======================
Everyone please send the letter/email to 3 persons.
1. Ombudsman
2. Director, NSC
3. Director, TSC
======================
Ombudsman:
cisombudsman@dhs.gov
Mailing Address:
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
ATTN: Recommendations
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
=======================
Nebraska Service Center
Director: Gerard Heinauer
General Correspondence (Inquiries) (Sending applications or petitions to this address will delay their processing)
USCIS NSC
P.O. Box 82521
Lincoln, NE 68501-2521
NOTE: If using overnight delivery by any private service provider, send your package to:
USCIS
Nebraska Service Center
850 S Street
P.O. Box (Insert Correct P.O. Box Number)
Lincoln, NE 68508
Be sure to include the appropriate P.O. Box number on the shipping label.
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Suite 7000
Washington, DC 20529
or email: USCIS-COMPLAINT@DHS.GOV
=====================
Director: David Roark
General
Correspondence:
USCIS TSC
PO Box 851488
Mesquite, TX 75185-1488
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Ste 7000, Washington, DC 20529
============================
Letter
============================
Date: Today()
To
Mr. Michael Timothy Dougherty
The Ombudsman
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Re: Issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines
Dear Sir,
This is to bring your attention to the issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines.
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) allows for a change of employer on any I-485 Adjustment of Status Application that has been pending for 180 days or more, without the need to file a new I-140 petition, provided the applicant�s new employment is in a similar/same occupation.
According to the Memo released by William R Yates on August 4th 2003, the original I-140 is valid if it is approvable and form I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days. (Attached for your reference is the memo dated August 4th 2003 from William R Yates and the follow-up memo dated May 12th 2005 with relevant sections highlighted).
Due to unreasonable delays caused by retrogression, many candidates have lawfully changed employers in accordance with the AC21 statute. Even though there is no requirement that USCIS be notified after a job change, some applicants have done so to prove that they are in compliance with this regulation. If the previous employer has withdrawn the previously approved I-140, AC21 guidelines state that if the applicant has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the applicant be sent an NOID (Notice of Intent to Deny) to deny the I-485 application or a RFE (Request for Evidence) . If the response to the NOID/RFE is timely and indicates that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, USCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485.
Over the past few months, a disturbing pattern has emerged with cases where the applicant has changed employers. USCIS has started to deny I-485applications where the underlying I-140 has been withdrawn by the previous employer without issuing an NOID or RFE. Even those applicants who have notified USCIS of change in employers have had their I-485 denied.
After the denial of I-485, the applicant has to file a MTR (Motion to reconsider) with USCIS to re-open the case. In addition to the financial burden of filing and legal fees, the applicant has to stop working because of the denial of the I-485 until the case is re-opened. This could be anywhere from a month to a few months. Needless to say, employers are unwilling to keep the job position open for such a long period and the applicant in most cases is looking at potential loss of employment. The applicant who has followed the law to the fullest extent is unfairly punished on account of USCIS not following the AC21 provisions.
This is a request for you to intervene to ensure that the AC21 regulations are followed when adjudicating an I-485 application. If the applicant notifies USCIS of a change in employment under AC21, this should be added the applicant�s physical file and electronic records. If there is no such notification and the previous employer withdraws the I-140, the applicant should be issued a NOID/RFE instead of denying the I-485 application.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact.
Thank you in advance for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Thanks,
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone Number
hair LC and Kyle PDA Sunday 6
purgan
08-17 11:29 PM
grupak/mirage/pani6
i support your efforts and have printed out and sent letters to the people mentioned. Momentum for release of information should build up even if we have 50-100 letters from affected people...otherwise people won't know of EB-3 IND's plight.
I suppose we should followup with phone calls in 15 days to cement our request. We should have a poll on who all has sent the letter and made the call.
i support your efforts and have printed out and sent letters to the people mentioned. Momentum for release of information should build up even if we have 50-100 letters from affected people...otherwise people won't know of EB-3 IND's plight.
I suppose we should followup with phone calls in 15 days to cement our request. We should have a poll on who all has sent the letter and made the call.
more...
JunRN
08-20 09:36 PM
While Illegal immigrants are simply using international drivers license, we, legal immigrants, are having difficulty getting to drive legally. This is simply ridiculous.
hot lauren conrad and kyle howard
immm
07-19 01:21 PM
Cases will be processed on RD only. However approval is based on PD.
Due to heavy backlogs, it is automatically assured that the person with an older PD will get his GC first - even if he filed later.
Not necessarily. Here is a hypothetical scenario:
PersonA = PD of May 30th, 2003 and RD of June 15th, 2007.
Assume that an additional 150,000 I-485 applications were filed petween PersonA and PersonB
PersonB = PD of May 15, 2002 and RD of July 15th 2007.
USCIS starts pre-adjudicating cases based on Receipt date. Assume that by October 1, 2007, they have pre-adjudicated PersonA plus 9,000 of the 150,000 applications and haven't reached PersonB's application yet (they go by RD).
Assuming that the visa cutoff date in Oct, 2007 bulletin is June, 2003 making both PersonA and personB current:
PersonA (PD of 2003) will get a visa number and get the case approved while PersonB (PD of 2002) with an older priority date will have to wait a while because his case hasn't been touched by USCIS yet due to the additional 150,000 filings in between that have to be pre-adjudicated first based on RD even if they have 2004/2005/2006/2007 priority dates!!
.
Due to heavy backlogs, it is automatically assured that the person with an older PD will get his GC first - even if he filed later.
Not necessarily. Here is a hypothetical scenario:
PersonA = PD of May 30th, 2003 and RD of June 15th, 2007.
Assume that an additional 150,000 I-485 applications were filed petween PersonA and PersonB
PersonB = PD of May 15, 2002 and RD of July 15th 2007.
USCIS starts pre-adjudicating cases based on Receipt date. Assume that by October 1, 2007, they have pre-adjudicated PersonA plus 9,000 of the 150,000 applications and haven't reached PersonB's application yet (they go by RD).
Assuming that the visa cutoff date in Oct, 2007 bulletin is June, 2003 making both PersonA and personB current:
PersonA (PD of 2003) will get a visa number and get the case approved while PersonB (PD of 2002) with an older priority date will have to wait a while because his case hasn't been touched by USCIS yet due to the additional 150,000 filings in between that have to be pre-adjudicated first based on RD even if they have 2004/2005/2006/2007 priority dates!!
.
more...
house Kyle Howard Actor Kyle Howard
paskal
09-11 12:08 PM
Hi,
Just bought a NY t-shirt and selected fast delivery. See you all there.
looking forward to seeing you in DC!! :D
Just bought a NY t-shirt and selected fast delivery. See you all there.
looking forward to seeing you in DC!! :D
tattoo Lauren CONRAD and KYLE Howard
ashutrip
06-20 10:21 AM
My employer is a big wall street investment bank, and they have filed my PERM on May 14th.
The trend for PERM certification at Atlanta, as per my employer is between 90-120 days. Because they handled so many PERM cases at Atlanta, they know this trend.
Nothing muck we can do here. Just pray and hope for the best.
enough of america....:mad: :mad: :mad: I am moving to UAE.....two hrs journey to goa India....no Income Tax:p :p :)
The trend for PERM certification at Atlanta, as per my employer is between 90-120 days. Because they handled so many PERM cases at Atlanta, they know this trend.
Nothing muck we can do here. Just pray and hope for the best.
enough of america....:mad: :mad: :mad: I am moving to UAE.....two hrs journey to goa India....no Income Tax:p :p :)
more...
pictures Lauren Conrad and Kyle Howard
CADude
07-26 04:47 PM
Read Section 6 of SOP [first para]. Please don't guess. As explained by many it's combination of RD and PD.
I think it will be based on the receipt date because if we look at the Service Center Processing Dates, they mention "Now Processing Cases with Receipt Notice Date of".
Any suggestions??
I think it will be based on the receipt date because if we look at the Service Center Processing Dates, they mention "Now Processing Cases with Receipt Notice Date of".
Any suggestions??
dresses Although Lauren Conrad admits
rkotamurthy
02-08 06:58 PM
Thanks Pappu. I have scheduled next conf call for Friday, 2/9 at 7.00 PM PST. Call 641-297-5900 PassCode 562404. Would you care to join?
more...
makeup Lauren Conrad and Kyle Howard
spce94mech
09-09 07:10 PM
I can't make it to the rally in DC. However, my best wishes are with IV.
Here are my contribution details :
Order Details - Sep 9, 2007 4:31 PM PDT
Google Order #121154041190431
spce04mech
Here are my contribution details :
Order Details - Sep 9, 2007 4:31 PM PDT
Google Order #121154041190431
spce04mech
girlfriend LC and Kyle PDA Sunday 2
santb1975
05-23 11:53 AM
I remember you. You have made a 50$ one time contribution and signed up for 50$ monthly recurring contribution. Am I correct?. Your name has been counted once in the one time contribution pool and once in the recurring contributions pool
Actually I paid $100 and not $50. It was two $50 on the same day.
Actually I paid $100 and not $50. It was two $50 on the same day.
hairstyles lauren conrad and kyle howard
GCwaitforever
04-30 03:08 PM
Transformation program is randomly processing applications to thier liking and ignoring priority date, FIFO etc ... From this chaos, order generates itself. Kind of testing Chaos theory. :D
GayatriS
01-08 06:40 PM
what is this "professor-ji" all about?
are you his student or relative? y r u getting personal about a conversation.
I didn't leave my respect and humility behind in India when I came here as obviously you did!
are you his student or relative? y r u getting personal about a conversation.
I didn't leave my respect and humility behind in India when I came here as obviously you did!
reachtoravi
07-20 12:23 AM
Donated one time $100 ...
Just now signed up for $50 a month recurring contribution ...
Thanks to IV for all great work.
Just now signed up for $50 a month recurring contribution ...
Thanks to IV for all great work.
