Jump to content

randomstairs

Members
  • Content Count

    425
  • Joined

  • Last visited

3 Followers

About randomstairs

  • Rank
    Gold Member
  • Member # 230993

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • State
    California

Immigration Info

  • Immigration Status
    Adjustment of Status (approved)
  • Place benefits filed at
    Nebraska Service Center
  • Our Story
    AoS pending.

Recent Profile Visitors

2,215 profile views
  1. Your expired GC and the receipts from the GC renewal application will ensure that you're not in violation of the law that requires you to carry the evidence of your LPR status as well as for naturalization purposes. For employment, in California at least, a valid California ID/DL and the clean SSN card should satisfy the the I-9 documentation requirement (probably works for other states as well). But the I-551 stamp is a better option, IMO. It also allows you to return to the US from traveling abroad.
  2. You answered correctly. Your name on N-400 and I-485 includes the middle name, so that's fine. Your DL does not but that shouldn't make it "other name used". It's still the same name. Otherwise folks would have to list all documents where only the last name was used or J. Smith, or J. E. Smith, or J.E.S., etc. That would be absurd. Also, you can always simply explain that at the interview. They should not run another BC because they have already done it with your full name. They also wouldn't run it again just with J. Smith or J.E. Smith... you get the point.
  3. It makes perfect sense to me. Just keep all the documents. **** Not a legal advice ***
  4. They are not asking for legal advice. The forum is for all immigration related issues.
  5. You can get the the I-551 stamp in your passport which is valid for a year. You can travel with it even if you don't have the GC. You can use it instead of a GC.
  6. There may also be delays in Application Support Centers (for biometrics) due to the latest EO which says in 5(c)(i): "take appropriate action, consistent with applicable law, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to provide that an alien should not be eligible to apply for a visa or for admission or entry into the United States or other benefit until such alien has been registered with biographical and biometric information, including but not limited to photographs, signatures, and fingerprints" So anyone extending their H1B or another work visa will be scheduled to do the biometrics if this regulation goes through. On the other hand that means more money from the fees
  7. Lots of nonsense can be grammatically correct. There's no comma but the break kinda has a similar effect. If one reads the first line only The effect works Anyways, at least it's not the Second Amendment interpretation we are arguing about
  8. It's pretty clear to me but I can see how it's also a bit vague because it can technically be read in two ways: 1) VALID FOR WORK ONLY WITH DHS AUTHORIZATION or 2) VALID FOR WORK ONLY WITH DHS AUTHORIZATION Just out of curiosity, how would you write it to make it less vague?
  9. 1. Yes, confirmed. 2. I would collect some evidence of living together since the COVID crises and something to show that your relationship had not been quite as serious before it (change of circumstances, aka 'love in times of COVID'). Anyways, I stand corrected regarding the seriousness of the 90-day rule in your case, so defer to the others.
  10. So the burden of proof is on USCIS? Then what's the point of the "90 day rule"?
  11. I'm not disagreeing. It's their presumption that misrepresentation was involved. It's discretionary and so I suggested that they show that the circumstances have changed since her entry, which should be doable assuming that that's how it happened. Their first question, if it arises at all, will be in regards to her intention at the time of entry. I'm not saying it's an insurmountable problem and am sorry if I made it sound that way. But is it a red flag? Yes, it is, to say the least. It's an issue and she knows it. They should prepare the evidence that supports this narrative. Ignoring it as a "not an issue" would be irresponsible, IMO.
  12. That was for the 30/60 day rule. It may apply to the 90 day rule too but it's still an issue IMO.
  13. Did you intend to marry him when entering the US on the F1 visa? If you had no such intent the burden of proof is on you to convince USCIS that you had not. As you seem to understand, they presume that you misrepresented yourself when you entered. With sufficient evidence to the contrary you may be able to prove otherwise. (For example, show that your circumstances have changed since your entry.) If you had intended to get married while entering on F1 - well, you know the answer.
  14. Your H1B is a separate process and will not be affected by filing for AOS, nor the other way around. So did you enter on F1 visa while you were already married? Or did you marry soon after entering on F1? Unfortunately that part is more concerning and you seem to understand why. You're saying that you re-entered on a renewed F1. Were you asked about your relationships in the US when you were applying?
×
×
  • Create New...