isa30

I would hate having you as a "clerk" threatening everyone just because you can.
For my wife's AOS biometrics, she went one day later because USCIS scheduled her appointment during our honeymoon (and appointment letter came while we were already gone, so we diid know about it). Anyway, after she explained the situation they have not even say a word, except politely asking about how the honeymoon went and such... Sure, you can get less sympathetic people, but delayed flight is a valid excuse and I doubt anyone in their right mind would make any problem of it.

Should be no problem. In case of delayed flight, you will have very legitimate excuse why you're late.

yours is on its way its a long wait but i always say to myself 'DELAY IS NO DENIAL' always keep that in mind

Hang in there.... we received NOA1 on Jun 6th and received the biometric appointment letter today, Jun 14th.
FYI, The "on-line status" never changed or indicated the letter was coming - it just appeared.

You are probably right, I'll try not to worry. I cross my fingers everyday when I go get the mail.

Your medical abroad has almost certainly expired. You'll need a new medical. If you don't submit it with the AOS package then you'll get an RFE for it. You'll have a limited amount of time to respond to the RFE. If you don't respond with a medical packet from a civil surgeon then you'll be denied, and have to start over.
Wait until you can afford the medical. Make sure you include everything that's required in the AOS package. There's no time limit for adjusting status, so there's no point rushing it and risking a denial.

I understand your point and I wasn't advising anyone with an overstay to leave right now. I already had advised that people with potential overstays should seek AP and then revisit the situation if they need to leave before they have a Green Card. I also posted this to help individuals who were adjusting and who had departed and returned to the U.S., if application of the former overstay ban could prevent them from completing their adjustment of status, such as in the Arrabally case.
However, I do vigorously dispute that BIA decisions are not binding on immigration judges--and that was the statement I was responding to. Immigration judges are part of the DHS so in some sense BIA decisions are binding on DHS. Whether or not CBP has implemented it yet doesn't matter--I understand the risk that the CBP could deny someone entry but it's extremely misguided to suggest that this "doesn't change anything" as another OP did.

I think you're misinterpreting what "binding" means. BIA decisions are binding on DHS officers and immigration judges. This means, for example, if the BIA issues a decision granting an immigrant a stay of deportation then neither a DHS immigration officer or an immigration judge can overrule that decision and deport the immigrant. BIA decisions are subject to judicial review, so only a federal court can overrule a BIA decision. That doesn't mean that a BIA decision automatically results in a policy change at DHS. The overwhelming majority of BIA decisions don't address DHS policies, but address decisions made by immigration officers and judges in specific cases, and usually involve cases where the BIA believes the immigration officer or judge has misapplied their discretion or misinterpreted the law.
DHS has an obligation to review BIA cases to determine if they impact current policy, but they aren't bound to change their policy because of the decision. Most BIA decisions don't result in policy changes at DHS, primarily because most BIA decisions aren't contrary to DHS policy. Most BIA decisions are specific to only one case. The decisions that might have an impact on policy need to be reviewed by a director who has authority to change the policy.
The point is that a CBP officer working at an immigration counter in a US airport is not obligated in any way to stay current on BIA decisions. He has a policy manual, and he's expected to follow it until that manual is revised.

This stance makes no sense whatsoever, aside from your obvious bitterness towards anyone who doesn't adjust the way you did...
Just because someone didn't go the K-1 route does not mean they have incurred a possible ban. I adjusted as a Canadian visitor and abode by every law and policy the USCIS has in place, under their guidance and in their time frame - I would have incurred no possible ban had I applied for AP and used it....I have no clue why you feel I shouldn't have been able to have it issued aside from your aforementioned bitterness.

BIA decisions are binding on immigration judges--who are part of the USCIS. If CBP were to wrongfully deny entry, they could seek a hearing with an immigration judge.
I think I am being insulted but I can't figure out why. And no it's not obvious why we'd deny advance parole to all adjustment applicants except K-1s.
The BIA decides what's workable with the INA and its decisions are binding on USCIS and the Department of Justice.

I'm not sure that this really changes anything... yet.
There is no USCIS law that states it's okay yet. So someone who should get a ban leaves, do CBP know that they're supposed to let them enter? Or do they have to take it to the BIA in order to get their ban overturned? Or what?
I think until there is official word from USCIS no-one should risk leaving if they have 180 days or more of overstay. It's just not worth the stress. Esp when they should get the GC in around 6 months so if they already have that much overstay they've already been "stuck" in the US for a while, a little while longer won't kill them.

It's a circular problem, to be certain.
My preferred method of dealing with it is to NOT issue AP to those who are NOT doing an AOS from a K-1 Visa.
I said nothing about entrapment or overstay bans. I'm leaning to NO AP whatsoever, unless you came in on a K-1 visa.
The 'why' is obvious - or it should be, to an immigration attorney. I know, I know, less paperwork for you? Less fees you can collect - but that's a side issue, and not my issue.
Those folk slinging through an AOS (non K-1s) really should sit out the process in the USA until the greencard is in hand. That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it, regardless.

Congrats!! I have the exact dates as you! Got NOA1 last friday june 22 and dated june 18th on the notice. However still no signs of biometricts letter!! hopefully it will come next week!! good luck to all of us!

I've never heard of recent vaccinations causing an issue with a PPD. But you definitely can have positive PPD's (skin tests) and not have TB. We do them at my work and people from certain countries ALWAYS have a positive skin test but rarely have TB.

**** Moving from AOS from Family visa to AOS from tourist, work etc visas ****
Yes, they still happen, but they are not standard. Most of the time they happen when you have a lot of red flags, and more likely, after a first (failed) interview.

OP, I am 90% positive you cannot claim the immigration medical through insurance. Remember your medical has to be done by a panel physician.
If you call around to the physician's in your area they will tell you if you can or cannot claim the medical on insurance.
Why would you say that?
My skin test was negative. I have not heard of anyone's being false-positive (I am a nurse) , nor did my doctor indicate a positive result was common or likely.

I didn't know that either. They did all my shots initially (including the TB test), and then I came back a couple days later for them to check my arm. Then a week after that, they had my documentation ready to pick up.

Yes they do, they are admitted under the terms of a B2 tourist visa at the border, without having to apply for one. If she lied at the border, then it will still matter. If she didn't her current status will not matter, but she definitely overstayed, and is accumulating illegal presence. She seems to be shocked that she is an "illegal alien" but she is certainly not here legally.
As was pointed out above, if the AOS is already sent and accepted for initial review, now the OP is in a new period of authorized stay.

This is the biometrics appointment. They will take your pic and fingerprints, standard for everyone doing this process. It is simple and takes a few minutes if you don't have a wait. What visa did you enter on if any? They aren't going to deport you at the appointment, you can adjust to a legal status because you are married to a US citizen. Your husband does not have to come to this one. You will receive an interview notice in a few months (which your husband must attend with you). After this you will be approved for a green card.

Here's the USCIS explanation: http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=0c353a4107083210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=0c353a4107083210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD
There's no set number of months--the bottom line is whether you live permanently in the U.S. Any trips outside of the U.S. need to be brief and temporary.
You've told us that you have only "visited" the U.S. This is not the same as becoming a resident of the U.S. You need to review the information and think carefully about your next steps, or she is liable to losing it. If I were USCIS and you explained to me what you've explained here, I would definitely have questions.

Hello to all,
I have a question regarding the requirements of a Green Card after having received it. The question is essentially, what are the requirements in order to maintain the Green Card valid? Is there a certain amount of time the Green Card holder needs to spend in the US? I have read that 50% of the 3 years need to be spent in the US in order to apply for citizenship, however, what about just in general?
The reason I ask is: my wife received her Green Card. Luckily, we are together, but outside of the US. While we plan the move to the US (we are in a different country, just to be clear) we have gone to visit the US once. It has been 4 months since we returned from having visited the US for the first time (with the brown envelope, etc.)
To rephrase, my question is: In the meantime, is there any type of time requirement where we need to enter the US after a certain amount of months? I know we will eventually meet the 50% goal after 3 years, however, in the meantime I don't want the Green Card to "expire" so to speak or lose it's validity. Could someone assist me in answering these questions?
As always, the help is very much appreciated. Good luck and a speedy acceptance to everyone who is in the waiting process, and congratulations to those who have made it through. Take care.
Kind regards,
J.

You can always give it a shot... Just give them a good reason, like you're traveling around and not sure if you can get back on time in SF for it or something.. When I did my walk-in they asked my why I came so early. I said I will be out to NH on that day, they asked me when I'm leaving, and I said I will be there for 2 weeks, leaving next week. They told me not to do that next time but had let me in. Now, I don't really know about changing the venue too.. Trying won't hurt, that's for sure. Just be prepared for the worst so you won't feel too bad. Good luck! =)

Well the paper work officially left for the Chicago dropbox yesterday via FedEx Ground with a tracking ID!
Now we play the waiting game. Hard to believe how much I've learned and how far we've come. I couldn't even tell you the first thing about immigration before all this started. Now I know what all the acronyms mean! If anyone says AOS, NOA, or RFE to me, I can actually relate!

You must be truthful. And frankly they will already know the truth since she is in the system with a legal document. They knew when she left and came back. So even when they ask they are expecting the truth from her. So no sweat. No harm, no foul.

I think everyone should know about a newish BIA case that says leaving the U.S. after the issuance of advance parole does not trigger the ban resulting from an overstay, because leaving with advance parole does not constitute a "departure" for the purpose of the bans. At least one field office has begun to reopen adjustment cases that were denied as a result of the ban. This is an ongoing development, so I do not think that people who have overstays should be confident about leaving the U.S. with advance parole, but it is something to think about (especially if someone has left with advance parole, returned to the U.S. and has a pending adjustment application).
Personally, I think the decision is poorly reasoned and unpersuasive. The rule that leaving with advance parole does not constitute "departure" from the U.S. breaks with longstanding law that leaving the U.S. is generally a "departure" for the purpose of the overstay bans. The decision was result-oriented and probably was made because the BIA found it unfair that USCIS was issuing advance paroles to individuals who had overstays. The decision would result in unintended consequences, such as USCIS refusing to issue advance paroles to adjustment applicants without a good reason, or refusing to issue AP to people who have overstayed at all. I do not know if the case will be appealed to a higher court.
Here is the decision: http://www.justice.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/vol25/3748.pdf