fairandfoul

Poor, simple-minded Brother Hezekiel has forgotten one important fact! (Trust me: I was expecting this retort from him, but surprised he missed the obvious!)
Figured it out yet? No? Well, under what circumstance would the OP be holding an unrestricted Social Security Card? I.e., one not marked "Not authorised for employment without authorization"? I have seen, and carefully reviewed, an I-9 and am quite familiar with this. However, unless the OP updated his/her social security records immediately upon receiving the conditional Green Card, he/she will need another document to satisfy the I-9 requirements. A document like, yep you guessed it, the PHYSICAL GREEN CARD!
PS: Moving beyond the I-9 requirements (on which you were very wrong), your advice is still irresponsible even if you were right! Why would someone hang on for a year withouth their phyiscal Green Card (with or without conditions)? Emergency travel, work-related travel, contact with law enforcement requesting to see it, application for other US immigration benefits, requiring an INFOPASS appointment if the case processing falls outside standard processing times, etc, etc are all possible scenarios highlighting the imprudence of your recommendation.
You were more insightful when you were JustBob... :bonk:

I think RFEs are sent on a case-by-case basis, but certainly not because among a tonne of paperwrk, such as the OP claims to have, a couple of affidavits are absent.
As a reference point (and in no way a recommendation), I filed with FAAAAAR less than the OP listed. I focused on the "high-quality" examples of financial and domestic co-mingling (tax returns, bank statements, credit cards, insurance policies, leases, etc) and didn't bother with the affidavits. There is no need to introduce fear and have people throw the kitchen sink. The OP has more than satisfied the standards for financial co-mingling, and will have the case examined on those merits. I doubt those merits, as strong as they are, will be further strenghthened by letters from friends.

FALSE! (Re: sometimes receiving RFEs for not providing affidavits from family/friends)
The conventional wisdom has always been that affidavits are among the weakest forms of evidence, and that they are usualy recommended for those with rather scant documented evidence. Dozens of members in these forums have made successful hassle-free applications without RFEs. I'm curious whre you're getting your RFE information.
To the OP: do prioritise documents providing evidence of financial co-mingling. To that extent, full taz returns, bank account history, life/health insurance policies and credit cards/leases, etc are very important. Your list though looks very robust and covers every angle. Any additions will create marginal benefits likely far greater than the cost/effort nnecessary to produce them.

Can you list some of these international airports abroad where the letter is not understood? As one who has re-entered the United States nine times and from various airports with the expired Green Card and Extension Letter, I find this claim a little dubious.
Specifically, it is the aiirline you are travelling with, not the local airport authority, who determines your boarding privileges. In my experience, ALL of them have been properly educated on the Extension Letter and accept it without question.

Awfully sorry for your holiday inconvenience! It's not a pleasant experience to be sure and could happen more frequently than one would think. However, in the interest of providing sensible information:
1
a) No one has to tell you to travel with the original letter. This is common sense. You don't travel with a photocopy of your passport and no one reminds you to take the original for obvious reasons
b) You are right that the letter never mentions carrying it at all times. I certainly don't. But I DO when I travel since it is now a bonafide part of my expired Green Card
c) Reports from several VJ posters are correct. However, just because they are never ASKED for it does not mean they don't HAVE it in their possession. Also, the entry process is a 2-step game. You must satisfy BOTH the port of departure AND the port of entry. Ports of departure are generally not manned by United States immigration and DO NOT have access to extension facilities provided to holders of expired Green Cards
d) You are so wrong about an airline's responsibility in immigration affairs. On all international routes, airlines must ensure that all passengers meet the minimum entry requirements for the destination country. This was not enforced in Sao Paulo, unfortnately (which is the only blame the airline has in your case). Lima was still obliged to enforce this, but sympathised with Sao Paulo's error by providing generous (by airline standards!) concessions.
You should be able to understand this function of the airline as it's really quite simple. They have accepted this "burden," as you describe it, as the cost of doing business on international routes as required by certain international law. Even Greyhound applies the same principles so this honestly cannot be so mysterious
2)
You're well within reason to seek further compensation from the airline; although, I believe it won't be much. While I agree that they could owe for items such as the unused leg of the trip from Lima to San Francisco, I would also point out that this could be neutralized since they have already paid for a return flight to Lima and made other concessions. A diplomatic approach would yield the best, if any, results. Suing them might work, but would be awfully silly. It would show you up as ignorant of basic immigration procedure which you are assumed to know. Also, terms of the ticket might have offered the Sao Paulo - Lima leg as a separate trip with Lima - San Francisco being designated as the actual U.S.-bound trip which would mitigate any liability on Sao Paulo's part.
The airline may not care about your business, and if I know any of the LANs, they probably don't, so don't count on that coupon. It would be quite nice if you did get it though.
Again, I feel dreadful for your inconvenience, but it is not helpful to make indignant claims that are uninformed and could lead others to similar mistakes in the future.

Awfully sorry for your holiday inconvenience! It's not a pleasant experience to be sure and could happen more frequently than one would think. However, in the interest of providing sensible information:
1
a) No one has to tell you to travel with the original letter. This is common sense. You don't travel with a photocopy of your passport and no one reminds you to take the original for obvious reasons
b) You are right that the letter never mentions carrying it at all times. I certainly don't. But I DO when I travel since it is now a bonafide part of my expired Green Card
c) Reports from several VJ posters are correct. However, just because they are never ASKED for it does not mean they don't HAVE it in their possession. Also, the entry process is a 2-step game. You must satisfy BOTH the port of departure AND the port of entry. Ports of departure are generally not manned by United States immigration and DO NOT have access to extension facilities provided to holders of expired Green Cards
d) You are so wrong about an airline's responsibility in immigration affairs. On all international routes, airlines must ensure that all passengers meet the minimum entry requirements for the destination country. This was not enforced in Sao Paulo, unfortnately (which is the only blame the airline has in your case). Lima was still obliged to enforce this, but sympathised with Sao Paulo's error by providing generous (by airline standards!) concessions.
You should be able to understand this function of the airline as it's really quite simple. They have accepted this "burden," as you describe it, as the cost of doing business on international routes as required by certain international law. Even Greyhound applies the same principles so this honestly cannot be so mysterious
2)
You're well within reason to seek further compensation from the airline; although, I believe it won't be much. While I agree that they could owe for items such as the unused leg of the trip from Lima to San Francisco, I would also point out that this could be neutralized since they have already paid for a return flight to Lima and made other concessions. A diplomatic approach would yield the best, if any, results. Suing them might work, but would be awfully silly. It would show you up as ignorant of basic immigration procedure which you are assumed to know. Also, terms of the ticket might have offered the Sao Paulo - Lima leg as a separate trip with Lima - San Francisco being designated as the actual U.S.-bound trip which would mitigate any liability on Sao Paulo's part.
The airline may not care about your business, and if I know any of the LANs, they probably don't, so don't count on that coupon. It would be quite nice if you did get it though.
Again, I feel dreadful for your inconvenience, but it is not helpful to make indignant claims that are uninformed and could lead others to similar mistakes in the future.

Awfully sorry for your holiday inconvenience! It's not a pleasant experience to be sure and could happen more frequently than one would think. However, in the interest of providing sensible information:
1
a) No one has to tell you to travel with the original letter. This is common sense. You don't travel with a photocopy of your passport and no one reminds you to take the original for obvious reasons
b) You are right that the letter never mentions carrying it at all times. I certainly don't. But I DO when I travel since it is now a bonafide part of my expired Green Card
c) Reports from several VJ posters are correct. However, just because they are never ASKED for it does not mean they don't HAVE it in their possession. Also, the entry process is a 2-step game. You must satisfy BOTH the port of departure AND the port of entry. Ports of departure are generally not manned by United States immigration and DO NOT have access to extension facilities provided to holders of expired Green Cards
d) You are so wrong about an airline's responsibility in immigration affairs. On all international routes, airlines must ensure that all passengers meet the minimum entry requirements for the destination country. This was not enforced in Sao Paulo, unfortnately (which is the only blame the airline has in your case). Lima was still obliged to enforce this, but sympathised with Sao Paulo's error by providing generous (by airline standards!) concessions.
You should be able to understand this function of the airline as it's really quite simple. They have accepted this "burden," as you describe it, as the cost of doing business on international routes as required by certain international law. Even Greyhound applies the same principles so this honestly cannot be so mysterious
2)
You're well within reason to seek further compensation from the airline; although, I believe it won't be much. While I agree that they could owe for items such as the unused leg of the trip from Lima to San Francisco, I would also point out that this could be neutralized since they have already paid for a return flight to Lima and made other concessions. A diplomatic approach would yield the best, if any, results. Suing them might work, but would be awfully silly. It would show you up as ignorant of basic immigration procedure which you are assumed to know. Also, terms of the ticket might have offered the Sao Paulo - Lima leg as a separate trip with Lima - San Francisco being designated as the actual U.S.-bound trip which would mitigate any liability on Sao Paulo's part.
The airline may not care about your business, and if I know any of the LANs, they probably don't, so don't count on that coupon. It would be quite nice if you did get it though.
Again, I feel dreadful for your inconvenience, but it is not helpful to make indignant claims that are uninformed and could lead others to similar mistakes in the future.