jan22

I would urge you to enter the passport issuance alert into the system as soon as possible, as a precaution. From what I've read, I agree that the baby is a dual national -- but that cannot be known by the Phillipine government until the baby's birth is registered with the Embassy/Consulate, which takes info from both parents. So, no Phillipines passport is likely to be issued without your knowledge -- unless there's fray involved.

Just a thought for the future, as you decide how to proceed: If the baby does not yet have a US passport, but you think there is a chance she will try to get the baby one and leave the country, you should enroll the baby in the State Department's passport issuance alert program. Once you do so, a US passport cannot be issued without you being notified and confirm you agreement to its issuance. For details on how the program works, take a look at: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/International-Parental-Child-Abduction/prevention/passport-issuance-alert-program.html Has the baby's birth been registered with the Phillipine Embassy or Consulate? If so, i don't know if there is a similar program for issuance of a Phillipine passport.

Incorrect. ICE operates primarily from a Congressional appropriation, with a tiny amount coming from user fees they collect. None of the USCIS fees collected fund any portion of ICE.

There is no way to submit documents ahead of time for a visitor's visa application -- just the DS-160 application -- and then the interview.

As long as she is wearing some kind of foot covering -- t b at is, she is not barefoot -- there is no issue on what that covering is. For safety reasons, foot coverings are required. Beyond that, whatever she chooses to wear will have absolutely no bearing on whether a visa is issued or not. This is a stressful experience for many people (even though most of the time there is no reason it should be) -- she should wear whatever makes her feel comfortable and confident.

Are these documents for use in the US? If so, they would need to be notarized at a US Embassy or Consulate, as long as they are not Yemeni government-issued documents (such as passports, birth certificates, etc). The US Embassy in Yemen is, as I'm sure you know, closed. The State Department has designated the Embassies in Riyadh, Djibouti, and Cairo to deal with consular cases, including American Citizen Service (ACS) cases from Yemen. (ACS is the unit of the consular section that does notarizations -- you do not need to be a US citizen to get a document notarized there if it is for use in the US). If it is for use in another country, or are government-issued documents, I hope someone else can help you!

I know this was not your question, but it is something that your MIL needs to be aware of, if she hasn't already thought about it. Can she stay the 5 months on her tourist visa and then wait many months longer than that before returning to India for any reason at all? Once tbe AOS is filed, she won't be able to travel back until she at least gets an Advanced Parole approved, which has been taking more than 7 to 8 months from the time of filing right now. If the citizenship interview does take place 7-8 months from the application date, that puts in it June or July. Your MIL's 5 month visit (using March 1st start date as an example) will be up around the end of July -- perhaps around the very time of the naturalization interview. There may then be a wait for an oath ceremony and receipt of the naturalization certificate. All this to point out that filing for the AOS -- and, therefore, Advanced Parole -- will likely not be possible until almost the end of her 5 month visit. Does your MIL not have any responsibilities or famiIy issues at home that she would need to take care of for more than a year or so (at a minimum) from the start of her US visit? No need to answer here (unless you want to for some reason) -- I just wanted to pose the question for her consideration.

So, she got denied a Canadian visa, then a US visa, then a Canadian visa a second time? In what sounds like a relatively short amount of time? I rarely say this, but there is nothing she can do to improve her chances to get a vIsa for either country right now. Her multiple attempts, in two countries, presents as a desperate need to get into one or the other -- with far more at stake than just a visit. It is time to look at meeting in a third country, IMO.

If you are subject to the INA 212e two year home residency requirement it means you cannot: Change status in the US to a temporary work status (H) or intracompany transfer status (L); Adjust status in the US to permanent resident (LPR); Qualify for or be issued an immigrant visa to the US; or, Be issued a temporary work visa (H), an intracompany transfer visa (L), or a fiancee visa (K). If a consular officer decides you meet the qualifications for any other category of vIsa -- including another J -- the visa can be issued. If the second J visa is approved, the rest of your home residency requirement must still be met after that program is completed. If the second J also has a home residency requirement, the clock starts over again. That is, the time you've spent in your home country since the first J visa would still count in meeting the two-year requirement for that visa when you returned after completing the second J program. However, if the second J also has the two-year requirement, you will start from scratch on meeting the two-years. The question about applying for the same visa is most likey to determine if you qualify for an interview waiver. Even if someone qualifies for the waiver, a consular officer can always request to interview an applicant if they have questions. I would suggest that an officer would certainly have a few questions about your intentions for a second J for a different program. So, to save time -- and maybe be technically correct since it's a different J program area and, therefore, as you seem to agree, is a different kind of "J" -- I would suggest you say "no" and schedule an interview. Good luck!

You're right -- I originally misread your post. Thanks for catching it. But, I had realuzed it also and while you were writing this, I already edited my post to correct what I said but still emphasizing that the NVC wait would be years.

By the title, this appears to be an F2B case (unmarried, over 21, LPR parent). If so, depending on the timeline to USCIS approval, the wait at NVC will likely be several years. To the OP -- it will likely take at least 8 years from the date of petition filing before a visa number becones available and you can be ready to start the visa part of the process. Whether the case is still at USCIS for a few years or moves quickly to NVC, it doesn't matter. About a year before a visa number is expected to be current (which would be around 2030-2031 unless something changes), you will get a notice from NVC to start paying fees and submitting documents.

You will not get a link to pay. The fee must be paid at any RCBC or you can make an online payment at PesoNet. Once you have the fee receipt, you go online and schedule the appointment. You should review the complete "Non-immigrant Visa Application" process at https://www.ustraveldocs.com/ph/. It is really pushing it to figure out the process, get a regular appointment, then request and an emergency appointment, have the visa interview, get a visa printed and received (assuming one is approved), travel arranged and completed to the US in less than two weeks. Hope it works out.

I don't think it's at the NVC/Embassy stage. The expedite approval is from USCIS, so I assume it is an expedite for petition approval. OP: Expedite does not mean you will get an immediate adjudication of the petition...it will move faster, but might still take a couple of months. Once the petition is approved, you will need to submit a second expedite request to NVC to ask to expedite the visa portion of the process.

The reason the statement about the Consular Officer making the final determination is included in the NVC e-mail is because NVC does not have authority to adjudicate any portion of a visa case. They function as a clearinghouse for fees and document collection only -- a valuable function, but not the final authority in any part of the visa process. Their statement does not mean a Consular Officer has any discretion outside that granted by law. For example, there is discretion in determinIng whether the Affidavit of Support is sufficient, even if NVC "accepted" the document, because the law grants a Consular Officer the authority (i.e., the discretion) to make that determination based on the totality of the applicsnt's situation. No such authority was granted for CSPA determinations. Therefore, there is no room for discretion with CSPA -- it is a mathematical equation that calculates whether someone is still under the age of 21 per the CSPA law. The only COVID-related concession that could be made by the State Department (and was, in fact, made) regarding potentially aging-out cases was to include them in the list of "emergency" cases that could be processed as local conditions allowed during the shut-down. One of two things likely happened in the case you cited. One -- there was some part of the data that was input into the CSPA equation that differed from the data the Consular Officer used. (Common differences that effect CSPA eligibility are determing the date when the Priority Date first became "current" and the date the applicant "sought to acquire" the visa.) Or, two -- the Consular Officer made a mistake. An applicant can question the dates used for the calculatiin to ensure they are correct, but there is absolutely no discretion for a Consular Officer to overrule the CSPA-formula calculated age. I felt it important to respond to this thread again to avoid spreading false hope to applicants about getting a Consular Officer to use their discretion to approve a case when that discretion does not exist.

That is undoubtedly because they qualified under CSPA that had perhaps not previously been applied or had been incorrectly calculated. Their names may have bern dropped because CSPA had not been calculated until the parents called it to someone's attention. If they had truly aged out after CSPA was applied correctly, they would not gave been issued visas. I know for a fact that a Consular Officer has no discretion on things that are a matter of law. They can only apply the law, not change it or alter the interpretation of it.