RFE I-485 - I-944 Needed now?

[Ayrton 965]

6 minutes ago, Abe009 said:

a background check after you already in the states? I mean what was the point of her K1 Visa paperwork? you would think they would want to make sure they know of your background before stepping into the country and staying. 

Not every AOS is from K1. Some people take years to apply for AOS. Someone can arrive in the US today and commit a crime tomorrow. Their previous background check are useless.

 

Background checks will always be happening for every application sent.

Edited January 8, 2021 by Ayrton

[kkmk 47]

Here's something odd - I couldn't find one single news outlet or any internet article about this decision: 

 

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/12/05/19-17213.pdf

Quote

The panel granted the Department of Homeland Security’s petitions for stays of two district court preliminary injunctions against the implementation of the Department of Homeland Security’s redefinition of the term, “public charge.”

 

Basically, it seems that the preliminary injunction, issued on Dec 2nd, that blocks the application of the public charge rule on the plaintiff states was stayed on a decision issued on December 5th as per above link. 

Maybe that's why the USCIS didn't change anything since that preliminary injunction from the 9th circuit, because it's been stayed already... but it's really puzzling why there's no news outlet mentioning it...

[HRQX 4,145]

58 minutes ago, kkmk said:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/12/05/19-17213.pdf

 

Basically, it seems that the preliminary injunction, issued on Dec 2nd, that blocks the application of the public charge rule on the plaintiff states was stayed on a decision issued on December 5th as per above link.

Look at the year. That decision was on December 2019. It was superseded by the 12/02/2020 decision.

 

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/30803795/City__County_of_SF,_et_al_v_USCIS,_et_al "Opinions" tab

Edited January 12, 2021 by HRQX

[kkmk 47]

37 minutes ago, HRQX said:

Look at the year. That decision was on December 2019. It was superseded by the 12/02/2020 decision.

 

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/30803795/City__County_of_SF,_et_al_v_USCIS,_et_al "Opinions" tab

damn! i'm so glad to be wrong hahaha then there's still hope the injunction will be confirmed!! thanks for noticing that!