f&c

I am a police officer and very cognizant of our Constitutional rights particularly the 4th and 14th Amendments. You handled yourself well, Hypnos. If a police officer inititiates a consensual encounter (tier 1 stop), you are not required to talk to that officer. Blocking a public highway gave them probable cause (pc) to detain you at which point you must honestly identify yourself. Keep in mind there many state laws and local ordinances on the books that officers will use strictly to establish pc or articulable reasonable suspicion (ars). For example, someone refused to talk to my officer buddy the other day. The person had a dog with him that was not on a leash. My city has an ordinance requiring dogs to be on leash. This gave my buddy authority to demand ID and investigate. The person had an arrest warrant and went to jail.
There are many methods officers will use to extract information and will usually find a way. People HAVE to know and understand their rights. As a police officer, I would not grant permission to an officer to search my car on a traffic stop. Most officers will not violate one's civil rights, but there are some who do not understand their jobs very well.

We received an RFE for initial evidence for something we orignally submitted, but resubmitted with RFE. After about one month in RFE review, our I-485 status changed to Testing and Interview and my wife's EAD was approved and shipped.

What if you are a Farmer, any race and benefit from the Ethanol requirement in gas?

True MaleAlpha. It was disconcerting to see it being thrown at everyone anytime they talked about adjusting status within the US but people were failing to realize that, as much as thinking about it whilst one was OUTSIDE the US would fall within preconceived intent to marry and adjust status and thereby constitute visa fraud, once the applicant was already INSIDE the US, USCIS did not really bother about that and even though it might come up in an interview, it could NOT be used as a basis to deny an application (and this is stated within their operations manual which are in the form of links in the original post). An IO would probably use it as a basis to ward into more deeper areas within an applicants marriage to determine if it is a sham or fake marriage, this could then be defined under the Visa Fraud clause and lead to a denial but NEVER the sole reason of having preconceived intent to marry and adjust status. And so far no one has still been able to prove that it was ever used to deny an application. People who spoke in the affirmative of the subject, always indicated it was brought up in an interview but regardless, they still got their applications approved.

Uniformed "peace" officers.
The Fourth Amendment was already on life support and is effectively dead, sigh man.

Good luck!

That's a matter of opinion. I don't believe a slap on the ####### of a misbehaving child is bad, if it becomes more than that, then that's a different story. Calling him a scumbag and questioning his parenting skills for spanking a toddler is a bit much.

I applied on 07/01/2013 and received a RFE in the mid of August, 2013. After sending the evidence, my I-485 has been staying on "Evidence Review" (since around 20th Aug, 2013) until Dec 22, 2013 then changed into "testing and interview" I received the actual interview letter a week after and the date was Jan 23th. 2014.
ATL is a busy office however most officers are very nice, and during the 1.5 hours waiting before my turn, I saw most couples and family finished rather quickly with smile. Hope this will help!

Every person within the borders of the Unites States have rights and are protected by the Constitution, but illegals are ineligible for many privileges, benefits, etc...As someone stated earlier, every president has Executive Order power at their disposal. Whether or not using them to circumvent Congress is unconstitutional will be for the courts to decide. The labor board appointment case pertains to a president's use of recess appointments while Congress is out of session and the definition of "in and out of session." It's a bit different than Executive Orders in general.
DACA is only one reason among many for the USCIS backlog. The jobs issue is always brought up with illegal immigration. Many of these illegals are field workers, bus people, day laborers--jobs most citizens are unwilling to take. Immigration reform will be an interesting debate. There are some decent proposals out there.

If there aren't enough jobs for USCs why allow any immigrants at all? More particularly why allow all those work visas to be issued? (Alternatively why keep changing your argument...?)
Some of you may find this interesting:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php

Nope. I won't help with any kind of action that is going to try to STRIP people of the ability not to be deported or work because their parents committed an immigration crime. It's kind of horrifying that you think that suing to take away someone's legal rights is a good idea.
So a few notes:
DACA isn't a visa. There is no visa to be invalidated. The US courts don't have any jurisdiction to revoke a visa. Visas are for people who are trying to get into the country legally, not people who are already here.
Executive orders are built into the system whether you like them or not. That doesn't make them illegal just because you disagree with them. The courts will not make it clear that the president doesn't have the power to execute executive orders, because he does.
US Citizens rights are already guaranteed in comparison to other immigrant classes. Visas are immediately available to us, and there are no numerical or per country limits. The government also has to have a good reason to deny our applications.
That the USCIS decided to process the DACA applications ahead of the I130 cases is on the upper management of the USCIS. Not the DACA filer. I didn't blame those people who filed before me for getting stuck in the backlog. Don't blame "illegal" aliens or DACA filers for the backlog. Don't blame Obama for the backlog. It was the upper management at the USCIS who decided to process the DACA filers very quickly and not process the stand alone I130s for US Citizens. It is the upper management in the USCIS who continue to screw us over and not devote appropriate resources to clearing this backlog. Until we can focus on the actual cause of the problem instead of blaming people who had only incidental roles in creating this problem, nothing will get fixed. And I'm sure that the upper management at the USCIS is betting on that dissension to avoid having to take action.

If their children did not have a path to legalization, it may prevent some of the parents from coming in the first place. That's the idea anyway...

If their children did not have a path to legalization, it may prevent some of the parents from coming in the first place. That's the idea anyway...

I am not a Lawyer and this is definitely a good Lawyer case:
Just some thoughts:
Immigrate2US has some cases and recommended lawyers.
I have not seen one yet where they did not have witnesses to being waived through, which seems to have been the norm on the Mexican border. The USC's waive their passports and the ones in the back keep quiet.
Actually I do not remember one involving Canada.
If you have not obtained second opinions, do so. See I2US for recommended lawyers.
The one thing I do not get is that there is actually a procedure for them to have used to give status to someone without the appropriate visa, forget the number off hand. They charge you for it as well.

Canadians do not receive I-94 and hardly ever receive a stamp in the passport. I've been to the US probably around 20 times in the last 10 years and only got a stamp once. From what I know, it's completely random and discretionary. Btw I travelled by air and by land and I got the stamp at the airport. I also checked online and it showed no record.
The last time I came to the US, I came by car. When submitting my AOS, I provided an Affidavit and attached a hotel receipt for a few nights in Detroit and a boarding pass from Detroit. Hopefully it will be enough. Trust me, if I suspected that I will be staying in the US for good, I would have been flying to have the boarding pass in hand from a Canadian city but at that time, I was just coming for a summer holiday. Life happens when you are making plans

I just noticed your timeline. Crazy! I also sent my documents in November and had my biometrics appointment on December 19, 2013 as well!
I noticed that you got RFE re: lawful entry shortly after NOA. I haven't received anything, so hopefully they were satisfied with my affidavit mentioned above. Fingers crossed! I did have to repeat my biometrics appointment in January though, so we both had a little hiccups Good luck to you two!

I am pretty much conservative, but liberatarian on some issues, so I am not registered with a party. The current president does a lot by executive fiat. The legislative branch should be writing and passing legislation, but I do agree with the principles of DACA. IMO, it is not realistic to deport so many people, especially ones who were brought here illegally as children at no fault of their own. Something had to be done. Constitutional lawyers can argue executive orders.

My wife's took 66 days. The EAD estimator in the timeline section is quite accurate.

Some banks do not require a SSN, but the person being added has to be present to show ID and sign documents.

Great news! You' should get the tracking number for the EAD real soon.

Good advice. Women can get emergency Medicaid for the term of their pregnancy if your income is below a certain level. You may also want to explore the Obamacare exchanges for a plan you may be able to afford.

Wow that's great!

Looks like the folks in USCIS are working early today unless it's just an automated process because I just noticed status updates on cases effective like 30 minutes ago. I guess that's a good sign :-)

If it were up to me, you would keep the pregnancy :-) BUT I only say that because I think babies are adorable and I love kids. I think whatever family decisions you make is entirely up to you and your husband's and it is in no ones place to judge you on a decision you make regarding your family and health. With that being said, I think I would agree with the comment saying you should probably do the vaccination after your termination of pregnancy. Technically it shouldn't have a bearing with the decisions of USCIS but the person reviewing your case when they have a clue that you terminated a pregnancy could for whatever reasons relate that to evidence of bona fide relationship. This is just my opinion though, so think of the varying options and do what is best for you. Good luck!

ain't no walk in.
first, the I-130 + the I-485 plus all the rest and fee payments must be submitted into USCIS via USPS or courier. Recheck the guides here, you might have missed something .. And yes, she is eligible.
IMO, the safest time for the child to chase after status will be after Mom has her green card, then YOU would file the I-130, answering 'Bangcock' in Q22 of the I-130. Assume a 4 to 13 month wait until Mom gets her green card.