Justice Department Finds Practices of Discriminatory Policing in North Carolina

The Justice Department found that the Alamance County Sheriff’s Office (ACSO) in North Carolina operates in a practice of discriminatory policing, specifically targeting Latinos.

Policing Practices in Violation of the Constitution and Federal Law

By using methods that discriminate against Latinos, ACSO has violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; the Fourth Amendment; the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act; and Title VI. ACSO’s modes of discriminatory policing are as follows:

  • ACSO deputies target Latino drivers for traffic stops;
  • A study of ACSO’s traffic stops on three major county roadways found that deputies were between four and 10 times more likely to stop Latino drivers than non-Latino drivers;
  • ACSO deputies routinely locate checkpoints just outside Latino neighborhoods, forcing residents to endure police checks when entering or leaving their communities;
  • ACSO practices at vehicle checkpoints often vary based on a driver’s ethnicity.   Deputies insist on examining identification of Latino drivers, while allowing drivers of other ethnicities to pass through without showing identification;
  • ACSO deputies arrest Latinos for minor traffic violations, while issuing citations or warnings to non-Latinos for the same violations;
  • ACSO uses jail booking and detention practices, including practices related to immigration status checks, that discriminate against Latinos;
  • The sheriff and ACSO’s leadership explicitly instruct deputies to target Latinos with discriminatory traffic stops and other enforcement activities;
  • The sheriff and ACSO leadership foster a culture of bias by using anti-Latino epithets; and
  • ACSO engages in substandard reporting and monitoring practices that mask its discriminatory conduct. (source)

Policing Reforms

The Justice Department’s inquiry allowed for a thorough investigation, comprising of a detailed analysis of ACSO policies, procedures, training materials and records on traffic stops, arrests, citations, vehicle checkpoints and other archived evidence. For the inquiry, the Justice Department also interviewed former ACSO employees and Alamance County residents.

In order to reform ACSO’s discriminatory policing, the police department must accept structural and fundamental change by creating and employing new policies, procedures, and training so as to promote constitutional policing. ACSO must also be held accountable for their actions, and guarantee the Justice Department that any unlawful bias has been eradicated. The Justice Department will request a court-enforced, written document that will help to solve ACSO’s violations.

See you in my next blog.

Nalini S Mahadevan, JD, MBA
Immigration Attorney
Lowenbaum Partnership, LLC
St. Louis, Missouri

Tara Mahadevan

Copyright 2012. All rights reserved.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

New PERM Issues for Employers – Interviewing US applicants

Consider these facts: ABC company has a valuable employee for whom they have filed a PERM application with the Department of Labor. The job requirements are a Master’s degree with a very specific set of skills.

Select International Inc.

In the matter of Select International, Inc., a decision issued by Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) on 19 September 2012, the board held that if a US worker submits a broad resume in response to an advertisement for a job opening, the employer must not only review the application, but must also provide in-depth reasoning as to why the US worker does not meet the minimum experience requirements for the job advertised.

Select International advertised a position for an industrial/organizational psychologist. The company stated that they would accept any suitable combination of experience, training and education (Kellogg language). Resumes from three potentially qualified applicants were rejected for not meeting the employer’s minimum requirements. Select International did not interview the applicants or send letters of rejection. The employer in particular rejected Avi Avigdor, a US worker who applied for the job opportunity. BALCA denied labor certification because no further consideration was given to his resume beyond a review.

To conduct a recruitment in good faith, an employer “must take steps to ensure that it has lawful job related reasons for rejecting US applicants, and not stop short of fully investigating an applicants qualifications” (E. Tenn. State Univ.). No US worker should be rejected for lacking the skills necessary to perform the duties involved if they are capable of acquiring the skills during a reasonable period of job training, and there is no lawful job-related reason for rejecting the US worker.

Select International stated that the job opportunity was for a person with a masters degree in industrial/organizational psychology and required 36 months of experience, and that coursework must include personnel selection; employment law; legal issues related thereto; candidate testing and selection; job analysis; development of job candidate selection tools; and advanced statistical analysis using statistical methodologies. Select International also state in Form 9089 that it would accept any suitable combination of education, training or experience.

The job required development of new assessment tools and techniques; in-depth statistical analysis; detailed reports; and recommendations. Select International stated that Mr. Avigdor did not meet minimum experience requirements because his 47 months of experience was not related to the job duties to be performed in the  position offered. The company also noted that none of the positions held by Mr. Avigdor involved skills listed on the PERM application, nor did he have the experience to perform the core duties required by the job. Therefore, he did not have the combination of educational training and experience to qualify for the position.

The PERM certification was denied on the basis that Mr. Avigdor’s credentials were not investigated fully.

What is an employer to do?

Given the facts of this case, perhaps the best course of action for an employer is to interview all suitable applicants and to document job-related reasons for rejection. Kellogg language should be used sparingly on PERM applications, unless employers are willing to accept any suitable combination of education, training and experience from US job applicants with broad resumes.

See you in my next blog.

Nalini S Mahadevan, JD, MBA
Immigration Attorney
Lowenbaum Partnership, LLC
St. Louis, Missouri

Tara Mahadevan

Copyright 2012. All rights reserved.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

Employer Liability on DACA Issues

Mike is 27 and has a GED; he is employed by XYZ company. He applies for an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) card under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Memorandum. When he goes to his boss at XYZ, he tenders the EAD as evidence of his newly minted status as being allowed to work legally. While DACA does not confer status on Mike, he is now allowed to work legally for XYZ. Many employer liability issues arise from this scenario.

Employer Liability

Firstly, as the employer, XYZ could have constructive knowledge of the employee‘s prior unauthorized status. Hence, the employer could be charged under Missouri Omnibus immigration law as ‘knowingly’ employing an unauthorized worker in the US. In addition, XYZ could be charged with violating Form I-9 laws.

Secondly, the employer may have other potential Form I-9 issues. Now that the employer has constructive knowledge of the employee not having work authorization in the US, the employer may have to seriously consider terminating the employee, or could potentially become liable of knowingly retaining an employee whose immigration status is under question.

However, an employer is not supposed to be an immigration document expert. If the employer previously employed a worker who provided false documents that appeared to be valid and to relate to the individual employee, then the employer may provide a “good faith argument” if there is an ICE audit.

Yet, if a prior employee now declares that he/she is eligible for DACA work authorization, the employer needs to make certain that this policy of terminating this ‘newly discovered’ unauthorized employee does not discriminate against other similarly placed employees in the employer’s workforce. In other words, the employer cannot have one policy towards ‘seemingly foreign looking individuals’ and another policy towards ‘seemingly US born individuals’ if both populations present with similar DACA-related issues. This is called national origin discrimination.

Form I-9 Issues

The employer, under I-9 guidance, may have to terminate the employee who needs DACA employment authorization in order to continue working with the employee. The employer may have to terminate the employee and, if needed, rehire after new DACA-related employment authorization has been produced by the employee. The employer may also have to manage employer liability, and purge their employment records of all unnecessary I-9 documents in line with USCIS guidance.

See you in my next blog.

Nalini S Mahadevan, JD, MBA
Immigration Attorney
Lowenbaum Partnership, LLC
St. Louis, Missouri

Tara Mahadevan

Copyright 2012. All rights reserved.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

What An Employer Should Do Now that H-1B Visas are Over

As of December 1, 2011, the US Consulate General in Chennai will process all Blanket L Visas. The New Delhi US Embassy and Mumbai, Kolkata and Hyderabad US Consulates no longer process petitions for Blanket L Visas. Visas for dependent spouse and children (L-2) and individual visas (L-1A and L-1B) can still be processed at the Chennai, Hyderabad, Kolkata, Mumbai and New Delhi posts.

What is a Blanket L Visa?

A Blanket L visa is available to employees whose employers hold such a designation to file L visas under a Blanket L permit, issued by the Department of State. To be eligible, an employer must be in business in the US for more than one year; have three or more domestic or foreign, subsidiaries or affiliates; and be engaged in commercial trade or services. The employer must also have annual US sales of $25 million; a US workforce of 1,000 employees; or the employer should have received at least 10 L petitions in the last 12 months. An employer may be in danger of losing their Blanket L permit if they file fewer than 10 petitions in the prior year. Only commercial employers can be approved for a Blanket L permit; non-profits are not eligible.

Blanket L visas are for employees who have, in the three past years, been employed abroad for one year and will continue to be employed by the same company in the US. Employees can either be petitioned individually or under a blanket, and must meet the criteria of a “specialized knowledge” professional, executive or manager.

Three Major Issues

1. Will the L visa employee work at client sites?

If your answer is yes, then you must establish an employer-employee relationship during the time the employee is working at a third party worksite on behalf of the petitioner (employer). If the employee is to work in the office of the L visa employer, then that fact should be made very clear both in the documentation and at the interview. Consular officers are very concerned about L visas being misused by employers and being used when H-1B visas are no longer available.

At the US Consulate, the employee is often asked to go up to a window to answer questions. The interview is about 5 minutes, and very often consular officers may not have the time to read the entire petition. If the employee is to work on a particular project at a site other than the US employer’s offices, that fact should also be presented both at the interview and substantiated in the application.

L visa employees must be ready to answer any and all questions, and justify the reason for working at a end-client’s office instead of working at the L visa employer’s office.

2. Is the salary of an ordinary programmer or of a specialist in an L-1B visa category?

Salary earnings in India are indicative of the level of services an employee provides for his/her company; there is certainly a difference between IT workers who complete general services and those who have specialized knowledge. If the applicant is earning a sizeable salary, it is important to state the applicant’s salary in the support letter; salaries are often indicative of a specialist eligible for an L-1B visa instead of a programmer more suited to H-1B visa category status.

It is these distinctions that have caused a rise in the denial rate, 27%, of all filed L visa applications.

3. Is the applicant’s work in India not indicative of a specialized job?

The consular officers will most likely deduce that the applicant has no specialized knowledge if the applicant’s work in India is based in general services. This can include testing; enterprise recourse planning maintenance; or execution of Oracle, Microsoft or SAP software.

Experience

L-1B visa holders are supposed to be specialists; if the applicant has a three-year degree and one year of experience, then the consular officer is not likely to consider the applicant experienced enough to warrant an L-1B visa approval. The standard by which L visa applications are approved is “clearly approvable”. Hence, the burden of proving L visa eligibility lies with the employer. If the L visa has been approved by USCIS, the US Consulate may grant the L visa unless special circumstances exist, or the consulate determines more evidence is required.

We live in a climate where no USCIS application is sacrosanct, and where the Department of State often re-adjudicates USCIS approvals.

B-1 In Lieu of H-1B

The B-1 In Lieu of H-1B visa is a hybrid visa, a cross between a business visa and an employment visa in the US. The employee with H-1B visa qualifications comes to the US instead on a business visa (B-1), applies for the visa at the consulate and declares intent at the border. This employee cannot receive any remuneration in the US other than an expense allowance.

However, this visa is under attack. Employers should demonstrate that there are unexpected circumstances and an urgent need for the employee to obtain a B-1 Visa In Lieu of an H-1B. The controversy arises over the extent to which the B-1 visa is used or misused in lieu of an H-1B. Even if the consulate grants this visa, it is likely that the visa holder may encounter difficulty at the US port of entry.

True need for the visa must be well-planned to demonstrate the benefit of the short-term visit to the foreign employer, as opposed to the US client.

See you in my next blog.

Nalini S Mahadevan, JD, MBA
Immigration Attorney
Lowenbaum Partnership, LLC
St. Louis, Missouri

Tara Mahadevan

Copyright 2012. All rights reserved.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

How Employers can Reduce Audit in PERM Filings for Roving, Telecommuting and Traveling Employees

The tech industry is facing many challenges today, notably denials from the Department of Labor (DOL) based on very little understanding of how the industry works. Most large employers in the sector are not the ‘job shops’ that USCIS fears; and DOL is convinced the tech industry is engaged in fraud of some kind, or is somehow interested in recruiting foreign workers when willing and able US workers are available!

US employers in this sector pay a premium in governmental application costs and legal fees because they are unable to find a suitable worker in the advertised job. In fact, most recruiters I speak to would prefer to hire locally rather than internationally.

Both USCIS and DOL target employers who file for an employee with job duties involving roving, telecommuting or travelling; USCIS has recently issued guidance on roving employees placed at client worksites, in the H-1b visa context. DOL continues to audit and issue denials for roving, travelling or telecommuting positions. Current audits require employers to define employees’ positions as either national or regional roving without a residential requirement, or roving with a residential requirement. Additionally, DOL has expressed concern that these jobs may not be bona fide opportunities for the positions advertised at the intended place of hire; and, in the case of roving employees with no fixed ‘intended area of employment’, the location chosen to advertise the job opportunity and the wage may be artificial and misrepresented by the employer.

Where to Advertise for Roving Employees

In the past few years, DOL has audited and denied applications where the residential address of the employee does not match the location of employment. DOL decided that this position was for a telecommuting employee, a benefit the employer did not disclose in the advertisement for the position and therefore not disclosed to an eligible US applicant, but offered to the beneficiary as a benefit. A PERM application can also be denied based on job advertisements in the incorrect Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). The employer advertised the job where the client worksites were located, instead of the MSA where the employer’s headquarters was located.

In Paradigm Infotech, Inc (BALCA, June, 2007), the employer advertised the roving position in Erie, Pennsylvania where the client worksite was located, instead of the company headquarters. To reach the PERM denial, DOL conducted research on the employer. DOL ascertained that the employer’s headquarters was in Columbia, Maryland as confirmed by employer’s tax records and DOL interviews with employees. DOL also performed site visits to the Erie location of the employer’s branch to ascertain that sufficient office space existed, and parking space was available for the number of employees who were supposed to work there, in accordance with employer’s documentation filed with Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA). Based on short term contracts with client companies, inadequate office space at Erie, and payroll records that confirmed that employees worked at different locations, PERM labor certification was denied by DOL and the denial was upheld by BALCA. BALCA reasoned that the employer needed to test the labor market at the place where the alien was working, and since this was a roving employee and that geographical area of the labor market was unknown, the job market to be tested for PERM purposes was located at the employer’s headquarters.

Following Paradigm, employers with large business units away from company headquarters should also advertise at headquarters location. This is confirmed by the Barbara Farmers Memo: ETA Field Memorandum 48-94§10, published by DOL in 1994 and still followed by DOL.

Prevailing Wage Issues

Employers should also file to obtain prevailing wage determinations from DOL in all the intended areas of potential work sites for the foreign worker. Future locations can be determined from itineraries and statement of work signed with the end client.

Employers with International Locations

In August 2012, BALCA upheld that advertisements in the PERM context also include ‘travel requirements’. The employer in M-IL.L.C., filed a PERM for an employee who was required to travel to international locations as part of the job requirement. This fact was listed on the PERM application Form 9089 and the prevailing wage determination, but not listed on the advertisement for the job opening. 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(f)(4) states, “Advertisements placed in newspapers of general circulation or in professional journals before filing the Application for Permanent Employment Certification must… indicate the geographic area of employment with enough specificity to apprise applicants of any travel requirements and where applicants will likely have to reside to perform the job opportunity.” The employer’s advertisements did not include the travel requirement. Denial was based on the fact that travel requirements listed on the PERM application and the prevailing wage determination was not matched by the advertisement for the position.

Conclusion

While we cannot with certainty expect every PERM filing with travel requirements to be audited by DOL, we must certainly file like that is a very real possibility. Any filing with the DOL is subject to audit, even if in the past those very same requirements were certified by DOL. The safest course in our uncertain climate is to match information on the prevailing wage with the PERM form, and the employer’s advertisement requirements for the position advertised.

See you in my next blog.

Nalini S Mahadevan, JD, MBA
Immigration Attorney
Lowenbaum Partnership, LLC
St. Louis, Missouri

Tara Mahadevan

Copyright 2012. All rights reserved.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

DHS Enforcement Actions — July 2012

On July 19, Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano spoke before the House Judiciary Committee, offering important information on how US immigration law enforcement would affect employers.

US Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Since January 2009, ICE has audited 8,079 employers who are suspected of “knowingly hiring” workers who do not have authorization to work in the US. The federal government has also debarred 726 companies and individuals from federal contracts; imposing and collecting more than $87.9 million in fines and sanctions against companies and their officers.

Sec. Napolitano said ICE will eliminate high-profile raids on worksites because such raids do little to improve public safety. The government now feels that deportation of criminal aliens and unauthorized workers is having little affect on employers’ willingness to hire these individuals. Instead, the government will renew and focus its efforts on Form I-9 inspections; civil fines; debarment; and employer education and compliance with current law.

USCIS, ICE and the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) have greatly increased their engagement with employers and the public through national and local stake holder meetings, webinars and newsletters. Self-check through E-Verify is also encouraged for individual employees. There are now 385,000 companies participating in E-Verify with more than 1.1 million hiring sites. E-Verify is also developing a robust customer service hotline; and increasing outreach staff to promote the E-Verify’s benefits, and educate employers and employees about rights and responsibilities.

Federal agencies receive information to prosecute employers through local police enforcement; traffic stops; criminal prosecutions and informers; and through employee complaints to ICE hotlines and OSC online complaint forms.

The Obama Administration is refocusing efforts on worksite compliance and arrests of unauthorized and criminal aliens, and deporting these aliens at great cost to their countries of origin.

See you in my next blog.

Nalini S Mahadevan, JD, MBA
Immigration Attorney
Lowenbaum Partnership, LLC
St. Louis, Missouri

Tara Mahadevan

Copyright 2012. All rights reserved.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

Missouri Lawyers Weekly: Immigration decision may have impact on Missouri laws

My coworker, Diane Metzger, and I were recently interviewed for an immigration article in Missouri Lawyers Weekly. The article focuses on the Supreme Court’s ruling of Arizona immigration law, and how the ruling may affect Missouri immigration law.

Reprinted with permission from Missouri Lawyers Media.

See you in my next blog.

Nalini S Mahadevan, JD, MBA
Immigration Attorney
Lowenbaum Partnership, LLC
St. Louis, Missouri

Tara Mahadevan

Copyright 2012. All rights reserved.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

Visiting India

India is a very beautiful, colorful place–but like many countries, tourists must apply for a visitor’s visa in order to gain entrance. A foreigner is only granted a tourist visa if he/she does not possess property or a job in India, and whose only goal is recreational: sight-seeing and meeting friends and family.

Apply by Mail

To apply by mail, applicants should fill out and print the application with all the required documents. Send it through a carrier with trackable mail: FedEx, UPS or USPS. Applications sent by mail will take 7-9 business days to process. Once the India Visa Center receives an application, they will notify the applicant of receipt via email and attach an individualized URL that allows the applicant to check on the status of his/her application.

Apply in Person

To apply in person, visit the nearest India Visa Center; bring all required documents and a completed application.

Same Day Visas

Sam day visa applications for US-born US citizens will only be accepted in person by appointment at the India Visa Center. Applicants can choose an appointment time when filling the online application, and will need to pay the application fee in cash or by money order.

See you in my next blog.

Nalini S Mahadevan, JD, MBA
Immigration Attorney
Lowenbaum Partnership, LLC
St. Louis, Missouri

Tara Mahadevan

Copyright 2012. All rights reserved.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

How US Immigration Policy on H-2As Will Shrink the US Economy

The US Department of Agriculture’s May 2012 Economic Research Service (ERS) Report Summary conducted a study titled, “The Potential Impact of Changes in Immigration Policy on U.S. Agriculture and the Market for Hired Farm Labor: a Simulation Analysis”, to analyze the effects of large shifts in the US’s supply of foreign workers.

US immigration laws often have drastic effects for our foreign workers, and the government isn’t lenient in implementing immigration policy. Hired labor is an important facet of our economy, particularly in the US’s agricultural market. In the last 15 years, almost half of our foreign workers haven’t had the correct authorization to work in the US. Alterations in US immigration law and policy could either negatively or positively effect our agricultural production and overall economy.

The report compares a “156,000-person increase in the employment of temporary nonimmigrant agricultural workers” in the H-2A visa category; and “a 5.8-million-person decrease in the total number of unauthorized workers in all sectors of the economy, including agriculture” (ERS Report Summary), based on a 15 year projection.

If we employ the first scenario of an increase in 156,000 H-2A visas, that would raise agricultural output and exports. For example, fruits, tree nuts, vegetables and nursery products, would benefits more of the scenario’s benefits, and would increase by 1.1% to 2% output and 1.7% to 3.2% export growth. However, over the 15 years, the earnings of the agricultural workers would decrease by 4.4%.

If we deport 5.8 million unauthorized workers from all sectors of the economy, there would be an overall large-scale decline in output and exports in the economy. Fruits, tree nuts, vegetables and nursery products would be the most distressed areas of the agricultural market, suffering a 2% to 5.4% reduction in output and 2.5% to 9.3% reduction in exports. Long term, wages would increase fro 3.9 to 9.9 percent.

See you in my next blog.

Nalini S Mahadevan, JD, MBA
Immigration Attorney
Lowenbaum Partnership, LLC
St. Louis, Missouri

Tara Mahadevan

Copyright 2012. All rights reserved.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

ICE Targets F-1 Visa Violators

ICE targets visa violators:

Forty immigration status violators, visa overstays and foreign students were arrested by special agents with US. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI). These violators disobeyed the conditions of their nonimmigrant visas during a 12-day operation that ended Friday, June 1.

Immigration Status Reviewed

Twenty-one men and 19 women were arrested by HSI’s Counterterrorism and Criminal Exploitation Unit (CTCEU), part of a national program designed to prevent terrorists and other criminals from exploiting the nation’s immigration system. In addition, CTCEU reviews the immigration statuses of known and suspected terrorists; combats criminal exploitation of the student and exchange visitor visa program; and leverages HSI’s investigative expertise to identify national security threats.

Countries Targeted for Removal for Overstay and Visa Violations

Those arrested are from the following 17 countries: Saudi Arabia(1), Yemen(1), Kenya(15), Azerbaijan(1), Zimbabwe(1), Zambia(1), Nepal(2), Nigeria(4), Gambia(2), Cameroon(3), Grenada(2), Thailand(1), Spain(1), Jamaica(1), Dominican Republic(1), Mexico(2), and Antigua and Barbuda(1).

The 40 arrested were encountered in Edmond, OK, and the following 12 north Texas Cities: Wichita Falls, Tyler, Lubbock, Amarillo, Abilene, Arlington, Prosper, Irving, Dallas, Plano, Carrollton And Mansfield. All have been processed for immigration removal proceedings.

Grounds for Removal

In addition to their immigration violations, three of those arrested falsely claimed US citizenship, which is a felony and results in being permanently barred from legally re-entering the US. A Mexican national was also arrested and charged for illegally re-entering the US after having been previously deported twice.

See you in my next blog.

Nalini S Mahadevan, JD, MBA
Immigration Attorney
Lowenbaum Partnership, LLC
St. Louis, Missouri

Tara Mahadevan

Copyright 2012. All rights reserved.

Any information here is not meant as legal advice, but strictly educational.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather