syedjaamy
04-22 04:11 PM
I am looking to be active in the Texas chapter....
Add one from Austin.
Add one from Austin.
wallpaper star wars natalie portman and
laborchic
10-06 11:39 AM
Its an honor to have such prestigious members on IV Advisory boards..
Great to know that we are in good hands..
Great to know that we are in good hands..
ItIsNotFunny
01-06 01:27 PM
Dear fellow IV'ians,
I just wanted to share my good news with all of you on the cusp of a New Year. I am ecstatic to announce that my 140 got approved after a nerve .... ID #85N48789NY4311439
And lastly - Wish You a Happy & Prosperous 2009!! Be safe everybody.
Congratulations! Wish you a GC soon.
I just wanted to share my good news with all of you on the cusp of a New Year. I am ecstatic to announce that my 140 got approved after a nerve .... ID #85N48789NY4311439
And lastly - Wish You a Happy & Prosperous 2009!! Be safe everybody.
Congratulations! Wish you a GC soon.
2011 natalie portman star wars hot.
punjabi
07-24 01:40 PM
Pls don't get me wrong but when your prior understanding was that You will join his company in near future, based on which he agreed to file your I-140 even if you have paid, why do you don't want to go by your word?
I know employers suck people like us here for GC, etc. but we as employees should also go by our word. If you stay on your decision to join his company now since I-140 is approved, you won't end up having complications at all.
Besides, it is give-and-take and at the most, you will have to work for a year or so with him.
Good luck.
Hi All-
I have a tricky scenario here, I need some input/guidance.
I came to USA during Dec 2003 through a California based Indian Consulting firm. I worked for him for 2 years. In between, he
applied the petition for my labor in April 2005 on eB2 Category and my I really appreciate your response in this regard.
Thanks!!
I know employers suck people like us here for GC, etc. but we as employees should also go by our word. If you stay on your decision to join his company now since I-140 is approved, you won't end up having complications at all.
Besides, it is give-and-take and at the most, you will have to work for a year or so with him.
Good luck.
Hi All-
I have a tricky scenario here, I need some input/guidance.
I came to USA during Dec 2003 through a California based Indian Consulting firm. I worked for him for 2 years. In between, he
applied the petition for my labor in April 2005 on eB2 Category and my I really appreciate your response in this regard.
Thanks!!
more...
sduddukuri
02-24 07:40 AM
My wife didnot apply for green card yet. I have EAD and AP. Since dates are not current my wife couldnt apply for GC
gc??
11-09 12:58 PM
Schumpeter: The other elephant | The Economist (http://www.economist.com/node/17414206)
When the US govt is ignoring the problems of legal immigration and making it harder and harder to immigrate (especially when the interest of foreign nationals to come here has subsided with unprecedented growth in their native country...) it is foolish to expect to lure skilled people to this country any more
When the US govt is ignoring the problems of legal immigration and making it harder and harder to immigrate (especially when the interest of foreign nationals to come here has subsided with unprecedented growth in their native country...) it is foolish to expect to lure skilled people to this country any more
more...
mambarg
07-26 12:57 PM
This person mailed on June 28 and app received on June 29 and got his notice date on July 24. Today.
I could have been with him today but for my attorney who got extremely busy and did not file my 485 with 140 and got stuck with July fiasco
I could have been with him today but for my attorney who got extremely busy and did not file my 485 with 140 and got stuck with July fiasco
2010 star wars natalie portman and
thomachan72
06-21 05:51 PM
I would suggest that before you take more interest in her case, first consult with her husband and make sure it is OK with him ;) ;) You know what I mean, right?:D
more...
pappu
11-20 01:08 PM
All pls PM each other and exchange phone numbers and emails so that you can start building your local IV community. Once you have contacted each other, you can start the action items for state chapters.
hair star wars natalie portman and
vikki76
04-15 09:19 PM
I agree to every comment made about Cathay /Singopore Airlines- but what are people's experiences with Emirates?
more...
ca_immigrant
07-31 08:31 PM
�Enhanced customer service tools including expanded Case Status Online with both email and text functionality.
What would be the expanded case status? like giving details what exactly is going on with case?
by expanded case status they mean that the case will have an expected date.
for eg, I am thking ofr my case they will say "GC expected in the next 10 to 11 years"
so see that is more information :rolleyes:
What would be the expanded case status? like giving details what exactly is going on with case?
by expanded case status they mean that the case will have an expected date.
for eg, I am thking ofr my case they will say "GC expected in the next 10 to 11 years"
so see that is more information :rolleyes:
hot natalie portman in star wars
dilipb
01-31 03:42 PM
I applied for 485 during last years July surge I think on July 19th 2007.
As per these 2 links it shows that 485 processing date is at July 19th 2007.
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
I am in PITTSBURGH, here too it shows as July 19th
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/officeProcesstimes.jsp?selectedOffice=55
I have already received EAD etc.
Does this mean that my Green card processing is starting now ?
Can anyone comment ?
As per these 2 links it shows that 485 processing date is at July 19th 2007.
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
I am in PITTSBURGH, here too it shows as July 19th
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/officeProcesstimes.jsp?selectedOffice=55
I have already received EAD etc.
Does this mean that my Green card processing is starting now ?
Can anyone comment ?
more...
house hot natalie portman star wars
meridiani.planum
07-09 01:08 AM
New company lawer is not accepting EAD, even though we don't have written approval confiramtion
How to conivince him to use EAD unti we got the phisical card?
Until you have the approval letter in the mail from USCIS or the physical card, they should be able to accept the EAD, as far as they are concerned its still a valid work document (all that has changed is an online status right).
Otherwise just wait a couple of weeks, you will hopefully have the GC in hand.
How to conivince him to use EAD unti we got the phisical card?
Until you have the approval letter in the mail from USCIS or the physical card, they should be able to accept the EAD, as far as they are concerned its still a valid work document (all that has changed is an online status right).
Otherwise just wait a couple of weeks, you will hopefully have the GC in hand.
tattoo A representative for NATALIE
veni001
06-22 02:44 PM
Make sure your LCA and H1B will be amended with the promotion first....
I have been working with my current employer for the last 5 years in job title
A (Software Engineer), which wasn't qualified for EB2. But now I will be been promoted to a significantly different job title and responsibilities B (Research Scientist), with the same employer and The requirements for that position are a Masters degree with
one year of experience. Does this qualify for a EB2 ? Does EB2 require managerial
experience i.e. should you be managing people or is that not a requirement? The employer will later file for a PERM labor in EB2.
For the purpose of EB2 labor for the new position, I need to show 1 year of
work experience.
Question: Would I be able to use/show the work experience I
gained when I was working in job title A with the same employer? i.e. Will I
be able to use on-the-job work experience that I gained before I was promoted
to the new position? Remember, the current job title B (for which EB2 labor is
being filed) and requirements are significantly different from the previous job
title A and requirements (which only qualified for a EB3). Have anyone got their
labor approved in EB2 with work experience from the same employer? Are there any
USCIS published documents that coult clarify this?
I have my I-140 approved in EB3 and I have also filed for 485. Assuming the EB2
labor certification gets approved, could I re-capture my EB3 Priority Date? If so,
what is the exact procedure for doing that?
Is the attempt to process my labor in EB2 completely independent of my
existing EB3 labor and I-140? Will a denial of EB2 labor affect my existing
EB3 approved labor and I-140?
Thanks much for your time in helping clarify this.
I have been working with my current employer for the last 5 years in job title
A (Software Engineer), which wasn't qualified for EB2. But now I will be been promoted to a significantly different job title and responsibilities B (Research Scientist), with the same employer and The requirements for that position are a Masters degree with
one year of experience. Does this qualify for a EB2 ? Does EB2 require managerial
experience i.e. should you be managing people or is that not a requirement? The employer will later file for a PERM labor in EB2.
For the purpose of EB2 labor for the new position, I need to show 1 year of
work experience.
Question: Would I be able to use/show the work experience I
gained when I was working in job title A with the same employer? i.e. Will I
be able to use on-the-job work experience that I gained before I was promoted
to the new position? Remember, the current job title B (for which EB2 labor is
being filed) and requirements are significantly different from the previous job
title A and requirements (which only qualified for a EB3). Have anyone got their
labor approved in EB2 with work experience from the same employer? Are there any
USCIS published documents that coult clarify this?
I have my I-140 approved in EB3 and I have also filed for 485. Assuming the EB2
labor certification gets approved, could I re-capture my EB3 Priority Date? If so,
what is the exact procedure for doing that?
Is the attempt to process my labor in EB2 completely independent of my
existing EB3 labor and I-140? Will a denial of EB2 labor affect my existing
EB3 approved labor and I-140?
Thanks much for your time in helping clarify this.
more...
pictures Keira khightley and Natalie
rr_immaculate
08-05 08:14 AM
Your I-94 SHOULD have the same number as the old one!
Whether they give you a new white and stamped or the printed I-797 I-94 is a moot point. The validity date and the number is what matters.
I was once given a new I-94 after visa stamping in Canada at the Derby Line border post in VT with the same I-94 # as the old (and printed I-797 I-94) for a $6 charge.
You saved $6. Go buy nice milkshakes for the family and be cool.
It is a non-issue.
Thanks for the reply.
The printed I-797 bottom left is for employee's records and the right part is the equivalent of the I-94. The officer did not put a seal with the expiry date (normally they put a seal on I-94 mentioning the visa type and expiry date) on the right part. If I am surrendering this part while leaving the country,how can they determine if I overstayed my I-94 date or not since there is no expiry date on the bottom right part.
Whether they give you a new white and stamped or the printed I-797 I-94 is a moot point. The validity date and the number is what matters.
I was once given a new I-94 after visa stamping in Canada at the Derby Line border post in VT with the same I-94 # as the old (and printed I-797 I-94) for a $6 charge.
You saved $6. Go buy nice milkshakes for the family and be cool.
It is a non-issue.
Thanks for the reply.
The printed I-797 bottom left is for employee's records and the right part is the equivalent of the I-94. The officer did not put a seal with the expiry date (normally they put a seal on I-94 mentioning the visa type and expiry date) on the right part. If I am surrendering this part while leaving the country,how can they determine if I overstayed my I-94 date or not since there is no expiry date on the bottom right part.
dresses natalie portman keira
Roger Binny
10-28 04:54 PM
Please check another attorney forums, i remember there was a news flash in which they agreed the degree substitution like yours.
more...
makeup star wars natalie portman and
Blog Feeds
02-10 08:50 PM
Most lawyers that are versed in the H1B visa process, are getting busier and busier these days. As we are nearing the April 1, 2010 filing deadline for the H1B visa. Many speculations out there as to when will the Cap be reached this year. The economy is still in recovery mode, and employers are careful before hiring. Yet, many Immigration experts feel the Cap will be met early this year, but when is the big question.
With drastic changes to the Labor Condition Application (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/07/icert_portal_for_lca_filing.html)process (now taking more than 7 days to process), as well as unreasonable denials (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/08/h1b_visa_lawyer_about_icert_wo.html), planning early is the key to a successful H1B case this year. But in this post, I want to go back to the basics, the Cap and the legislative background.
Background
On October 21, 1998 Congress passed, and the President signed into law, the much debated American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-277 (hereinafter ACWIA). This legislation was first introduced by Senator Spencer Abraham (R-MI), the Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, in response to the inadequate numbers of H-1B visas available in any fiscal year. As part of the Immigration Act of 1990, Congress imposed a 65,000 per year cap on these visas. In 1997, the cap was reached prior to the end of the fiscal year. The situation grew to crisis proportions in fiscal year 1998 when all 65,000 visas numbers were taken in May of 1998.
In early March 1998, Senator Abraham introduced a bill entitled, "The American Competitiveness Act." The legislation was introduced on the heels of numerous reports and hearings concerning the high tech worker shortage in the United States. The primary goal of the legislation was to address the looming exhaustion of the H-1B professional or specialty occupation worker visa numbers. (http://www.h1b.biz/lawyer-attorney-1137085.html)
The ACWIA went through many different stages before an agreement could be reached. A complete elimination of the cap had originally been proposed by Senator Abraham. The legislation was then modified to increase the number of H-1B visa numbers available during the government fiscal year; provide additional funds for scholarships in the computer science and mathematics areas; increase enforcement of the Department of Labor component of the H-1B visa process; and provide clarification on the prevailing wage requirements of the process. The legislation also addressed permanent residence by providing for an extension of the H-1B visa should a permanent residence petition be pending, and through restructuring the allocation of the employment-based immigrant visa numbers.
This legislative game between conservative isolationists/liberal protectors of the U.S. workforce and moderate Democrats and Republicans supporting business needs and demands, caused chaos among U.S.-based businesses in need of skilled professional workers. From May 11, 1998 until October 1, 1998 U.S. businesses, research institutions and other organizations were unable to recruit foreign workers as temporary professionals. With the U.S. economy still booming and unemployment rates remaining at an all-time low, businesses, especially in the high tech sector, encountered many problems as a result of the cut-off in H-1B visa availability. These problems included, but were not limited to, taking employees off the U.S. payroll, sending employees back to their home country or to sites outside the U.S. as well as the termination of some critical development projects.
Requirements in the Statute
The ACWIA purportedly balances the need for increased professional visas numbers for foreign workers and the desire to protect the U.S. workforce. The following is a summary of the significant changes made by the legislation.
A. Temporary Increase in the Number of Professional Visas Available
There will be an increase from 65,000 to 115,000 visas for fiscal year 1999 and 2000 (through September 30, 2000). In fiscal year 2001, 107,500 visas will be available. Beginning October 1, 2001 the numbers will revert back to 65,000.
B. Electronic Postings
LCA notices may be posted electronically in situations without a bargaining representative. This provision was effective upon date of enactment.
C. Attestations Required for Employers Dependent Upon Foreign Professionals
U.S. employers of 51 or more employees, whose workforce is comprised of 15% or more foreign nationals in the H-1B category are considered dependent employers and must make certain attestations. Employers will also be considered dependent if they employ 26- 50 full time employees and have more than 12 H-1B employees or if they employ 7 -25 employees and have more than 7 H-1B employees.
The dependent employer must attest that it has not and will not displace a U.S. worker within 90 days before and 90 days after filing the visa application. This attestation carries through to employers who place employees at another worksite. The H-1B dependent employer must also attest that it has taken good faith steps to recruit U.S. workers using industry wide standards and has offered the position to any U.S. worker who is equally or better qualified for the job the foreign worker is sought.
H-1B employees with a Master�s degree or a salary of $60,000 or higher are not included in the attestation requirements and for the first 6 months following the implementation will not be included in the dependent employer calculation.
D. Increased Enforcement and Penalties for Violations
The Department of Labor may fine employers between $1,000-$35,000 per violation and preclude participation in the H-1B program for up to three years.
E. Back Benching H-1B Employees
Employers must pay H-1B nonimmigrants the wage stated on the H-1B petition even if the beneficiary is in nonproductive status. This does not apply to non-productive time due to non work related factors.
F. Benefits
Employers must offer foreign workers benefits and eligibility for insurance, disability, retirement and savings plans, stock options, etc., on the same basis as offerings made to U.S. workers.
G. Additional Fee for Use of H-1B Program
Beginning December 1, 1998, employers are required to pay an additional fee of $500 for an initial H-1B petition and for the first extension. These fees are to be used to support job training programs and scholarships for U.S. workers.
H. Prevailing Wage Computations
For institutions of higher education, related or affiliated non-profit entities or non profit or governmental research organizations, the prevailing wage shall take into account employees at such institutions in the area of employment.
I. Academic Honoraria
Payments of honoraria may now be made to B-1 and B-2 visitors for usual academic activity lasting 9 days at an academic institution or affiliated non-profit entity or a non-profit governmental research organization. No more than 5 honorarium may be received within a six month period.
Employers based in the U.S. now have a temporary reprieve when hiring foreign professionals. However, it is uncertain whether the 65,000 visas for this fiscal year will be adequate to meet the demand for this year and next. Some government officials estimate that visas will be unavailable as early as the beginning of May 2010. In addition, it is still unclear what is on the legislative horizon, reform or not. Pro Immigrants want to come with a proposal to reform legal immigration. U.S. employers employing foreign nationals in any capacity would be well advised to carefully monitor future legislative and regulatory proposals on the horizon. All I can say is that if you plan on hiring a foreign worker, you better call your lawyer now!!!
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2010/02/h1b_visa_lawyer_the_filing_sea.html)
With drastic changes to the Labor Condition Application (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/07/icert_portal_for_lca_filing.html)process (now taking more than 7 days to process), as well as unreasonable denials (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/08/h1b_visa_lawyer_about_icert_wo.html), planning early is the key to a successful H1B case this year. But in this post, I want to go back to the basics, the Cap and the legislative background.
Background
On October 21, 1998 Congress passed, and the President signed into law, the much debated American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-277 (hereinafter ACWIA). This legislation was first introduced by Senator Spencer Abraham (R-MI), the Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, in response to the inadequate numbers of H-1B visas available in any fiscal year. As part of the Immigration Act of 1990, Congress imposed a 65,000 per year cap on these visas. In 1997, the cap was reached prior to the end of the fiscal year. The situation grew to crisis proportions in fiscal year 1998 when all 65,000 visas numbers were taken in May of 1998.
In early March 1998, Senator Abraham introduced a bill entitled, "The American Competitiveness Act." The legislation was introduced on the heels of numerous reports and hearings concerning the high tech worker shortage in the United States. The primary goal of the legislation was to address the looming exhaustion of the H-1B professional or specialty occupation worker visa numbers. (http://www.h1b.biz/lawyer-attorney-1137085.html)
The ACWIA went through many different stages before an agreement could be reached. A complete elimination of the cap had originally been proposed by Senator Abraham. The legislation was then modified to increase the number of H-1B visa numbers available during the government fiscal year; provide additional funds for scholarships in the computer science and mathematics areas; increase enforcement of the Department of Labor component of the H-1B visa process; and provide clarification on the prevailing wage requirements of the process. The legislation also addressed permanent residence by providing for an extension of the H-1B visa should a permanent residence petition be pending, and through restructuring the allocation of the employment-based immigrant visa numbers.
This legislative game between conservative isolationists/liberal protectors of the U.S. workforce and moderate Democrats and Republicans supporting business needs and demands, caused chaos among U.S.-based businesses in need of skilled professional workers. From May 11, 1998 until October 1, 1998 U.S. businesses, research institutions and other organizations were unable to recruit foreign workers as temporary professionals. With the U.S. economy still booming and unemployment rates remaining at an all-time low, businesses, especially in the high tech sector, encountered many problems as a result of the cut-off in H-1B visa availability. These problems included, but were not limited to, taking employees off the U.S. payroll, sending employees back to their home country or to sites outside the U.S. as well as the termination of some critical development projects.
Requirements in the Statute
The ACWIA purportedly balances the need for increased professional visas numbers for foreign workers and the desire to protect the U.S. workforce. The following is a summary of the significant changes made by the legislation.
A. Temporary Increase in the Number of Professional Visas Available
There will be an increase from 65,000 to 115,000 visas for fiscal year 1999 and 2000 (through September 30, 2000). In fiscal year 2001, 107,500 visas will be available. Beginning October 1, 2001 the numbers will revert back to 65,000.
B. Electronic Postings
LCA notices may be posted electronically in situations without a bargaining representative. This provision was effective upon date of enactment.
C. Attestations Required for Employers Dependent Upon Foreign Professionals
U.S. employers of 51 or more employees, whose workforce is comprised of 15% or more foreign nationals in the H-1B category are considered dependent employers and must make certain attestations. Employers will also be considered dependent if they employ 26- 50 full time employees and have more than 12 H-1B employees or if they employ 7 -25 employees and have more than 7 H-1B employees.
The dependent employer must attest that it has not and will not displace a U.S. worker within 90 days before and 90 days after filing the visa application. This attestation carries through to employers who place employees at another worksite. The H-1B dependent employer must also attest that it has taken good faith steps to recruit U.S. workers using industry wide standards and has offered the position to any U.S. worker who is equally or better qualified for the job the foreign worker is sought.
H-1B employees with a Master�s degree or a salary of $60,000 or higher are not included in the attestation requirements and for the first 6 months following the implementation will not be included in the dependent employer calculation.
D. Increased Enforcement and Penalties for Violations
The Department of Labor may fine employers between $1,000-$35,000 per violation and preclude participation in the H-1B program for up to three years.
E. Back Benching H-1B Employees
Employers must pay H-1B nonimmigrants the wage stated on the H-1B petition even if the beneficiary is in nonproductive status. This does not apply to non-productive time due to non work related factors.
F. Benefits
Employers must offer foreign workers benefits and eligibility for insurance, disability, retirement and savings plans, stock options, etc., on the same basis as offerings made to U.S. workers.
G. Additional Fee for Use of H-1B Program
Beginning December 1, 1998, employers are required to pay an additional fee of $500 for an initial H-1B petition and for the first extension. These fees are to be used to support job training programs and scholarships for U.S. workers.
H. Prevailing Wage Computations
For institutions of higher education, related or affiliated non-profit entities or non profit or governmental research organizations, the prevailing wage shall take into account employees at such institutions in the area of employment.
I. Academic Honoraria
Payments of honoraria may now be made to B-1 and B-2 visitors for usual academic activity lasting 9 days at an academic institution or affiliated non-profit entity or a non-profit governmental research organization. No more than 5 honorarium may be received within a six month period.
Employers based in the U.S. now have a temporary reprieve when hiring foreign professionals. However, it is uncertain whether the 65,000 visas for this fiscal year will be adequate to meet the demand for this year and next. Some government officials estimate that visas will be unavailable as early as the beginning of May 2010. In addition, it is still unclear what is on the legislative horizon, reform or not. Pro Immigrants want to come with a proposal to reform legal immigration. U.S. employers employing foreign nationals in any capacity would be well advised to carefully monitor future legislative and regulatory proposals on the horizon. All I can say is that if you plan on hiring a foreign worker, you better call your lawyer now!!!
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2010/02/h1b_visa_lawyer_the_filing_sea.html)
girlfriend star wars natalie portman and
shx
07-17 12:13 PM
/\/\/\
\/\/\/
\/\/\/
hairstyles star wars natalie portman
transpass
08-04 11:34 AM
Yep, how about a rally in front of Nebraska Service Center ;)
Yeah, may be a cycle rally...:p
Yeah, may be a cycle rally...:p
Pagal
02-06 04:38 PM
I am a CDN citizen, so I know it a bit better.
:) I believe you... for me tax treaty is a 'nice-to-have', but the dual standards of taxation vs living status is my issue.
Taxation on consumption is my preference, but of course, that would be too logical for politicians and bureaucrats... ;)
See www.fairtax.org for details.
:) I believe you... for me tax treaty is a 'nice-to-have', but the dual standards of taxation vs living status is my issue.
Taxation on consumption is my preference, but of course, that would be too logical for politicians and bureaucrats... ;)
See www.fairtax.org for details.
viveksri
02-28 02:13 AM
Per RFE for I485 they want the proof of Employment Authorization in US starting 12th April 2004 to present.
I was going thru my all the I-797 approvals for myself and I found that there is a discontinuity in one of the old approval notice.
WAC-01-XXX-XXXXX 07/15/2001 - 04/05/2004
WAC-04- XXX-XXXXX 04/30/2004 - 01/18/2005 (This approval start after 25 days)
But the extension petition was filed prior to expiration of WAC-01-XXX-XXXXX on 17th Dec. 2003. Approval notice has the receive date of 17th Dec 2003.
Could this gap be a issue, That is why they are asking starting 12th April 2004?
Per my Lawyer, no need to worry because the extension petition was filed before the expiration of other.
Please advice.
VS
I was going thru my all the I-797 approvals for myself and I found that there is a discontinuity in one of the old approval notice.
WAC-01-XXX-XXXXX 07/15/2001 - 04/05/2004
WAC-04- XXX-XXXXX 04/30/2004 - 01/18/2005 (This approval start after 25 days)
But the extension petition was filed prior to expiration of WAC-01-XXX-XXXXX on 17th Dec. 2003. Approval notice has the receive date of 17th Dec 2003.
Could this gap be a issue, That is why they are asking starting 12th April 2004?
Per my Lawyer, no need to worry because the extension petition was filed before the expiration of other.
Please advice.
VS