USCIS Updates Policy Guidance for Certain Requests for Evidence and Notices of Intent to Deny(merged)

[RLA 323]

31 minutes ago, Naes said:

Read monthly topics. It’s pretty common to see rfes with a big list. But we don’t bash them because of the long time we spend here together waiting. But it exists and I admit it makes you want to ask (which I did ask) “what did you send?”

 

answer was we didn’t have at the time. Which should have been “we shouldn’t have send it”

Fair enough, thanks.  I haven't really followed the monthly topics. 

[Naes 12,205]

(I might have missed the discussion if this was already talked about due to merged topics)

 

i would think that them not letting cases becoming placeholder cases would involve a better “checklist” at the noa1 level. And I actually thought “denial” as in “rejection” would happen before the issuance of noa1.

 

In my opinion, What’s causing backlog is not just answers to rfe as they are not continously waiting on each case but cases getting mounted up from the start. So I think most of these rejections would mean something didn’t hit in the checklist from the start hence no charge. 

[Pennycat 880]

4 minutes ago, Naes said:

You’re right, and I’m pretty sure we will see some mess due to this. As I personally learnt I should put a copy of my vaccination records with AOS, just in case; because cases like yours; which we wouldn’t even know without vj. (Which sucks for people with less access to info)

 

I can only expect the congressional inquiries to work better from now on cases like this. 

 

The problem with this policy is that it looks like it has an open ending. however once it starts they will put the handbooks and how it works on site so we may need to read and understand that; and hope uscis adjudicators will also do...

As I said, I wanted a copy of the vaccination records to put in with AOS specifically because of all the bad medical RFEs that were happening at that time, which I knew from VJ (I've been here since 2014, very active, only recently changed my profile name for personal reasons). I knew we didn't need to officially, but I also knew that about 25% of K1 AOS applicants were getting this RFE. I told my husband to ask for one. The embassy doctor wouldn't do it, claiming to not be allowed. our hands really were tied. 

 

I know it's tempting to think that people who have bad things happen to them must have done something, anything less-than perfectly, or even failed to go above and beyond (even if you shouldn't HAVE to go above and beyond). That's because it gives you the (false) comfort that all you have to do is be perfect, or strive to be more than perfect and nothing bad will happen to YOU. I am here to tell you that we did NOTHING wrong, and I was 110% on top of this, every step of the way, usually 3 steps ahead of where we needed to be. Short of instructing my husband to wrestle the vaccination record out of the doctor's hand, or opening up the DO NOT OPEN envelope, or going back in time and making his mother remember where she kept the baby book, there is NO way we could have prevented this RFE. Did the embassy doctor fail us? Yes. But he's all part of the wider system. As are the civil surgeons who either didn't know or didn't want to do titers.

 

And the beginning and end to the story is that regardless of having had a copy of the record or not, or titers or not, this was 100% USCIS error, an error I knew was a risk based on my research here and which I'd attempted to prepare for but wasn't allowed to. I went above and beyond and still got screwed. It can happen to anyone and I guarantee you it will. There are far too many adjudicators at USCIS to not have a degree of failure rate, and they don't hire the cream of the crop. 

[RLA 323]

10 hours ago, azblk said:

The are way too many "unintended" consequences  of these two policies that I find it very hard to believe that the USCIS/TRUMP/SESSIONs have not issued deliberately to make AOS a scary adventure.

They could have made it much much scarier.  They could have gotten rid of RFEs altogether and introduced automatic removal procedures for rejected applicants, maybe even automatic ICE custody.  But I don't think scaring people was their intention.  USCIS is probably mostly interested in reducing their workload.  I'm sure they're getting some pressure to do something about the soaring processing times.  And Trump and Session might not even know what AOS is.  

[SteveE 25]

It amazes me that I see people thinking this is great because it will remove only frivolous applications and will affect no one else and lead to faster processing times. I see some of these very same people (also on other forums) encouraging people to contact their congressman and call USCIS or make info pass appointments when their case is well within what USCIS indicate as the normal processing time for their case. Surely this leads to an increased workload for USCIS also and leads to increased processing times?

 

I have also read many a case of people hiring immigration lawyers to file their AOS because they felt better off this way, only to receive an RFE.

 

The i-485 was 6 pages in early 2017, it is now 18 pages today.

 

There is a cumulative effect to all of these individual changes that make the process both more difficult and more expensive for many.

 

The process of filing AOS is systematically and purposefully being made more intimidating and difficult. Remember that this is the same administration that is greatly in favor of curbing what they consider chain migration.

 

 

[nowayout203 62]

1 hour ago, RLA said:

They could have made it much much scarier.  They could have gotten rid of RFEs altogether and introduced automatic removal procedures for rejected applicants, maybe even automatic ICE custody.  But I don't think scaring people was their intention.  USCIS is probably mostly interested in reducing their workload.  I'm sure they're getting some pressure to do something about the soaring processing times.  And Trump and Session might not even know what AOS is.  

That IS the intent of the revised Notice to Appear Policy, as quoted below from the news release. The item in bold is the problem for AOS denials, because one would be immediately out of status upon their denial.

 

-----------------

The revised policy generally requires USCIS to issue an NTA in the following categories of cases in which the individual is removable:

• Cases where fraud or misrepresentation is substantiated, and/or where an applicant abused any program related to the receipt of public benefits. USCIS will issue an NTA even if the case is denied for reasons other than fraud.
• Criminal cases where an applicant is convicted of or charged with a criminal offense, or has committed acts that are chargeable as a criminal offense, even if the criminal conduct was not the basis for the denial or the ground of removability. USCIS may refer cases involving serious criminal activity to ICE before adjudication of an immigration benefit request pending before USCIS without issuing an NTA.
• Cases in which USCIS denies a Form N-400, Application for Naturalization, on good moral character grounds because of a criminal offense.
• Cases in which, upon the denial of an application or petition, an applicant is unlawfully present in the United States.

-----------------

Once someone gets a Notice to Appear:

- They cannot legally work anymore

- They cannot leave the US before their hearing without incurring a re-entry ban (because they failed to appear in front of an immigration judge)

- If the case isn't decided in their favor, any days in the US leading up to their hearing would be counted as days of unlawful presence (which would subject them to a 5 or 10 year re-entry ban, depending on duration)

[mushroomspore 3,043]

12 hours ago, MjC772 said:

It's important to point out too that this simply gives reviewers discretion in denying, that doesn't necessarily mean that every application that is missing something is going to be denied.

Thank you for pointing this out.

[visahopeful2018 2]

Will this affect form i-129f processing?

[RLA 323]

Yes, I think so. 

[azblk 338]

14 hours ago, visahopeful2018 said:

Will this affect form i-129f processing?

i-29f is beneficiary is still outside the US so it doesn't affect them in any practicality. If denied you simply reapply. Its the AOS cases that will get brunt of this policy.

[RLA 323]

3 hours ago, azblk said:

i-29f is beneficiary is still outside the US so it doesn't affect them in any practicality. If denied you simply reapply.

Which means that they lose a couple of months’ time plus $535 filing fee.  Better than getting deported, but not exactly nothing.

[azblk 338]

10 minutes ago, RLA said:

Which means that they lose a couple of months’ time plus $535 filing fee.  Better than getting deported, but not exactly nothing.

I am no fan of this new policy but a few months wait and a new filing fee is small potatoes compared to what could hypothetically happen to AOS filers under this policy.

[JudyWilde 6]

On June 28, 2018, the USCIS issued a new policy that would place anyone who applied for a green card but got denied into deportation proceedings.

On July 13, 2018, the USCIS issued a second new policy memo that allows immigration officials denies any application without enough or the "right" evidence/documents when the applicant first applies for the green card. No Request for Initial Evidence or Evidence and Intent of Denial will be sent before an application is denied.  

Now they are drafting a policy that demands an intending immigrant to make at least 250% of 2018 HHS Poverty Guidelines Standard and this policy allows immigration officers to arbitrarily deny anyone's green card application on any ground they. 

 

My interpretation of these three policies is : illegals and legals alike, we, the government and the people of the United States of America, want you to get the hell out of our country. And we are doing it in a "legal" way. off. Period. 

Please share your thoughts with me please. Thank you! 

Edited July 20, 2018 by Piaopiao072718
Grammar

[Mosisclassified 14]

Looks to me like follow the instructions, send all required paperwork on the first try and you will not have a problem

[TNJ17 1,329]

How many threads on this are we gonna have? Look up new policy threads and you’ll find discussions have been under way on this topic for weeks. No need to start a new thread. There are in depth conversations on this already.