DelcoCouple

I was

Not sure what normal is but as a recent data point for you and other readers I applied on Friday 5 May at the post office with normal processing and it is showing due to be delivered on Monday (23rd May)

1 minute ago, Venice000 said:

Nice. How long did it take for the whole interview process?

The interview was less than 30 minutes. I actually waited the same length of time after approval for a supervisor to check the file and to to get handed the notice of oath ceremony. The ceremony itself took around 90 minutes yesterday and there were 70 people which I am sure added to the time it took. Overall I have always had a good experience with the Philly field office. However I am glad to have ended my dealings with them 

42 minutes ago, sunshinestate2013 said:

Congratulations, @DelcoCouple

Thank you. It is nice to finally make it to the end of the journey!  There were 70 people at the Oath ceremony yesterday from I think 36 countries.. good luck to all those now waiting the end of their journey

On 4/3/2018 at 2:40 PM, Venice000 said:

Congrats. How long did it take for the whole process?

I filed first week in July @Venice000

Interview in Philadelphia this afternoon and oath ceremony scheduled for Friday

Filed July 2017 Interview today and Oath ceremony on Friday 

I do not recall confirming or denial of any of those issues.

Exactly following your post

You do not appear to have a lot of sympathy in your replies.

Perhaps if you stop and think. The OP was under the impression that his wife was considered illegal, we needed to correct that assumption.

While you are right about the ID, please consider that some people would rather just carry ID to prove their right to remain in this country.

You ARE required by law to carry ID in most states, regardless of the legality of showing it to board a plane. It is also a legal requirement to carry your green card at all times while a LPR.

If you want to prove your right to not have to carry ID to get on a plane, that is fine, go ahead. Personally, that is not a point I need to prove.

I replied with

.....I stated to the OP

1 ID is not required for domestic travel

2 Her passport is an acceptable form of ID should she choose to use it.

3 A more pertinent problem may be how advanced his wife's pregnancy is with regard to air travel than ID concerns.

If people want to argue that any of the above is wrong I am sure he will read their advice in context

Your meaningful response was

Being that you do not have the ability to see beyond your narrow vision, I do not see any reason to continue this dialog with you.

I wish you the best on your journey

You failed to address any of those point at all. Instead you provided a rather condescending lecture about what I should be considering. I am perfectly able to form my own opinion as to what I need to consider but thanks for the helpful advice. You then went on to make incorrect statements of fact regarding ID requirements in general again not anything to do with the topic. Deflecting away from the topic is a common debate tactic.

The post that helped the OP in gaining an answer or question of course has to be

Thank you for proving my point

If you want to debate the points I have raised then please do so but an attempt to divert to another topic won't get you that far as I have an annoying tendency to go back to the original question and the answers I gave. You make many assumptions that are generally held truisms but not factual at all.

Before you respond, if you respond. I believe you should clarify those for US Citizens vs. non-US Citizens. I think you will find a disparity between the two.

There is no difference in the Photo ID requirement for citizen/non citizens. The issue the court decided on was the requirement to produce Photo ID in order to fly domestically within the US. That decision applies equally to citizens and non citizens. A requirement to carry a LPR card does not over rule that decision and you may still travel without ID. Do not make the mistake of equating TSA buffons with LEOs they are not.

To paraphrase you in part, before you reply if you reply at all I believe you should read the original posters questions my replies to them and see if there is anything I have said which is factually incorrect. If there is then please let me know if not then perhaps you can find a new master to follow around as to be honest I have no real need of a puppy dog

If you do not like my writing style then do not read my replies. But is that is all you have to offer instead of substantive input you really need to turn the keyboard off and walk away in the fresh air for a while.

Have a great weekend, I am just about to go out for dinner and a nice evening so it may take a while for me to get around to replying to any serious points that are on the topic I responded to

Can you also post the link to the site where you were advised that AOS applications can be denied for no reason?

I couldn't find it on the link you did post.

Look around line 21

http://www.us-immigration-attorney.com/pri...t-of-status.htm

Of course you could always adopt the radical viewpoint that Bank Of America are not providing immigration policing in the hope that the Immigration service doesn't enter the Banking Field.

Lordy what a mess that would be Bank Of Immigration

DelcoCouple alludes to reason for denial of AOS having to do with violation of the non-immigrant visa.

As some of us were hotly debating illegal work and it's forgiveness, we found this from the CFR.

Now we aren't lawyers and we don't know exactly what it means but it is interesting.

**************************

Title 8: Aliens and Nationality

PART 214—NONIMMIGRANT CLASSES

§ 214.1 Requirements for admission, extension, and maintenance of status.

(e) Employment. A nonimmigrant in the United States in a class defined in section 101(a)(15)( of the Act as a temporary visitor for pleasure, or section 101(a)(15)© of the Act as an alien in transit through this country, may not engage in any employment. Any other nonimmigrant in the United States may not engage in any employment unless he has been accorded a nonimmigrant classification which authorizes employment or he has been granted permission to engage in employment in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. A nonimmigrant who is permitted to engage in employment may engage only in such employment as has been authorized. Any unauthorized employment by a nonimmigrant constitutes a failure to maintain status within the meaning of section 241(a)(1)©(i) of the Act.

For those that can not sleep at night the full title may be found HERE. The relief of AOS is clearly discretionary like it or not guys. I suspect that it is indeed rare that a denial is made without reason being given but that doesn't change the possibility that such denial can occur. All moot points really in the real world that most of us experience. If anything it shows no matter how clear cut your case appears the legislators usually leave themselves room to get you with a catch all section if all else fails should they be so inclined

Personally I think for the vast majority of people in this forum these are fairly academic and moot points but never the less of interest to some who want to delve further than the surface layers.

I still want to see the link citing denial of AOS benefits without a reason being given to the client. I'm thinking it doesn't exist.

Knock yourself out then

http://lawcrawler.findlaw.com/scripts/lc.p...tes=findlaw.com

The world existed pre google. The fact that every case is not archived somewhere on the internet matters not really. The important thing is that pesky little irritant that keeps clouding peoples judgement in here. It is called the Law. The fact that there is provision for such denial is sufficient in itself for it to be undeniable and a real albeit remote possibility.

There are I imagine very few 'links' to a child walking into the side of a skyscraper and breaking their nose because they "didn't see the 84 floor tall building", but trust me I have intimate knowledge of such an event and the crooked nose to show for it.

Actually the percentage does matter. I would be interested in knowing how many AOS applications are denied without a reason of some sort being given. I imagine the percentage must be very low to nonexistent. It's a pretty poor policy for any government agency to deny a benefit, (whether right or priviledge), without providing a valid reason to the client.

Poor practice or not it is the reality. It is pretty poor practice to kidnap people abroad move them half way around the globe and intern them with out trial or due process for years on end. Yet lo and behold it has been known to happen. The percentage of the worlds population it happens to is also very low to non existent

Poor practice is rarely accepted as a valid reason by those in power for a government to change its policy

And, if my AOS was denied and we were not given a reason, I think my husband would be pretty upset and the media quite interested.

The first part is a given Jane, the second I am rather more sceptical about. The medias focus with regard to immigration tends to be of the "illegals shock horror hyperbole" type rather than any good reporting sad to say.

All I've got to say about the ORIGINAL POST is this.

My boss is a 'regular flavor' lawyer. And a pretty good one at that. Honest too. All the things you want in representation.

He wouldn't touch immigration with a ten-foot pole. Because he knows he's not qualified to represent the client to the fullest of his ability.

Agreed which is what made me wonder about the bona fides of the original question posed. No lawyer in his right mind would act for a client in an area he was not suitably qualified. Professional negligence suit much?

Please share with us the links to back up your statements.....

Kez

With pleasure

http://www.us-immigration-attorney.com/pri...t-of-status.htm

You will find the author is a practising immigration lawyer who previously was an Immigration Adjudicator at the California Service Center (CSC) for over 12 years and he adjudicated every type of immigration visa petition. His experience with the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (formerly known as the Immigration and Naturalization Service) may be said to be extensive

Thank you for proving my point

Yet for some reason unbeknown to me you feel compelled to keep replying with personal observations rather than anything of substance in relation to the OP which refutes the answers I have given.

Are you saying that ID is required to fly domestically/

Are you saying that the passport is not acceptable ID should she choose to use it/

Are you saying that an advanced stage of pregnancy would never present a potential difficulty for an intending air passenger.

If not then you agree with me. If you are then please enlighten us all as to why the above 3 statements are factually correct.

You have certainly managed to prove A point to the impartial casual reader, but I am not convinced it is the one you intended

Jane is 100% correct here, both illegal work and overstay are forgiven if you're married to a USC. USCIS cannot use illegal work or overstay as a reason for denial of AOS.

Subject of course to the caveat that AOS is a discretionary benefit. They do not strictly need a reason to deny it as there is no automatic right to it.

And what percentage of AOS applicants do you think are denied with no reason given?

.0000001 %?

I have no idea and if it is your petition that is denied you really wont give a damn what the percentage is as it is pretty irrelevant. As there is in effect no review of a discretionary refusal I am not sure where the figures you ask for may be found.

The fact remains the benefit is discretionary. Often the assumption is made in this forum that it is a right. Whilst in the vast majority of cases it is plain sailing the possibility of denial is still very much a possibility. It is important that readers understand it is discretionary, not mandatory. It is possible for a person who is technically eligible for immigrant status to nonetheless be denied adjustment of status in the exercise of that discretion. The most common instances of such discretionary denials involve cases where the applicant abused the nonimmigrant process. For example, if a person applies for admission into a school or for a change in nonimmigrant status within 30 days of entry, they are presumed to have acted in bad faith. That is, they had the preconceived intent to make the change and they used an easier to obtain visa in order to evade the normal screening process abroad for the visa they really wanted.

If an AOS applicant has anything in his or her past visa history that suggests that he or she may have abused the visa process, or otherwise tried to take shortcuts, the USCIS has made it clear that they can and will deny such adjustment applications in the exercise of discretion. Discretionary AOS refusals are not subject to administrative review. While federal court review is theoretically possible, few judges are willing to attempt to substitute their judgment for that of USCIS officers in the absence of gross abuse of discretion.

The point you raised about starting work immediately after entering on VWP would tend to ring alarm bells to me as a case where such discretion may be a consideration and as such a competent Immigration Attorney would seem a wise choice in light of the limited amount of information given.

Jane is 100% correct here, both illegal work and overstay are forgiven if you're married to a USC. USCIS cannot use illegal work or overstay as a reason for denial of AOS.

Subject of course to the caveat that AOS is a discretionary benefit. They do not strictly need a reason to deny it as there is no automatic right to it.

.........and your reasons for being so sarcastic to almost everyone in almost every post you make is?

And here was me lost in the illusion that the thread was about ID requirements when travelling domestically within the USA when all along it was about my style of writing, silly me.

I found your answer to be sarcastic, nevertheless welcome to the world of diversity and different styles of writing.

Now if you can tell me how I can convey to people that no matter what they personally do, believe, think or have heard from a friend, bloke in a pub or on faux news and is therefore correct they are plain and simple wrong in legal terms without them going into a google fervour to show me how brilliant they are all then I can lay off the sarcasm a little.

My guess however is that my tongue will be firmly implanted in my cheek for years to come.

if you have a vacation home in America, and presumably take use of the VWP, you're only here for a short time, so why you'd need a seperate cc acct instead of using your regular ones, is beyond me.

......

In simple terms it saves money. Many people buy a vacation home on a buy to let arrangement. ie they use it part of the year for their own enjoyment and rent it out through a local agent to provide income to service the mortgage etc. It makes sense from both a financial and logistical viewpoint to open an American bank account to receive money into and pay bills out from. Likewise there are many companies that will not accept a foreign credit card for purchases ordered fro delivery within the USA etc. So it is a useful financial tool and also provides some insulation from the vagracies of the international currency markets. People that buy a home abroad tend to be a little more financially savvy than Joe Average and are much more likely to apply for a US credit card in addition to the ones they hold in their home countries. It is a market that banks are keen to tap into.

But hey where is the story in people acting lawfully being given the choice to use a service they would benefit from?

I'm not talking about savings/checking accounts, but credit card accounts.

That would be the bit in bold red.

I have no idea what it takes to get an account in Ireland. My husband is from Northern Ireland.

Nonetheless, I'll ask him tonite when I see him....

And I don't think BOA said they didn't want ID. They said they don't want a SS number.

They require ID such as a passport and a utility bill. Pretty much the same as a bank here. Like the US there is no residency requirement to hold a bank account.

Whoah, how did he get the two pistols past all the security checks?

I guess security is lacking over their.

It isn't that clever over here.

if you have a vacation home in America, and presumably take use of the VWP, you're only here for a short time, so why you'd need a seperate cc acct instead of using your regular ones, is beyond me.

......

In simple terms it saves money. Many people buy a vacation home on a buy to let arrangement. ie they use it part of the year for their own enjoyment and rent it out through a local agent to provide income to service the mortgage etc. It makes sense from both a financial and logistical viewpoint to open an American bank account to receive money into and pay bills out from. Likewise there are many companies that will not accept a foreign credit card for purchases ordered fro delivery within the USA etc. So it is a useful financial tool and also provides some insulation from the vagracies of the international currency markets. People that buy a home abroad tend to be a little more financially savvy than Joe Average and are much more likely to apply for a US credit card in addition to the ones they hold in their home countries. It is a market that banks are keen to tap into.

But hey where is the story in people acting lawfully being given the choice to use a service they would benefit from?

You do not appear to have a lot of sympathy in your replies.

Perhaps if you stop and think. The OP was under the impression that his wife was considered illegal, we needed to correct that assumption.

While you are right about the ID, please consider that some people would rather just carry ID to prove their right to remain in this country.

You ARE required by law to carry ID in most states, regardless of the legality of showing it to board a plane. It is also a legal requirement to carry your green card at all times while a LPR.

If you want to prove your right to not have to carry ID to get on a plane, that is fine, go ahead. Personally, that is not a point I need to prove.

Sympathy something I can live without. I did not read anywhere in his post that he thought his wife was illegal. He did express concern that his wife had no way of showing to a lay person that she was in legal status. That is quite a jump you made there as to the OP.I posted factual information in reply to the OP I didn't enter a popularity contest. State laws with regard to ID or LPR card conditions have no relevance to his question. I am not trying to prove a point I am simply stating factual and correct information pertinent to the OP question. If people choose to try and prove their incorrect replies based on information found on websites as opposed to the law is correct and that the 9th circuit judges wrong then that is fine they can spend all day doing so.

I stated to the OP

1 ID is not required for domestic travel

2 Her passport is an acceptable form of ID should she choose to use it.

3 A more pertinent problem may be how advanced his wife's pregnancy is with regard to air travel than ID concerns.

If people want to argue that any of the above is wrong I am sure he will read their advice in context

You don't have to be a resident of any particulary country to own a house in most parts of Europe. Mind you, that's probably an EU thing. Regardless, you can establish a bank account in the US without being a resident. Granted, in the past this was a simple thing, while nowadays you have to provide all kinds of proof of identity. Regarless, people have done this in the past, perfectly lawfully, and will continue to do so, quite lawfully and doing so doesn't make you an illegal immigrant.

:thumbs:

Right on all points.

Oh hush. Don't you know that a sloopy piece of journalism that asserts with no evidence at all that "customers without Social Security numbers, typically illegal immigrants" trumps all reality in the world of the interwebs .

Every time I go through security screening at an airport, aside from almost completely disrobing, I have to present valid picture ID with my boarding pass. I use my driver's license for domestic flights.

Am I missing something?

Yes. The fact that you do this does not mean there is any LEGAL REQUIREMENT for you to do so. Sheeples just go along with the security charade and the farcical behaviour of the organisation called the TSA

Oh, please. What's the big deal about showing ID?

I'm much more impressed when someone takes a stand for something important, like world hunger or the lack of potable water in so many areas of the world...

The big deal revolves around minor little irritants like, freedom, privacy, and the rights and protections afforded by the constitution. I am sure had the founding fathers been aware of potable water issues they would have included something about it but as it stands I simply chose to deal with the OP question and the misinformation that was given in replies to them. Their issue was ID when travelling I answered that. So far as I am aware an expired visa has no affect on world hunger so I will leave that out of my reply to them.

Had the founding fathers realized that planes were going to be flown into buildings, that countries would have to protect themselves against terrorism, and that the US would be going to war against it, they might have included a clause about 'verification of identity'.

And your point is what exactly? We are told that all the players on 9/11 presented valid ID.