Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About pauli

  • Rank
  • Member # 30142

Immigration Info

  • Immigration Status
    K-1 Visa
  • Place benefits filed at
    Nebraska Service Center
  • Local Office
    Milwaukee WI
  • Country

Immigration Timeline & Photos

Recent Profile Visitors

4,710 profile views
  1. So you think if your buddy had a letter from you inviting him to surf the California shore and stating you'll pay his expenses, then that would have turned the consular officer's judgement? Anybody can write such a letter - it's just a piece of paper - and COs are smart individuals.
  2. As I wrote earlier, if the administration/Stephen Miller were truly concerned about "US taxpayers propping up immigrants receiving benefits", then why not simply enforce the Affidavit of Support and make the sponsor reimburse the govt? Instead, this just reeks as a lame attempt to kick out lawful immigrants. Gotta say it - republicans are living in the now, but are toast in the next few decades if they can't expand their base beyond what it currently is. Changing demographics are gonna catch up to them.
  3. This would be stupid. Instead of preventing immigrants who received benefits legally afforded to them such as Obamacare subsidies from getting green cards/citizenship, they should just start actually enforcing the Affidavit of Support and charging the US sponsor.
  4. They are asked their immigration status and proof thereof prior to be offered a job? And the job doesn't specifically require the person to be a citizen?
  5. According to what you know as common hiring practices, when and under what circumstance can an employer ask an applicant for his or her immigration status and proof thereof?
  6. I hear you and don't disagree, but the bottom line is the OP asked if this was legal and from my understanding the answer is no unless the job specifically requires the employee to be a US citizen. Clearly, it's hard to prove that the company's decision was based solely off of her immigration status. Nonetheless, my understanding is that unless the job specifically requires the employee to be a citizen, they can't even ask for your immigration status until after offering a job. Then it's on you to provide sufficient documentation for the I9. Now, what action the OP wants to take based on this info is up to her.
  7. Geez, the lack of empathy and blatant disregard for the law from some posters in this thread is frankly a bit appalling. If you care about the law, then read the post by Hypnos. We all know how long it's taking to get a green card these days. Imagine if you or your spouse or other family member went one year applying for jobs with a valid EAD and countinuously getting turned down because you don't have a green card yet. You'd be pissed! And this is her dream job! And as far as I can tell, nothing the OP has stated implies that the job requires the person to be a US citizen.
  8. Links to memos referred in article: https://www.aila.org/infonet/uscis-issues-policy-memo-on-ntas-for-cases https://www.aila.org/infonet/uscis-issues-policy-memo-with-updated-guidance-nta And for what it's worth, some comments from AILA's Director of Government Relations: https://www.aila.org/publications/videos/quicktakes/quicktake-245-uscis-guidance-on-issuance-of-ntas
  9. I'm just trying to state facts, not opinions. Regarding the "public charge" scenario... The Department of Homeland Security has drafted rules that would expand the types of public benefits used to determine if a green card applicant may become a public charge. As I understand it, current rules only factor in cash benefits. This would be expanded to non-cash benefits such as food assistance programs, preschool programs, health insurance subsidies, etc. In addition, it would be taken into account if an applicant's US citizen child were receiving such benefits (such as Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)). It's just a draft and the officer would consider the totality of the situation before making a judgment. But as I read it, the draft does imply that someone with an expensive medical condition who marries and obtains health insurance at subsidized rate through Obamacare could be denied adjustment of status based on public charge determination. As hypothetically could an AOS applicant with a US citizen child who receives CHIP assistance. In fact, the AOS applicant could be denied if the officer thinks he or she is likely to become a public charge at any time in the future. From the draft (link below): "If the Secretary of Homeland Security determines that an alien applying for admission or adjustment of status is likely to become a public charge at any time, the alien is inadmissable under section 212(a)(4) of the Act..... (a) Prospective determination. The Secretary must determine the likelihood that an alien will become a public charge at any time in the future. ... (b) Totality of circumstances. The Secretary must base the determination on the totality of the alien's circumstances by weighing all positive and negative factors ... (e) Heavily weighted negative factors. The following factors weigh heavily in favor of a finding that an alien is likely to become a public charge: ... (4) The alien has a costly medical condition and is unable to show proof of unsubsidized health insurance, prospect of obtaining unsubsidized health insurance, or other non-governmental means of paying for treatment." Here's the draft: https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/10188201/DRAFT_NPRM_public_charge.0.pdf And more reading: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-services-exclusive/exclusive-trump-administration-may-target-immigrants-who-use-food-aid-other-benefits-idUSKBN1FS2ZK https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/06/us/politics/trump-immigrants-public-nutrition-services.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-proposal-would-penalize-immigrants-who-use-tax-credits-and-other-benefits/2018/03/28/4c6392e0-2924-11e8-bc72-077aa4dab9ef_story.html?utm_term=.ca11dff5fb38 https://www.kff.org/disparities-policy/fact-sheet/proposed-changes-to-public-charge-policies-for-immigrants-implications-for-health-coverage/ https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/chilling-effects-expected-public-charge-rule-impact-legal-immigrant-families
  10. I think an IRS matter is getting conflated with an immigration matter. Ultimately the issue is not whether or not a person can amend his or her taxes to file as married. The point is why give immigration any reason, however small it may be, to question your relationship with your spouse. Filing as single when you're married does that.
  11. OP - do you truly intend on staying in the US after your treatment or returning to Europe? Don't know about your timeline, but I'd be concerned about the implications the denied AOS could have on spouse potentially accumulating overstay days leading to a ban/unintended consequences should you move back to Europe. Makes it all the more important to submit a strong AOS reapplication.
  12. But question for OP - I assume they gave the wife 6 months to stay in U.S. on tourist visa. Is that not enough time for them to sort out their situation, whether they go back to Panama or a different country? You said that's what they want to do. If they don't plan on staying in US, then Adjustment of Status doesn't make sense.
  13. You all need to step back and consider the situation without taking into account the OP's tone and political commentary. To me, the OP's story makes perfect sense. The couple are missionaries and presumably want to continue their work abroad. If they really wanted to immigrate to U.S., why didn't they just go straight to U.S. instead of going to Panama? When they couldn't stay in Panama and couldn't go back to Venezuela, then they decided to regroup in U.S. until they find their next spot. Makes sense to me. MyJourney's immigration advice is correct. Since she was allowed in, she can apply to adjust status whether we like it or not.
  14. True, but that was before there was a box on the visa application asking for social media usernames and passwords. I doubt she would have given that info knowing what she had posted. Also, my understanding is that her posts weren't public, but were private messages. And actually, this current policy is not requesting passwords, just usernames.
  15. This is an interesting topic and I see benefits to scouring social media, however... People who want to harm U.S. are simply not going to list their "terrorist" social media accounts, but would just submit separate social media accounts that make them seem normal. They are not going to list email addresses that they've used for nefarious purposes. Etc. Bad actors are always one step ahead. Thus, this just potentially creates more wait time and potential problems for the rest of us. And if they haven't already started, the next step could be to request access to social media accounts, etc. of the U.S. petitioner. And then require access to internet browsing data from beneficiary and petitioner. And those who support the current White House administration should keep in mind that it will eventually change and at some point there will certainly be a more liberal administration that might not think kindly of some of your social media posts. I'm a bit surprised that so many of you have so much faith in the government handling this info. This is not to say that I'm totally against this policy, but I think it's not so clear cut.