Jump to content

geowrian

Members, Organizer
  • Content Count

    22,637
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    159

geowrian last won the day on August 5

geowrian had the most liked content!

About geowrian

  • Rank
    Good, cheap, fast. Pick none.
  • Member # 251538
  • Location Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA

Profile Information

  • State
    Pennsylvania

Immigration Info

  • Immigration Status
    Removing Conditions (pending)
  • Place benefits filed at
    Chicago Lockbox
  • Local Office
    Philadelphia PA
  • Country
    Philippines

Immigration Timeline & Photos

Recent Profile Visitors

32,524 profile views
  1. Yes, a replacement card can be sent. USPS - like all carriers - does lose packages sometimes. I don't want to excuse it by any means, but the reality is it does happen. My wife had a FedEx package "delivered" to the house the other day. We have cameras and there was certainly not any delivery. Luckily, it was signed for by somebody and they were able to track down where it was actually delivered via the signature (it wasn't our names that signed it). On the (potential) plus side, USCIS is switching to a new delivery service class for cards moving forward: USPS Restricted Delivery. This will require the signature of the recipient. The drawback would be I'm not sure how it works for people who can't be home to sign for it due to other obligations (out of town, strict work commitments, etc.). USPS does have an ESOL service, but I'm not sure if or how that would apply for this new service class.
  2. Same here. Package arrived 7/30, no check cashed yet. Hoping for Monday/Tuesday based on averages.
  3. Right. Unfortunately, they missed that opportunity (and no guarantee the CBPO would agree to do so, but no harm asking). A lawyer reversing a case is surely in the minority. But a lawyer filing a well prepared waiver case to overcome the inadmissibility is much more common. I'm not suggesting a lawyer is required here. There is not a legal argument involved, or a question of law or fact to dispute. I'm just pointing out that a lawyer experienced with hardship waivers can often present a good waiver packet. Unlike the other forms and processes which are more about facts (i.e. you either qualify to petition or you don't...just provide all the necessary info), this waiver is about a set of circumstances describing hardships. Not sure on the $2800 figure...I've seen from $1000 to prepare a letter for the waiver to close to 5 digits for doing the entire packet. Shop around. YMMV. In the OP's case, the positives are that this is for a spouse, there is a USC child involved, and the home country can be argued as presenting hardships to immigrate in that direction. So I think a successful waiver is in the picture. But I do think it requires making sure it is well prepared still. It's something you really want to get right on the first try. They don't typically issue an RFE...they either approve or deny at their sole discretion based on the evidence presented. Note that the waiver (really a "consent to reapply") needed in the OP's situation is an I-212, not an I-601.
  4. Depends on local culture. A 30 year gap with a Filipino fiancee/wife typically doesn't raise an eyebrow. A 30 year gap in some other SEA countries may be highly unusual (I'd say Japan as an example, but Japan is also very low fraud so it may not be an issue there either).
  5. The I-130 is, and the consulate processing piece typically is as well. 100% agree there. In the OP's case, their SO was issued an expedited removal, which includes a 5 year ban. So a lawyer may be useful for applying for that waiver.
  6. Seems they just went through a transition period (new since my wife's friend got her license) in May-June of this year. I sent a message to see what others are doing now. I'll see what they say...it may or may not be useful but no harm in asking. From late February through last week, the I-944 was a required for for family-based AOS. Any existing I-944s filed are not supposed to be evaluated now, and no new submissions require it. If this was for immigration, then yeah - the "no credit history" letter would have been related to the I-944. And since that's being ignored now, no such letter is needed (unless there is another ruling re-instituting the I-944). Best wishes!
  7. CBP is not USCIS. USCIS furloughs won't have any impact on entering the US with an existing visa or other travel document. COs and the rest of DOS are not USCIS. USCIS furloughs won't directly change anything with NVC or the embassies/consulates. USCIS furloughs would impact USCIS processes, such as petition processing, AOS processing, etc.
  8. DL: The Texas DMV website indicates it is not required to provide an SSN unless you have one (except commercial DLs): https://www.dps.texas.gov/DriverLicense/ssn.htm. You can fill out an affidavit if you don't have one. Car insurance: Moot point without the DL. With a valid DL, I'm more than confident there are companies that will provide insurance (a quick online search shows a few, but there are likely more who can do so via phone). Not sure why a "no history" letter is needed (you already filed for AOS, so it can't be for the I-944...which also is no longer needed or being used). Is a mortgage company asking for it or something? RN: A quick search indicates that the online application requires an SSN at this time, but the paper form does not - and that's what they direct people who do not have an SSN to use. https://www.bon.texas.gov/licensure_examination.asp#paper I actually know a Filipino RN who is being sponsored for a visa by a TX hospital. She is licensed there already and has no SSN yet. She can't help with COVID until she is authorized to work (i.e. via an EAD or green card).
  9. To add to the above... To apply for an SSN, you must have at least 14 days of legal status remaining. The legal status ended 90 days from POE. So her next opportunity to get an SSN is when she gets an EAD. After that, it's when she gets a green card.
  10. It's slightly more complicated than that. https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-d-chapter-3 So it's not just >6 months = break in continuous residence...It's a judgement call. For example, 5 months out, 1 month in, 5 months out may break it.
  11. You need to include both: 1) Evidence of current income, and 2) A transcript OR copy of at least the most recent year's tax return. Prior years is optional. Without evidence of current income (like pay stubs and/or employment letter), there is no way to verify your current income. I would expect an RFIE as a result.
  12. There is no quota for the spouse of a USC. The visa will be issued or not if she is eligible for it. The CO has discretion for items like determining the marriage is bona fide, if they are likely to become a public charge, etc. But if you provide satisfactory evidence to demonstrate otherwise + all required documentation (PCCs and such), there should not be an issue. The CO is not to just randomly refuse the visa...there needs to be a reason supported by the INA to do so. Edit: To clarify, if - for example - the president were to ban all nationals of Thailand (as they are permitted to do under INA 212(f)), the visa could be refused. But thus far, Thailand has no such ban in place.
  13. You would know if you were applying under 245(i). haha It's not something most people qualify for nowadays. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1255&num=0&edition=prelim
  14. As an employee, his current annual income is how much he earns in a 12 month period. For example, if I lose my job today, my current income for I-864 purposes is $0 despite whatever I made last year or so far this year. If I get a job next month earning $50k/year, my current income (once I start that job) would be $50k/year despite what I made earlier in the year. A common case is with students. They may have part-time or low (or no) wage earnings in the first part of the year. But once they graduate, they may get a full time, better-paid position. Their current income would be based on that job, not the previous job (or lack thereof). So it's not like unemployment is being subtracted from his earnings. It's just not part of his current income because he's not receiving it anymore.
×
×
  • Create New...