ggsacks

Completed and passed my interview yesterday at the NYC (Brooklyn) field office. Here's roughly how it went:
 
Interview was scheduled for 10:15am. I entered the building at 10 and was seated in the waiting room with my number by 10:15. Everyone is masked and seats are blocked off to enable social distancing. My number was called after around 30 mins, and the interviewer walked me to another waiting room, asked me to have a seat and said she'd be back. I waited here for maybe 15 mins until she called me again and walked me to the interview room. The room itself has a perspex divider, and you sit with plenty of distance between you. The only time you need to get closer is to review something on the iPad.
 
The interviewer was polite and straightforward. First she asked me questions about my divorce (I applied based on the 5 year rule, but received my green card through marriage) and why it didn't work out. I was asked to show the original of the proof of divorce that I had submitted with my application, and answer some basic questions about my ex (full name, citizenship). Then, after basic questions (name, address etc) we moved onto the civics questions. The six I was asked were:
- Who signs bills?
- When do men have to register for selective service?
- How old do citizens have to be to vote?
- Name one war fought in the 1800s
- Why does the flag have 50 stars?
- What was the main concern during the Cold War?
 
After this, we moved on to reading and writing. I had to read one question aloud from the iPad, and then write a sentence with my finger. Then we went through all the standard yes/no questions from my application. Right after that, she congratulated me and told me I had passed. She asked if I had to go to work or if I had some time to wait, and when I said I could wait she told me that they could schedule my oath ceremony while I waited and give me the letter before I left, so I opted for this. Finally, she took copies of all my passports and printed me a form saying that I had been recommended for approval. She walked me back to the waiting room and congratulated me. I waited for maybe another 30 minutes before I was called to the window and handed an oath ceremony letter, scheduled for next Friday 1/22 in the same building. 
 
Right after I left I checked my status online and it had already updated to say my oath ceremony was scheduled.

Thank you! I posted a full review in the NYC filers thread 
 

Had my interview yesterday at the Brooklyn, NY field office and was approved on the spot – they even scheduled my oath for me before I left. Oath ceremony is next Friday the 22nd!

Had my interview yesterday at the Brooklyn, NY field office and was approved on the spot – they even scheduled my oath for me before I left. Oath ceremony is next Friday the 22nd!

Had my interview yesterday at the Brooklyn, NY field office and was approved on the spot – they even scheduled my oath for me before I left. Oath ceremony is next Friday the 22nd!

Congrats! It's great to see someone who applied in 2020 to get the interview scheduled  

Just got notification that my interview was scheduled. 1/14/2020 filer in Brooklyn.

Card arrived in the mail today. My online case status still says fees were waived!
 
Date of approval: 1/31
Approval letter received: 2/6
Green card received: 2/15

There is every chance if it doesnt come before.  Sorry about Informed Delivery, Ive stopped looking at it, in the hope if I don't keep looking I might get an approval, hasn't worked thus far!  Enjoy your vacation!. x

Hi, 
I got my approval letter Feb. 26 but my online status is still "Fees were waived. Then, on February 7, the status went straight to "New Card being Produced." Finally this valentines  day I received my greencard ....ofcourse the online status didn't change.  So you may received your card soon.
 
 
TO FORBRIGHT:
 
Congratulations.. See you on the next and final phase of this process!

This is the forum for Removal of Conditions, for people who are already permanent residents and have been in the US for at least 2 years. I think you are in the wrong place.

Aw, thanks Shell. Wishing you a speedy (well, you know, in relative terms...) approval 

Congrats!

USCIS is fee funded. We pay for processing of ROC cases and biometrics. This money does not come from taxes.
 
Our cases will be processed as normal during a shutdown.

I rec'd the letter yesterday - no update to case status. I rec'd a text this morning saying that there was an update to my case. When I logged in, the CRI-89 case was updated to show that "New Card Is Being Produced".

Back again after a long hiatus!
 
My window for ROC opened on 1/14. I sent my package on 1/17 and it was delivered to VSC on 1/20.
 
Haven't yet received an NOA but my check has been deposited as of yesterday.

I just got woken from a delightful nap by an even more delightful text message from USCIS.
AOS APPROVED!

It sounds like they did cite a reason for not hiring her though, and that reason happens to not be legal.

Employers must accept a valid EAD as proof of employment eligibility, and it's illegal for them to deny employment based on what you've outlined above (unless citizenship/residency is a legal requirement for the position). I don't have any practical suggestions for dealing this, but it would pay to read up on the rules so you can approach this with all the facts.
The EAD card is itself the DHS authorization that the note on the SS card references. The only thing that condition means is that the SS card, if presented on its own, isn't proof of work authorization. But the EAD absolutely is.
A lot of information is available here: http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/osc/htm/facts.php#ead

Employers must accept a valid EAD as proof of employment eligibility, and it's illegal for them to deny employment based on what you've outlined above (unless citizenship/residency is a legal requirement for the position). I don't have any practical suggestions for dealing this, but it would pay to read up on the rules so you can approach this with all the facts.
The EAD card is itself the DHS authorization that the note on the SS card references. The only thing that condition means is that the SS card, if presented on its own, isn't proof of work authorization. But the EAD absolutely is.
A lot of information is available here: http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/osc/htm/facts.php#ead

Got my biometrics notice for my EAD renewal.
Pretty sure they'll find my fingerprints are quite similar to last year...
Sigh.

There is no filing fee for the I-765 or I-131 when filed with an I-485.
Bad news, you'll have to submit again. Good news, keep that $740.
EDIT:
Oh, a bunch of people replied while I was writing that.
Also, yeah, as noted, it's $1070 for the I-485.

They're likely referring to the scaremongering statement from the USCIS union last year. It simply referred to the plan to expand eligibility for interview waiver cases. I highly doubt there's any way USCIS is going to reduce the processing and background checks for AOS cases.
Please don't take this as an attack on you, but more on general things I see expressed here frequently: the anti-DACA sentiment here is outstanding and misguided. DACA is for people who were brought here as children, through no fault or choice of their own. All of these people at least partially grew up in the United States, attended school here, entered the workforce and paid taxes, etc. Many won't even know of life anywhere else because they came here so young, and yet they grow up in the total nightmare scenario of having no legal status in the only place they know as home, entirely because of decisions made outside of their control. And then here you have spouses of US citizens weighing themselves up against people that actually grew up in this country yet face the threat of deportation every day. Saying that one of these groups deserves their green cards over the other is a very black and white dismissal of a scenario that is almost entirely grey area. It is so counterproductive to say that someone needs to go to the "back of the line" (in quotes because there never is a back of the line), because it's simply not a situation that the government can keep ignoring.
As for the expansion of deferred action - that hasn't even happened yet, so I find it very tough to swallow this idea that it's impacting current cases in any sort of meaningful way.
Re. USCIS adjudicators facing unnecessary paperwork - well, it's their job. They are public servants. In one breath people here are berating them for their uselessness, and in the next expressing personal concern for their workload, because it fits some united standpoint against undocumented immigrants. While I see it as completely right for them to demand budget or staffing increases to deal with an increase in workload, or to raise valid concerns about security, I don't think their politicized attempts to obstruct immigration policy hold any weight.
Ultimately, any beef with the USCIS policies, processing times or delays need to be directed at the USCIS, and not at other applicants. The demand should be for USCIS to increase their processing capacity or to work more efficiently, rather than for other cases to be deprioritized because some consider them undeserving. People really need to stop pitting themselves against others in some sort of turf war over who deserves to be here more. It's a very juvenile way of tackling a very real problem. Try and think a little selflessly when assessing the value of the lives of complete strangers. Live and let live.

They're likely referring to the scaremongering statement from the USCIS union last year. It simply referred to the plan to expand eligibility for interview waiver cases. I highly doubt there's any way USCIS is going to reduce the processing and background checks for AOS cases.
Please don't take this as an attack on you, but more on general things I see expressed here frequently: the anti-DACA sentiment here is outstanding and misguided. DACA is for people who were brought here as children, through no fault or choice of their own. All of these people at least partially grew up in the United States, attended school here, entered the workforce and paid taxes, etc. Many won't even know of life anywhere else because they came here so young, and yet they grow up in the total nightmare scenario of having no legal status in the only place they know as home, entirely because of decisions made outside of their control. And then here you have spouses of US citizens weighing themselves up against people that actually grew up in this country yet face the threat of deportation every day. Saying that one of these groups deserves their green cards over the other is a very black and white dismissal of a scenario that is almost entirely grey area. It is so counterproductive to say that someone needs to go to the "back of the line" (in quotes because there never is a back of the line), because it's simply not a situation that the government can keep ignoring.
As for the expansion of deferred action - that hasn't even happened yet, so I find it very tough to swallow this idea that it's impacting current cases in any sort of meaningful way.
Re. USCIS adjudicators facing unnecessary paperwork - well, it's their job. They are public servants. In one breath people here are berating them for their uselessness, and in the next expressing personal concern for their workload, because it fits some united standpoint against undocumented immigrants. While I see it as completely right for them to demand budget or staffing increases to deal with an increase in workload, or to raise valid concerns about security, I don't think their politicized attempts to obstruct immigration policy hold any weight.
Ultimately, any beef with the USCIS policies, processing times or delays need to be directed at the USCIS, and not at other applicants. The demand should be for USCIS to increase their processing capacity or to work more efficiently, rather than for other cases to be deprioritized because some consider them undeserving. People really need to stop pitting themselves against others in some sort of turf war over who deserves to be here more. It's a very juvenile way of tackling a very real problem. Try and think a little selflessly when assessing the value of the lives of complete strangers. Live and let live.

They're likely referring to the scaremongering statement from the USCIS union last year. It simply referred to the plan to expand eligibility for interview waiver cases. I highly doubt there's any way USCIS is going to reduce the processing and background checks for AOS cases.
Please don't take this as an attack on you, but more on general things I see expressed here frequently: the anti-DACA sentiment here is outstanding and misguided. DACA is for people who were brought here as children, through no fault or choice of their own. All of these people at least partially grew up in the United States, attended school here, entered the workforce and paid taxes, etc. Many won't even know of life anywhere else because they came here so young, and yet they grow up in the total nightmare scenario of having no legal status in the only place they know as home, entirely because of decisions made outside of their control. And then here you have spouses of US citizens weighing themselves up against people that actually grew up in this country yet face the threat of deportation every day. Saying that one of these groups deserves their green cards over the other is a very black and white dismissal of a scenario that is almost entirely grey area. It is so counterproductive to say that someone needs to go to the "back of the line" (in quotes because there never is a back of the line), because it's simply not a situation that the government can keep ignoring.
As for the expansion of deferred action - that hasn't even happened yet, so I find it very tough to swallow this idea that it's impacting current cases in any sort of meaningful way.
Re. USCIS adjudicators facing unnecessary paperwork - well, it's their job. They are public servants. In one breath people here are berating them for their uselessness, and in the next expressing personal concern for their workload, because it fits some united standpoint against undocumented immigrants. While I see it as completely right for them to demand budget or staffing increases to deal with an increase in workload, or to raise valid concerns about security, I don't think their politicized attempts to obstruct immigration policy hold any weight.
Ultimately, any beef with the USCIS policies, processing times or delays need to be directed at the USCIS, and not at other applicants. The demand should be for USCIS to increase their processing capacity or to work more efficiently, rather than for other cases to be deprioritized because some consider them undeserving. People really need to stop pitting themselves against others in some sort of turf war over who deserves to be here more. It's a very juvenile way of tackling a very real problem. Try and think a little selflessly when assessing the value of the lives of complete strangers. Live and let live.