Used to be broken

http://tinyurl.com/6t2uoxp

USCIS TO PROPOSE CHANGING THE PROCESS FOR CERTAIN WAIVERS BASED ON UNLAWFUL PRESENCE

Press Conference

Moderator: Edna Ruano, Chief, Office of Communications

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)

Jan. 6, 2012

1 P.M. EDT

Coordinator: Welcome, and thank you for standing by. At this time all participants are in a listen-only mode until the question and answer session. If you would like to ask a question at that time you may press star then one on your touchtone telephone.

Today’s conference is being recorded. If you have any objections you may disconnect at this time. I would like to turn the meeting over to Miss Edna Ruano. Ma’am, please begin.

Edna Ruano: Thank you. Hello, my name is Edna Ruano and I’m the Chief of the Office of Communications at USCIS. Welcome to today’s call with USCIS Director Alejandro Mayorkas.

Before we begin the call, quickly I wanted to set some guidelines for today’s call. Please introduce yourself, your name, what media outlet you represent, and there will only be one question per reporter.

Thanks again for your participation and now I will turn it over to USCIS Director Alejandro Mayorkas.

Alejandro Mayorkas: Thank you, Edna, and thank you, all of you, for joining us today. We have convened this call to provide you with the opportunity to learn more about the Notice of Intent that we posted in the Federal Register this morning regarding a proposed regulatory change in the processing of Waivers of Inadmissibility.

This proposed regulatory change will significantly reduce the time that U.S. citizens are separated from their spouses and children under certain circumstances while those family members are going through the process of obtaining visas to become legal immigrants to the United States.

Its purpose is to minimize the extent to which bureaucratic delays separate Americans from their families for long periods of time, specifically in cases where a Waiver of Inadmissibility due to unlawful presence is required as part of the visa process.

The proposed streamlined process will be available to spouses and sons and daughters of U.S. citizens who have accrued a certain period of unlawful presence in the United States as the waiver statute requires and can demonstrate that separation would cause an extreme hardship to their U.S. citizen spouse or parent.

The process would allow these individuals to have their waiver applications processed in the United States and receive a provisional waiver determination before they complete the visa process at a consulate outside the United States.

This proposal would not change existing laws, the requirement that immigrants leave the country to process their visas, or the standards for determining who is eligible for a Waiver of Inadmissibility.

And allow me to emphasize this last point: The law as currently written is designed to avoid extreme hardship to a United States citizen.

Existing law provides that to achieve this goal a U.S. citizen’s spouse or child who is here unlawfully can obtain a waiver and become a legal resident if their separation would cause extreme hardship to a United States citizen.

We are proposing a process change to better serve the current law’s goal, a change that will reduce the time of separation and thereby alleviate the extreme hardship to the United States citizen.

And I think it might be helpful, before I really give you the opportunity to ask questions, to explain the current process - to explain the process as contemplated so that you understand the change that is being made and what is not changing.

Currently, once the familial relationship between the spouse or son or daughter and a U.S. citizen has been established by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, once we have already adjudicated that familial relationship, an individual who is unlawfully present in the United States must leave the United States and, after having departed, apply for a Waiver of Inadmissibility.

The Waiver of Inadmissibility would be adjudicated by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, by us, and the time it takes us to adjudicate those waivers, on average, is approximately six months, but often it is longer than that. And if indeed we grant the waiver, then the individual would be able to have a visa issued and enter the country.

What happens is the individual - to be more specific, the individual departs the country, has a consular interview, the Department of State determines the different grounds of inadmissibility, and the individual would then seek a waiver of those grounds from USCIS. And if indeed we grant the waiver, the individual’s case returns to the Department of State for the issuance of the visa.

What happens under current process is that the case moves back and forth between USCIS, and the Department of State, and the individual, who has been granted a Waiver of Inadmissibility because the separation between him or her and the United States citizen relative would serve an extreme hardship on the United States citizen, will have been separated from that United States citizen for at least six months and most often more.

The proposal as contemplated now is that the spouse or son or daughter of the United States citizen could apply for a waiver before departing the United States if the only ground of inadmissibility is unlawful presence.

USCIS will adjudicate that waiver, and if that waiver is granted, if we determine that the ground of inadmissibility is unlawful presence and the separation between that individual and a United States citizen would serve an extreme hardship on the United States citizen relative, we would grant a provisional waiver.

The individual, the relative, would then depart the United States for their visa interview. The Department of State would confirm that the only ground of inadmissibility is unlawful presence, and if indeed that was confirmed and there was no other deterrence to admission, such as the commission of fraud, then the provisional waiver would be finalized and the individual would be admitted to the United States.

And so the period of separation is significantly reduced because the time that it takes USCIS to adjudicate the waiver would be accomplished before the individual has departed the United States.

We are not changing the standard. The standard remains. The standard of adjudicating a waiver remains extreme hardship to a United States citizen. The individual must still depart the United States. The only ground of inadmissibility as to which this proposed process change applies is the ground of unlawful presence.

It does not pertain to people whose ground of inadmissibility is, for example, the conviction of a crime. And I should add that in that regard, to ensure that our national security and public safety interests are fully protected, USCIS, before adjudicating and granting a provisional waiver, will be taking the biometrics of the applicant and doing our background checks.

And so the goal here, through a proposal that is designed to achieve process efficiency, the goal is to reduce the time of separation and alleviate the extreme hardship to a United States citizen as the law currently intends. And with that I will open it up to your questions.

Coordinator: Thank you. If you would like to ask a question please press star then one. You’ll be prompted to record your first and last name so that I may announce your question. To withdraw your question from queue you may press star then two. Once again, to ask a question please press star then one now. One moment for our first question please. (Fernando Pizzaro), your line is open.

(Fernando Pizarro): Hi, Director, how are you?

Alejandro Mayorkas: Good afternoon, (Fernando).

(Fernando Pizarro): I just wanted to clarify one thing, and if you could explain this to me, okay, so let’s say an alien satisfies or meets the requirement of the only ground of inadmissibility being unlawful presence, does that - and it meets, obviously, their requirement of being a relative or immediate son or daughter or spouse of U.S. citizen, does that immediately constitute extreme hardship or is there an additional burden for that alien to prove extreme hardship?

Alejandro Mayorkas: It is the latter, (Fernando). That does not in and of itself constitute extreme hardship. And the standard of extreme hardship is articulated in immigration cases, in published immigration cases, and it is a fact-based inquiry and the law speaks to a review of the totality of the circumstances. But the standard is a rigorous one and it is important to emphasize that it is extreme hardship to the United States citizen.

(Fernando Pizarro): Okay.

Coordinator: Our next question comes from Daniel Gonzalez of The Arizona Republic. Your line is open. One moment please.

Daniel Gonzalez: Hello, can you hear me?

Alejandro Mayorkas: Yes. Thank you.

Daniel Gonzalez: Hi, Director. How are you?

Alejandro Mayorkas: Good afternoon, Daniel.

Daniel Gonzalez: Good afternoon. Could you tell me about how many people this will affect and when this change would go into effect?

Alejandro Mayorkas: So let me answer both questions. We do not know how many people will be impacted. Let me, if I can though, provide you with some context. We receive - last year, for example, we received approximately 485,000 petitions to establish the relationship of immediate relatives or the familial relationship, I should say, between an individual and a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, approximately 485,000.

Of those petitions to establish familial relationship, the I-130, here we take that number and layer a number of filters. First, we are dealing here in this proposed systems change only immediate relatives, so only the spouses or sons or daughters of United States citizens. And that’s actually a subset of immediate relatives, one. The second filter is we are dealing with individuals whose only grounds of inadmissibility is unlawful presence.

Another filter is that we are dealing with only those who cannot adjust their status while - who can only adjust their status by first having to leave the United States. We are not addressing a population that can adjust status while remaining here. And we are also only dealing with those whose separation would effect an extreme hardship on a United States citizen.

The second, I think, number that I would provide to you by way of context is last year we received approximately 23,000 applications for Waivers of Inadmissibility, so that, I think, provides, I think, some numbers that we are using to guide ourselves.

With respect to your second question on timeline, it is our goal - let me share with you what, really, the next step is because what we have posted today is a Notice of Intent to proceed with a proposed regulation.

Well, we will have a listening session with the public that will inform our rule-making. We will publish a for-public-comment a proposed rule. We will take those public comments, and those public comments will inform our final rule that we will post. And it is our goal to make that final rule effective and begin processing applications this year.

David Gonzalez: I’m sorry, but the numbers you gave, there’s a wide disparity. Do you have an idea of where it would closer fall in, the 23,000 or the 480,000?

Alejandro Mayorkas: Those are two very different, very different, numbers. One is the numbers, I said, of the I-130s, the petitions to establish a familial relationship of which a subset is immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, and the other is the number of Waivers of Inadmissibility that we receive as an agency.

That does not define the number of individuals who are impacted or would be impacted by this regulation, but nevertheless they are two numbers that are relevant to your question and the only numbers we really have.

Coordinator: The next question is from (Antonietta Cadiz) from LA Opinion. Your line is open.

(Antonieta Cadiz): Hello. Thank you, Director, for having this call today. You said that the (unintelligible) (unintelligible) (will be significantly reduced.) I was wondering if you have any clear estimation of how much time will this new process take.

And second, representatives like (RS meet), for example, (already we have access to this) announcement. He said today that while the waiver of these bars is (unintelligible) under current law, it is not intended to be applied to millions of illegal immigrants. I was wondering if you have any (objection) to that.

Alejandro Mayorkas: Well, let me answer, (Antonieta), your first question, which is the time this new process will take. Let me make sure that everyone understands something; that the time it takes us as an agency to adjudicate the waiver very well may not change.

That time period is six months on average, but sometimes more. We’re always, of course, interested in improving our processing times, but those are our processing times currently. And we don’t anticipate an acceleration of that processing time. However, under this new process we will be adjudicating that waiver before the individual has to depart the United States.

And what - the time that really will be reduced is the time of separation between the family member whose waiver has been granted and the United States citizen who would suffer extreme hardship by virtue of that separation. So that’s the critical time period that current law, as it exists now, is designed to avoid.

And so we are going to be working very closely with the Department of State to ensure that that time of separation, the time when an individual has already departed the United States with a provisional waiver, the time it takes for that provisional waiver to become final, the visa to be issued, and the person to be admitted, our goal is to reduce that time. And it will not be months. It will be days or weeks. That is our goal.

Coordinator: Our next question is Leslie Rojas with KPCC (Southern California Public Radio). Your line is open.

Leslie Rojas: (Unintelligible). Hi. Yes, a couple of questions. Actually, just to clarify on the number...

Alejandro Mayorkas: I’m sorry. You’re at a very low volume, very difficult for me to hear.

Leslie Rojas: Is this better?

Alejandro Mayorkas: (Unintelligible).

Leslie Rojas: Okay. Sorry. I’m on a cell phone. Is this a little bit better?

Alejandro Mayorkas: Yes. Thank you.

Leslie Rojas: Okay. Great. I just wanted to clarify with the numbers. I understand that in FY 2011 there was something like 17,000 hardship waivers granted, if that’s correct. I’m wondering how many applications were received. I mean, how many were granted out of the applications received a year?

Alejandro Mayorkas: So I think I - maybe I didn’t make myself clear, but there are about 23,000 applications received for waivers and about 17,000 approved.

Coordinator: The next question is from (Julian Resendez), Al Dia. Your line is open.

(Julian Resendez): Yes, (Julian) from (Al Dia), Dallas. Can you give me an example of what would constitute extreme hardship for a U.S. citizen, maybe from some past cases?

Alejandro Mayorkas: So I don’t - I appreciate the question. I don’t have a particular case in mind, but let me share with you perhaps an example on a very generalized basis so - because - a type of situation, for example, would be a U.S. citizen who suffers a grave illness whose sole caretaker is a son or daughter and who relies on that son or daughter to - for the medical care and the like. That’s the type of thing that we have seen in an extreme hardship case with, of course, greater detail and more facts.

And as I alluded to earlier this is a fact-based inquiry. It’s - and the standard is extreme hardship defined in the law. But that type of need, that type of hardship is an example of the - a very generalized fact pattern we’ve seen in cases.

Coordinator: The next question is from Alfonso Chardy of the Miami Herald. Your line is open.

Alfonso Chardy: Yes, thank you very much. I guess the question I have is whether this applies only to U.S. citizens or also to permanent residents, green card holders.

Alejandro Mayorkas: Thank you, Al, for the question. This applies to the spouses and sons and daughters of United States citizens. It does not apply to the relatives of lawful permanent residents.

Coordinator: The next question is from Peter Nicholas, Tribune Washington Bureau. Your line is open.

Peter Nicholas: Hello?

Alejandro Mayorkas: Yes.

Peter Nicholas: Hi, thank you very much for doing the call. I wondered, I’m just a little bit confused by the numbers. Why wouldn’t 23,000, then, be the applicable number here? That’s the number of people applying for waivers. Wouldn’t that be the pool of people who are all affected by this new rule change?

Alejandro Mayorkas: No, because, you know, and this is anecdotally, so please understand it’s anecdotally, what we have heard from the community, that some people who very well might be eligible to receive a waiver do not come forward and apply for the waiver because they would have to depart the United States before applying for the waiver. And the uncertainty of that - they are unwilling -- and the unpredictability -- they’re unwilling to risk the extreme hardship to the United States citizen relative by virtue of a lengthy separation. And so we very well might not see waiver applications from individuals who very well might qualify.

Remember, the unlawful presence in the United States triggers bars of inadmissibility - bars of admissibility, and so if somebody has been unlawfully present in the United States for 180 days or more, but less than a year, then the bar to admission is three years in duration. If somebody has been unlawfully present in the United States for a year or more the bar is ten years in duration, and they are seeking a waiver of that bar.

The law currently provides for a waiver of those bars if the separation would cause extreme hardship, and in - faced with those bars and confronting uncertainty or unpredictability, perhaps people are not coming forward to seek a waiver to which they very well might be eligible.

Coordinator: The next question is from Miriam Jordan of The Wall Street Journal.

Miriam Jordan: Yes, high. I just wanted to clarify here, wouldn’t this also benefit parents of, you know, parents who are undocumented and have a U.S.-born child who at the age of 21 could potentially sponsor them?

Alejandro Mayorkas: So, Miriam, I’m sorry. Can you repeat the question?

Miriam Jordan: Right. What I’m wondering is in addition to the mentioned individuals that you say would benefit, wouldn’t this benefit a parent who has been here unlawfully but who has a U.S.-born child who turns 21 and is in a position to sponsor one or both parents who are here unlawfully to, you know, for legal, you know, for a green card?

Alejandro Mayorkas: I don’t know the answer to that question. I don’t know - Lori Scialabba, our Deputy Director, very well might know the answer.

Lori Scialabba: The answer is that yes it’s possible. The one issue with that particular scenario is that in terms of the waiver the qualifying relative has to be spouse or parent, so that child who is petitioning for a parent, that parent is going to have to show extreme hardship to a qualifying relative which would be a parent or a spouse. They couldn’t show the extreme hardship to the child that is petitioning for them.

Alejandro Mayorkas: So I hope that answers your question, Miriam. I think it does, and I think I failed to answer (Antonieta’s) second question, who - (Antonieta), you referred to a statement by Chairman (Smith). We do not anticipate that this will impact millions of people.

And as I articulated previously, current law provides for a waiver of inadmissibility, and current law provides that extreme hardship to a United States citizen should be avoided, and the goal here is to accomplish that goal more effectively and more efficiently. Next question?

Coordinator: (Jordi Zamora) of AFP, your line is open.

(Jordi Zamora): Thanks. My question is, again, to clarify - try to clarify the previous question of The Wall Street Journal journalist because I couldn’t get - if the minor, the U.S. child, turns 21, (she asked very purposely) and she or he requests for a waiver or tries to sponsor his or her parents, imagine that those parents are both undocumented and they are here and they have this child.

This child turns 21, he asked - or she asked if he or she can show proof of extreme hardship. Imagine that he has no job, or she has no job, or is still a student, wouldn’t that apply?

Alejandro Mayorkas: So let me - before turning it over to Lori to really just repeat what she articulated earlier, because this - let me say this. This is an area that is highly technical, and the proposed rule that we will be promulgating and publishing for public comment will go through these types of technicalities and provide, of course, a far, far greater detail than our mere Notice of Intent posted today provides.

The Notice of Intent really just outlines what our intentions are, but this is exactly why the rulemaking process is established, so that we can provide greater details to the public, give the public an understanding of what is intended, and give the public an opportunity to comment. So, this is an area that is very technical, but, Lori, if you’d be so kind as to repeat what you shared in response to Miriam’s earlier question.

Lori Scialabba: Sure. It is possible that the adult child who has reached the age of 21 can petition for the parent. The issue is that the waiver only allows you to show extreme hardship to a qualifying relative, and the qualifying relative has to be a parent or spouse.

So the parent that the child is petitioning for cannot show extreme hardship to that child. They have to be able to show extreme hardship to a parent, and they might have an elderly parent here who is a United States citizen, or a spouse who is a United States citizen.

Alejandro Mayorkas: Thank you, Lori.

Lori Scialabba: That’s statutory.

Alejandro Mayorkas: That’s statutory. Thank you, Lori.

Coordinator: Amy Taxin, AP, your line is open.

Amy Taxin: Yes, I had a question about the 23,000 figure. I wanted to know, does that include applications by aliens who are technically eligible to adjust inside the United States already because they came here on visas or is that 23,000 number only for people who are automatically required to go overseas to then try to come back? That’s sort of a technical question.

I also would like to know why you’ve decided to make this change now given that there have been complaints about this process and the lengthy separations for years.

Alejandro Mayorkas: Thank you. So the 23,000 figure applies to the number of waivers for individuals outside of the United States, so the latter category that you identified. And in response to your second question, we are always working on implementing efficiencies in our administration of the immigration system.

Early on in my tenure one of the first efficiencies that we were able to implement is a redesigned web site that provided greater transparency to the public and greater and faster information to applicants and petitioners and we are prepared to detail and implement this efficiency now.

Coordinator: Charlie Ericksen, Hispanic Link News Service.

Charlie Ericksen: Yes, thank you very much. Two questions: One, would emotional distress be something that has been used before as a reason for admitting somebody, and secondly...

Alejandro Mayorkas: Can you repeat that? I’m sorry, I missed that.

Charlie Ericksen: ...he uses the word fraud in who - people who automatically would be denied admission. Could that include people who have been sent away from the United States and then returned once again without papers?

Alejandro Mayorkas: So, I’m sorry. Could you repeat your first question?

Charlie Ericksen: Yes, you mentioned a very extreme case of somebody who might be accepted as re-admittable, and I’m wondering if just plain emotional distress, if a spouse or a parent who was having some mental health problem as a result of the child or sibling being refused admission.

Alejandro Mayorkas: I see. So that would be - that would be one factor that we would consider when looking at the totality of the circumstances because there very well may be additional factors that would weigh in favor of finding extreme hardship, and there very well may be other factors that mitigate against the finding of extreme hardship, and so we have to take a look at the case and all of the facts that arise in that case and review it as a totality as the law provides.

And so medical - a medical issue, emotional issue, certain financial issues, we would look at those issues, life issues, in the totality as the law instructs us to do. And somebody who is convicted of a crime and that conviction is a ground of inadmissibility would not be subject to the new process. Next question?

Coordinator: Stewart Powell of the Houston Chronicle.

Stewart Powell: Good afternoon. I just wanted to get reaction from you to claims by Republican critics that this is the beginning of backdoor amnesty.

Alejandro Mayorkas: I think I addressed that in my opening remarks. The law, as it currently provides, provides for a Waiver of Inadmissibility if one can demonstrate extreme hardship to the United States citizen. The law as currently written has articulated a goal of alleviating extreme hardship to a United States citizen. This is in the interest of a United States citizen.

What we are doing is - our goal is to implement through the regulatory process - that we hope to implement a process efficiency that will achieve the law - the current law’s clearly articulated goal more ably. Next question.

Coordinator: Cindy Carcamo from Orange County Register. Your line is open.

Cindy Carcamo: Hello, Director. I have a question about - I understand that the way the law is written that the American citizen with extreme hardship has to be the spouse or the parent, correct?

Alejandro Mayorkas: Yes.

Cindy Carcamo: But I’m just wondering, though, if you guys have any background on why it was crafted that way and not to include the child as the person who would have to have the extreme hardship, because I can see, you know, the example that you gave us about someone who is taking care of someone else, I can see, you know, the other way around where the child would be the person - extreme hardship - would need the parent who is in the country illegally to take care of that child who is an American citizen and that would be an extreme hardship. So I’m just wondering, in regards to the waiver, I’m just wondering why exclude the child? I understand that...

Alejandro Mayorkas: So, yes, so, you know, I apologize for not having in mind, as we are on this call today, the legislative history behind the statute as currently written insofar as why it provided for extreme hardship as it did under the waiver process. As it did, the only thing that I can really speak to is the fact that we are providing what I think is a very important process improvement to the law as it is currently written.

Coordinator: The next question is from Kiran Khalid from CNN.

Kiran Khalid: Hi, there, Director. Thank you for holding this call. I know that someone has already asked you about what precipitated this change in policy and why now. And, you know, you gave a standard answer, but given how much you guys work on this issue and the human toll that it takes, I mean, what kind of stories were you hearing? What information were you assessing that led you to take on this hot potato of an issue at this juncture?

Alejandro Mayorkas: You know, my answer was the real answer. I’m not exactly sure what a standard answer means, but I appreciate that. You know, one of the things that we have observed in adjudicating waivers of extreme hardship, and one of the things that we have heard from the public and one of the things that we understand from our experience generally in dealing with these cases, is we have seen cases of extreme hardship where the time of separation is quite lengthy and where that length of time results in an enduring hardship that the law, as currently written, is designed to avoid. And so we understand that this process efficiency that we are proposing will alleviate that aspect of the hardship.

Coordinator: Matt O’Brien with The Bay Area News Group, your line is open.

Matt O’Brien: Hi, thanks. Could you just clarify that - does it change at all - somebody who is from Mexico and fits the eligibility requirements for this, it doesn’t change at all the process that they would have to go through to go to Ciudad Juarez, to the consulate there. It just changes the time that they have to spend after doing that interview? Could you clarify, like, how, like, a typical case?

Alejandro Mayorkas: Well, so, that is correct. I mean, they will - what they will do now is rather than go back and forth - their case going back and forth between USCIS and the Department of State - they will go to their consular interview with the provisional waiver in hand, and so that is our goal…and we will be working very closely with the Department of State.

Our goal is that their case will not go back and forth, that they will go to the Department of State with the provisional waiver, and the Department of State will then confirm or not, but in cases where it is ultimately - the waiver - provisional waiver becomes final they will confirm that the ground of inadmissibility is as was presented, the only ground is unlawful presence, the provisional waiver will be final - the visa finalized.

The visa will be issued, and the individual will be admitted to the United States so that the time of adjudication of that waiver will not occur while the individual is out of the United States already having had the consular interview. I think we have time for a couple more.

Coordinator: All right. Our next question is from Sasha Aslanian, Minnesota Public Radio.

Sasha Aslanian: Hi, I am just wondering - we’ve covered some stories here where spouses of U.S. citizens have returned to places like El Salvador and Guatemala to fix their status and have been murdered while they’re down there. I’m wondering, I suppose shortening the length of time might improve the situation for them, but are there some states that are just too dangerous to go back to and so they can fix their status here?

Alejandro Mayorkas: So we are, of course, aware of that. I think you have identified a very significant benefit of reducing the time of separation. Not only do we reduce the time of hardship that the U.S. citizen suffers by virtue of the separation, but we, of course, by reducing the time that the individual is in the foreign country and if indeed the situation in that foreign country is precarious, the reduced time is reduced risk.

We will be working with the Department of State closely, as I’ve indicated, to make this process, you know, as good as possible in that regard, and in all other regards, to the extent that we can.

I appreciate everyone’s interest in this, and I appreciate the time that you have taken. We feel that this proposed regulatory change that will significantly reduce the time that U.S. citizens are separated from their spouses and children under certain circumstances is a very important step forward that we have identified. What we will be implementing is a process improvement that will significantly alleviate the extreme hardship that U.S. citizens endure by virtue of separation from their spouses and children. And I thank you again for your time. Thanks.

Coordinator: Thank you for participating in today’s conference. All participants may disconnect at this time. Thank you.

END

My husband as stated previously entered without inspection. I did file the adjustment of status, and the I-601 as stated before while my husband was stateside and was obviously denied. And of course, I did submit evidence, though I did not feel compelled to divulge the evidence submitted because I was not here to ask for help in the forum, but understanding, and prayers.

"If you filed the I601 in error thinking you could adjust your spouse

stateside without spouse leaving country that poses another issue if the I601 is denied. They could place your spouse in proceedings and deport

or issue NTA. Not good."

We have addressed this issue, we consulted with several lawyers after receiving the denial letters for all of the forms submitted, and were given the following choices, and possible outcomes:

1. We could apply for Green cards in Canada and relocate our family.

2. We could wait four more years until my husband has been in the United States for ten years, and pray that nothing happens to him during that time period (not letter of deportation, hope that his file is left on a shelf, hope he gets in no accidents, or in trouble with the law) and then ask for a hearing with an immigration judge (as after presence for ten years the judge can based upon good character, then and their in court grant a pardon)

3. Husband could relocate to Honduras, I apply again, and hope that 1-601 waiver will be accepted. (during which time I will have to document my anxiety, depression, and lack of focus due to stress while here in the US, and my husband in Honduras)

The lawyers all told me the same thing, since we have filed the papers, and our information is in the system there is a possibility that an deportation proceedings could start at any time. Now, again since you may be asking, why they where filed, I will tell you the honest truth, my husband did not believe me or the lawyer during the first round of consultations that he had to leave in order to finish the process (this friend, that friend, their experiences). So I filed the paper work in order to "save" us money, which in the end was about 2k wasted because of the denials, but then again, maybe it was money well spent, because now, even if this amendment to the law, is not in affect until the end of the year, it has bought me time, and hope with my husband and my daughter. It has allowed me to make accept a better job offer, because even though I am stressed, I think I could handle knowing that my husband and child will only possibly be gone a few months instead of a few years. What many people don't know, and I will share this with you is that my husband and I decided that in the best interest of our family, it would be wise to let my child go with my husband back to Honduras when he left, because I could work, send money, and they would have everything they needed (home wise, and economically, school wise-obviously not emotionally). Because, as a wife and mother, I could not see myself struggling here, accepting welfare, or having to move and leave a good paying job I had just because I loved a person who crossed a border as a foolish young man who wanted to escape a life that made no sense to him anymore. I got pregnant out of wet lock, but choose to have and love my baby. I choose to stay with a young man who I hardly new, but grew to love and respect, and who I have taught that no matter what to never give up on his dream of a better life for himself or for his family. Two wrongs don't make a right, and my husband adores our daughter, and loves me so much, and I him. We have faith in our God who despite all of our human error has helped us grow closer together during these hard times of decision making. But I believe, and have been shown time and time again, that If I have faith, that God's mercy and greatness will always triumph over humanity's erroneous ways. Its no ones business, but my husband left Honduras, because he was depressed and wanted to escape his life, because his long time girl friend aborted his baby, and he wanted to never see her again for taking away his child. With that said, I think I have said enough. My hope is that my case will inspire others to hope, and to continue to love despite obstacles that cross ones path. there are many things in life that are not good, and I have suffered many hardships, from being an abused child to being a foster kid, but I think this immigration issue is the hardest thing I have had to deal with but we press on, because even though things are tough, it is no excuse not to try to make things right.

~Jen

Well if they have not placed him in proceedings or issued NTA its a shot this change might eventually help you. I hope it will Good luck and thank you for sharing your story.

I am a nationalized Belizean living in Belize, and a dual UK citizen. I enter the USA with my UK passport on the Visa waiver program with an ESTA number, and have never had a problem. My old expired h1-B is still in there. Last week I went to visit my fiance in Florida, and there seemed to be a problem. The immigration officer asked why I had listed my country of residence as Belize, but handed him a UK passport. I explained to him my situation. He carefully scrutinized my passport and asked many questions in regard to how I was born in the UK, etc. He then took both my passports and left the booth for about 20 minutes, returning with another officer. They both asked me several questions as to how I obtained the UK passport, and why I lived in Belize. I told them the truth as I had nothing to hide. The other officer then told me that I could not enter on the Visa waiver. I was told I would need to get a B-1 Visa in my Belize passport and enter with that, because my country of residence is Belize, and that was where I permanently lived. I didnt want to argue, but felt like I was being treated unfairly, as I noticed that other UK citizens ahead of me with their ESTA print outs going through with no trouble. I am a UK citizen, so that qualifies me to enter the USA on the Visa waiver. I have a valid ESTA number, so I don't see the problem. Is this right?

here is "THE" issue. You ran into a CBP person who is first month on the job and slept through class on the "dual citizenship" and this is why he trotted off to supervisor for a refresher course on it. Judging by the tone of your posts you do not like incompetence and/or being questioned and because of that he "read" your annoyance and instead of doing as his supervisor told him and send you on your way he flexed his muscle with the only thing he remembered from CBP school which is he has the final say and can make your life miserable if you show your attitude at the border. Chances are he did not flag you on the computer since he can't remember how to do that either which is why he wrote on the customs form.

What might happen going forward is if you apply for another ESTA and use the UK passport and leave the Belize passport at home or in your briefcase and leave the country of residence blank on the handwritten form.. you might sail through no problems...

Apologize profusely if they notice country space is blank..... and under no circumstance are you to give the CBP agent who processes you any indication you are smarter than him or her, richer than him her or annoyed with him or her. Good luck next time.

my fiance was deported 4 yrs ago in Germany for drug trafficking, an over stay, wat are the chances of getting I -129 approve?

Even if they approve I129 at USCIS they will deny VISA at consulate for drug trafficking. There is no waiver for drug trafficking. Sadly

it might be time to deal with either the prospect of living outside US forever OR getting a new Fiance without past drug charges.

The National Center for Science Education is a wonderful institution dedicated to fighting junk science from entering our Nation’s schools and media.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/evo-eco-lab/2012/01/16/ncse-picks-fight-against-climate-science-deniers/

Here is some junk science...re climate change.. its January in Chicago and its 59 degrees

This is truly a blessing! This will keep my family together, so for my husband, daughter, and I this is a God send in a time when we where planning on being separated for 6 months to at least 1 year, or possibly more. I cannot thank God enough for answering our prayers, nor give enough thanks for all of those who have been praying for my family. All I can think of is the bible verse, "...ask,and it shall be given unto you, seek and ye shall find..." I have asked God over the past year, not for a full haul of immigration reform because I understand the costs to society, and the future costs to our ever failing government systems in place already. But what I have prayed for is for something, that would allow the law to be more merciful, and understanding to the relationship between a husband and a wife. And this proposal will do that, not just for me, but for many others in the same or similar situations. Thank you LORD!!!

I am a little confused by your posts. How did your spouse originally enter the US? This change should not affect your case if you are eligible for

processing in the US. If not at this point it will not be of much help either since its a proposed rule change that will not take effect

until most likely late this year. If you have already processed I130 been approved and filed the I601 stateside if you are eligible then

your case will take the normal route and remain unaffected by this. If you filed the I601 in error thinking you could adjust your spouse

stateside without spouse leaving country that poses another issue if the I601 is denied. They could place your spouse in proceedings and deport

or issue NTA. Not good.

From your posts it seems as though you filed I601 form but there is no mention of "evidence". Did you include evidence to prove hardship?

Hi everyone! I am trying to find others who are in a situation similar to ours and collect information. I hoping that it might give myself and others greater understanding and peace of mind when it comes to Administrative Processing (aka torture).

My husband is a UK citizen, was born in London and currently lives there. However, he lived in Morocco for a large part of his life growing up. He is a young muslim male. He travels around Europe a lot as well as back and forth to see his family in Morocco. Also, he has a common name. We were married on Dec 22, 2010 and applied for the CR1 visa. He had his interview on October 21, 2011 and was given the blue form indicating that our case was being put in administrative processing. They did not keep his passport. Since, I have called the DOS once. She said our case was in London (not Washington) and that the processing was being done at the consulate. We are not able to check our visa status online, which I believe is only for non-immigrant cases (based on assumption).

Please help me to compile more information by copying the questions below and answering in your post. I would especially like to hear from everyone who is undergoing AP at the london consulate, particularly if you have a muslim background or have lived in a muslim country at any point. Please share as much information about your case as possible. Thank you!

This thread is for all of those who are currently in AP. I have also posted the same questions for those who have completed AP under the General Polls forum called ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSING POLL & QUESTIONNAIRE.

At what stage were you put into AP (USCIS, NVC, or Embassy level)?

What type of visa are you applying for?

What was the date of your interview?

Did they keep your passport at the interview?

What color was the handout that indicated you were being put into AP?

Are you able to check your AP status online?

What country is the beneficiary from?

Is the beneficiary male or female?

How old is the beneficiary?

What is the beneficiary's religious background?

What is the beneficiary's cultural background?

What is the beneficiary's highest education level?

What is the beneficiary's profession?

Does the beneficiary have a common name?

Does the beneficiary travel frequently?

Has the beneficiary ever lived or travelled to the Middle East/North African region?

How long have you been in AP for?

Other Comments:

You will probably get better feedback if you post in the correct thread

My Romanian wife immigrated here last September with a CR-1 and she brought her mother, who has a tourist visa. Her mother can stay in the USA for 6 months before she has to leave the country. It has been our understanding that all her mother has to do is leave the USA and then she can come right back in. We were thinking of traveling to Arizona, entering Mexico, and then coming back in. Is this a problem, a Romanian citizen with a U.S. tourist visa, entering Mexico only to come right back into the country? Are there preparations we need to take before crossing into Mexico (and will Mexico even allow her into the country?).

Thanks in advance for any help provided.

You will not be successful in this, if there is a special need for an extension do it the right way. You run the risk of her losing the 10 year tourist VISA she has. If the eventual plan is for her to immigrate here don't muck it up with an overstay either.

The last paragraph (which you referenced) sums it up quite nicely- you need it done for you again? Someone who reflexively throws the race card onto the table is probably the one who needs to be better informed....just sayin' You pedantically pop off about summarizing and becoming more well-informed, and your response to this entire piece is to call the poster a racist. I'm sure the irony escapes you.

This particular modification to our existing legislation (existing law, passed by the legislature) is simply the tip of the spear. Search Thomas for the 100 plus private bills (proposed legislation) for the relief of individual illegal aliens.... when you are better informed, just keep it to yourself.

As stated by myself and others there is no change to the exisiting law or a "special waiver" for illegal immigrants. Its a proposed rule change to modify the location and process of WHERE qualified applicants for US Immigration benefits will have their paperwork processed. Like Canadian citizens who currently have their I601 paperwork processed in Vermont, all I601 applicants will be allowed to file and have their applications processed in the US then wait to proceed overseas to complete it. This will cause all I601 applications to have similar "goal processing times" of around 6 months eventually instead of the situation currently where there are some overseas offices processing in 2-4 weeks while others process in as long as 18 months.

There is no change in the law. The waiver is based on Hardship to a US Citizen and it serves that purpose well. If you think that US Immigration law should impose a hardship on US Citizens than you might be out of step with your largely Hispanic community.

Please continue your research on private immigration bills we will all be fascinated to find out if any of them passed I think you will have a hard time finding evidence of any successful private immigration bills or evidence of a trend to subvert current immigration law by private bill fiat.

When you actually get a clue on the US immigration process then feel free to come back here and post with the big kids. As it is that bill does nothing but reward people that knowingly and willingly broke the laws of the United States of America by entering this country illegally. It's nothing more than a cheap sick play for votes while p*ssing on every one of us who made the decision to go through the US immigration process legally.

While I will not disagree that the timing of this announcement is politically dubious... I do disagree that it is a spit in the face of those who made the decision to go through the process legally. they are also utilizing the legal process within the current existing law. Congress provided a Hardship waiver within the law to alleviate the suffering of US Citizens married to or the children of those who would be affected by it. The Waiver procedure is a mechanism for Legal Immigration for those who are out of status for a number of reasons many of whom entered the country legally.

The proposed process change is not changing the law regarding the 3/10 year bars, nor is it changing the Hardship Standard. Nothing is changing but administrative details like the location of the adjudicating office for the waiver and allowing the concurrent filing of the waiver with the I130. Painting this as some kind of break or amnesty is a misinformation campaign designed to fire up people who are easily confused and do not understand the law into thinking the Administration is granting some kind of amnesty.

There was never a logical or legitimate reason to separate the filing locations, and this proposed change just streamlines processing but does not change any law on the books. There is no evidence at this point it will speed things up for waiver applicants or slow things down for other types of applications. Its a simple change in processing location of a certain type of LEGAL application for a certain type of alien who has a legal channel for immigration within existing law.

The proposed change in procedure changes the location of adjudication of the waiver from overseas USCIS offices to stateside USCIS offices which is a tremendous cost savings to the US Government As you know there was also a change in location filing for the I130 for DCF this accomplishes a similar purpose which is cost savings via consolidation of resources and centralized management capability. The proposed procedure also allows concurrent filing of the I601 with the I130 creating a time saving for the applicant as well as a cost savings to the government.

The proposed procedure does not put these applicants on similar footing to tourists who marry and AOS here (intentionally to evade the CR1 process or "accidentally who fell in love on vacation In these cases the waiver applicant will still have to travel to a foreign consulate to finalize his/her VISA as well as deal with any shenanigans and delays the consulate might cause.

These applicants have always had a legal channel to immigrate to the US just as most of the folks on this board but have a bar which delays that channel by 3/10 years. I will not get into a discussion of the draconian nature of this bar, the discriminatory application of it to only certain categories of VISA overstayers ...ie VISA Waiver countries vs non-visa waiver countries or the disproportionate punishment it metes out on those affected by it. In the final analysis it is not Amnesty or any form of it.

All in all its positive if the politics are left out. Family reunification is the reasoning and it saves not only the US Citizen money and allieviate's a number of problems but it reduces the burden on communities to support many of these families that are hobbled by this process.

To reiterate there is no change in the law there is a proposed change in the processing procedures for a small category of aliens with no criminal history who are married to US Citizens.

Thank you for the Reply. My wife and I couldn't afford an attorney. However, we spoke to 5 different attorneys and all of them said there's nothing they can do and did not want to take my case, the last attorney said If i did want to start this immigration process that I would be stuck outside of the country because of me entering illegally. I told her that I was only a kid when I came to the states and i lived here, never in trouble with the law, graduated high school, always filed my taxes etc.. and she said its a 50/50 if you want to take that chance because they base their decisions on what the law says. What I did do is research on how to make the packet to get an idea of what It was going to include.

Not sure what attorneys you talked to but they more than likely were not specialists in I601 if they gave you a 50/50 on an entry that is

as a child and no other issues. Is there something you did not disclose in your post? This type of Hardship case is fairly straightforward

with no complicating issues and has a higher success rate. Hopefully you did your research and you included evidence to support your

HSL as well as the HSL itself. If not expect a referral and start compiling evidence and reworking the HSL.

Find an attorney who specializes in I601 and have them review the HSL you submitted as you might still have time to supplement it. I am suprised by

the number of people who say they cannot afford and attorney. You cannot afford NOT to have an attorney if you do not understand the process and

requirements and staying apart for 10 years is even more expensive having households in 2 countries. Use a credit card, take out a loan or

find a way to pay for the expert advice you need. Some Attorneys have a free or inexpensive consult... make an appointment to find out

where you stand and what you might expect. Its a shame to have to stay separated longer and re-file if you have time to update and supplement if

you did not get the HSL and evidence right in the first place.

good luck

Hello, I'm new to this forum, and I apologise if I have placed this in the wrong section. I also apologise if I refer to any idea with the incorrect term ... I am not very well educated in this area, and I am also very, very nervous. I would also like to ask if everyone could please refrain from judging me. I am in a very tough position as is and I am very fearful of what could happen. The last thing I need is added stress. I'm sorry, I don't mean to come off as aggressive, I'm just in such an unbearable situation.

I am an American citizen, born and raised, and I am female. My girlfriend lives in England (no, we did not meet online) and her mother is quite horrible to her. She is being kicked out within the next day or two and she does not have a definite place to go. She does not have any family or friends to stay with, she is completely alone in this. I do have a friend who has a place in England, and he and I have been trying to sort something out with her staying at his place until everything is properly sorted for her permanently staying somewhere.

She can stay with me, but, of course, this is a difficult situation since she is British and I am American. She is under the age of majority, and therefore our options are quite limited.

What can I do? I understand that I cannot get here within the next two days, but how soon can I get her here? I know that she could stay here as a normal tourist would for less than 30 days, but we need a more permanent solution. She cannot come here using the Visa Waiver Program because I don't believe she qualifies considering her situation. What can we possibly do? What are our options? I need any tiny bit of hope at all, so any suggestions will be taken into consideration! I will be most likely attending a university in London in September, but we are in desperate need of a solution for our situation which would suffice from now until then.

Please help.

EDIT: I'm not certain why this says I live in the UK .. I certainly wish I did

The first thing that pops into my head after reading this post is an underage person might need parental permission to travel outside the country. Second thing is if you are over 21 or significantly older than the underage child other legal issues might evolve from encouraging or financially

supporting a out of country move for a minor child.

I would be very careful with this moving a minor across international borders could become a serious problem for you.

Hi, My name is Alex. My wife is a US Citizen, we started this journey October 2010 I have turned in all forms needed and I had my first appointment nov.3 2011 in Juarez. I was given instructions to file for a waiver and schedule a 2nd interview. That interview came Dec. 29th 2011 in juarez where i submitted my packet the I-601 along with the G325 and an extreme hardships letter. Btw, I am being petitioned I was given a waiver because at 5 years old I was brought to the US without inspection and I grew up here Im 26 now and have been married for 4 years this jan 19th and have 3 kids with wife. I miss them so much. I am form Mexico and im staying here in TJ south of the border. I want to know if anyone has been through this I601 process and how long it took to have an answer after submitting the I601 and paying the fee. i just want to have an idea of how long

thank you for your time

I don't normally send people to I2us.net but with things changing at CDJ lately, not sure what the wait times are. Should not be terribly long if there are no criminal issues, the packet was solid and it doesn't get referred. Check on I2 for updates on CDJ wait times, then come back and post here so

everyone else knows what is going on.

Good luck and btw did you use an attorney to file the packet?

Thank you all for your responses.. Now I just feel down .... now what to do

Start reading everything you can get your hands on regarding the I601 Hardship waiver and become an expert in it. After you have spent a couple months of researching and talking to people about the process start gathering your evidence of bonafides of the marriage and evidence of hardship that you will use for the waiver. If you intend to file the waiver after the changes in process keep your eyes on the development plans there. In the mean time SAVE MONEY and make a plan it will cost a ton of money for the attorney, the travel to Mexico and all the expenses of living there while waiting for the consular appointment.

It may seem daunting but it is not impossible. keep your spouse from driving or doing anything that could get him placed into proceedings in the

interim as well so it doesn't get more complicated, expensive or difficult.

Good luck

I entered the US legally on a B2 visa in Nov 2007.

Got married April 2011

Applied for AOS September 2011

EAD approved and received

Interview Jan 03

I have a pretty complicated case, during my interview the agent asked about my previous arrests, I told her the truth about one case (case got dismissed and thrown out). Not knowing they found out about a previous "prostitution" case in 2009.

When I got arrested I freaked out and used my friends name because I didnt know what my rights were, I was scared of getting deported. I never went back to take care of this situation.

My friend is working on getting this case expunged since it wasn't her.

The agent told me that I needed a certified copy that these charges were dropped, and that I don't have a criminal background on my real name in the city that I got arrested. The deadline is March 03. She did make me sign a form about the explanation that says that I need to renew my Green Card on time once I recieve it.

What are my chances? I do have a lawyer.

Get attorney and do some research. there is actually case law with a prostitution charge where the person was granted the VISA she requested. Not sure it will be easy but good luck.

All that matters is that you file for RoC in a timely manner. Forget the card.

I tend to agree with Bob on this one, although I rarely do And for the other post Re ID Card or DL in Illinois, get it first then deal

with green card issues if that is the way you decide to go. By then you will have SS card if you do not already and will not have to

worry about EAD issues as SS card and DL should work if SS card is not restricted.

I have sent email request to returned my passport by 23rd of dec haven't received my passport yet.

Have him go to Embassy and request in person if possible and or send Fex Ex with return postage requesting it.

DOS is the only source for any information on our case.

The Montreal consulate does not accept phone calls or faxes, and they'll answer your email in about a month and only if they feel like it. You are instructed, "DO NOT send inquires about the status of the case" nor are you to send the same question more than once.

The DOS operators go from zero to RUDE in about sixty seconds. I'm calm and I feel like I'm asking reasonable questions. I only call weekly to check on status.

Today after she told me the case was still pending AP, I asked her a question I already knew the answer to, but I was hoping to engage with her more and see if she say anything but "your case is pending." Before I even finished my question, she huffed a big sigh, and raising her voice, said, "I do not know that!!" As if I was so stupid to think she could answer any questions. I guess it is stupid to expect anything from my government at this point...

But, how am I to know, if I didn't have VJ? I would think DOS could answer some simple questions. We have nowhere to ask these questions if we didn't know the answers already. The consulate is a big blank wall. And this "customer service" at DOS is joke.

My fear is that I get a black mark on the file for being rude, when it is them who are so quick to raise their voices and seem so put out by my mere existence.

Anyway, you don't need to tell me this is all a big waiting game and that DOS is useless. I just needed to vent. I freaking hate this...

This is no help other than to give you some insight. The department within DOS/DHS that does the security checks to clear AP does not provide updates, its either an Up/Down yes/no answer. Between the time DOS requests the security check and the time they give the answer there is no

update info to get or give. The operator on the phone has no more information than you do other than its "pending". When the case is clear they

will notify you. No consolation or hope in this answer but that is how it works. The Embassy itself does not conduct the security checks for AP

they just request them.

Good luck and Happy New Year.

DOJ settles case against company that demanded "green card" from Latino U.S. citizen

"The Justice Department announced a settlement today with Garland Sales Inc., a Georgia rug manufacturer, resolving allegations that it engaged in discrimination by imposing unnecessary documentary requirements on individuals of Hispanic origin when establishing their eligibility to work in the United States, and that it retaliated against a worker for protesting his discriminatory treatment. According to the settlement, Garland has agreed to pay $10,000 in back pay and civil penalties, and to undergo training on proper employment eligibility verification practices. In its complaint, the department alleged that the charging party, a naturalized U.S. citizen of Hispanic descent, applied for a job with Garland in May 2009. At the time of hire, he presented his unexpired driver’s license and an unrestricted Social Security card—a combination of documents sufficient to prove his identity and his authorization to work in the United States. The complaint alleged that Garland demanded that the he provide his “green card,” even though U.S. citizens do not have green cards. After Garland made further requests for documents, the worker objected to the company’s demands, and Garland then rescinded the job offer. The worker, along with another individual who was denied employment with Garland when the company rejected the individual’s valid documentation, will receive full back pay out of the $10,000 settlement. The department’s complaint also alleged that Garland required newly hired non-U.S. citizens and foreign-born U.S. citizens to present specific and additional work authorization documents beyond those required by federal law. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) requires employers to treat all authorized workers in the same manner during the hiring process, regardless of their national origin or citizenship status. “Employers may not treat authorized workers differently during the hiring process based on their national origin or citizenship status,” said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. “It is also illegal when employers take action against workers for asserting their federally protected rights, and that type of behavior will be vigorously investigated and prosecuted.” The Office of Special Counsel (OSC) for Immigration Related Unfair Employment Practices is responsible for enforcing the anti-discrimination provision of the INA, which protects work authorized individuals from employment discrimination on the basis of citizenship status or national origin discrimination, including discrimination in hiring and the employment eligibility verification (Form I-9) process. For more information about protections against employment discrimination under the immigration law, call 1-800-255-7688 (OSC’s worker hotline) (1-800-237-2525, TDD for hearing impaired), 1-800-255-8255 (OSC’s employer hotline) (1-800-362-2735, TDD for hearing impaired), or 202-616-5594; emailosccrt@usdoj.gov, or visit OSC’s website at www.justice.gov/crt/about/osc ." - DOJ, Dec. 30, 2011.

hi!

its meeh again.

my case: E3 immigrant visa. I'm currently waiting for my 221g status to resolve. Originally I decided to put my husband and 2 kids as a following to join so i was interviewed alone. I also told the CO that my family will follow at a later date. now while we were waiting for this AP ( i pray to GOD for this to be resolved soon)I and my hubby decided that we go and immigrate to the US together. If granted a visa can i have my family be interviewed so that they can join me to go to the US immediately? is that possible? did this happen to you too? how will i tell the consul? thank you happy holidays

Check with your immigration attorney. Does seem possible as it appears there are no numerical limitations on Australian family member VISA's for

E3 category.

I had an older post describing my situation and how my i-130 was denied. I left the US and now I'm in my country. I'm trying to stay strong and just move on with my life, it hasn't been so easy for my mom due the fact that i had to leave on my own and my american siblings are still in US as well as her. I want to turn the page and move on to the next chapter but want to be able to see my family, I'm not looking on moving back to the US but i want to be able to visit my family. I'm not asking for a pity party, I just want to know if theres a way i could do that?

My lawyer filed for I824 APPLICATION FOR ACTION ON AN APPROVED APPLICATION OR PETITION, i really don't know what that means. Is that even appropriate for my case?

I think the starting point is getting the I130 approved. You also did not mention if you have a qualifying relative with enough hardship to get

an I601 approved. Check with your lawyer and get a second opinion, it does not sound like the attorney is taking the correct next step.

Approved on November 16th. in Rome. It's been 3 weeks since we were notified, and waiting for the phone call from Casablanca. What a difficult place to deal with from the beginning. Anyone approved through Rome that knows how long it took them to send everything back to their respective embassy?

First of all congrats ! Second.. no data on how long from Rome to Cassablanca or how involved that will be on the Embassy end. If police certificates and Medical are over 6 months or a year... redo them now so you do not have to wait. Also update the affidavit of support and make sure the passport has 6 months left on it to avoid any more delays on the Embassy end. They might mail, email or snail mail appointment letter... who knows

You can try emailing Cassablanca immigrant processing to see if they have

the paperwork yet.

Good luck

DHS is who processes the waiver and gives the decision. Usually ES puts applicants in AP (administrative processing) after submitting the waiver....this usually takes two months and then its sent to DHS who then adjudicates the waiver. Not sure if you have received a decision but they seem to be going a lot faster these days.

For clarity.. DHS is Department of Homeland Security which is an umbrella organization for the various institutions that used to be independent

entities. USCIS is the division within DHS that adjudicates the waiver. El Sal is notoriously slow. You should email them at and just verify your case is in fact in the que. Not sure if El Salvador publishes a list that is posted on the Embassy website with case status, you should check to find out.

You might be able to "track it" somehow that way.

hi i just checked the status of the 601 in vienna and it says "completed".. does that mean they will send a rejected letter or a letter to pick up waiver... does anyone knows how long that will take.. i'm sure they don't email but send letter by mail.. thanks for any info

You can email them and they might respond, or check with the Embassy in Warsaw. They might require evidence of identity to answer the email... for example a copy of passport and a short signed note with your signature. If you used and attorney they might have emailed or mailed a letter to him/her.

Try calling as well.. the USCIS office in Vienna, not the Embassy.

===================================

Hello, thank you for sharing. We still in 221(g) Wait...10 weeks now.

Embassy claims they never received several documents G28 and lawyer request from us.

Where you in 221g wait? How long?

Thanks again

No 221g waiver case. 4.5 years