joaovily

I wonder what is the worst case scenario with how long they might take to approve EAD. Had my bio appt feb 5 and so far nothing, My mom had her appt in jan 5 and also nothing. I don't have a lot of experience with immigration, so i have no idea how long it can take, some people got it the next day while others wait 3 6 8 months  or longer. How long do you guys think we will have to wait for that sweet work permit?

On 1/12/2023 at 12:12 PM, M&L🇺🇸 said:

Did they approve your I-485 or your I-765?

i meant to say after one day of my package arriving in their office, they sent a text message saying they received it

On 1/9/2023 at 10:49 PM, joaovily said:

The form was brand new, but I signed it two days before that edition was released. I was using a preview version. They claimed it was outdated but I think this was due to the signature being before the official release.

Update:

After receiving my rejection notice, I quickly re downloaded the form i-485 completed it and signed it, sent next day air, it got in Chicago after 16 hours and they approved it after one day.

24 minutes ago, Punjab meri jaan said:

This is very tricky. I was using old forms until end and caught it during the final check. In my view, this should not be the reason for denying as there is nothing much update in  recent version

The form was brand new, but I signed it two days before that edition was released. I was using a preview version. They claimed it was outdated but I think this was due to the signature being before the official release.

On 1/6/2023 at 8:09 PM, joaovily said:

I assume no. I am refiling my package, they were still fast back in dec 15, the turnaround was like 3 days. I sent my moms package and they received on the 8th and got a text on the 13th

Just got my application back in the mail today. They claim I filed on a outdated version of the form, which is not true since I used the 12/23/2022 edition. I called customer support and they said it could be because my signature was dated on 12/21, 2 days before the edition date. Has anybody here signed before the edition date and got approved? Do you guys think they were being unreasonable on denying me?

14 minutes ago, Zzdem said:

They received mine on dec 31st still no text for me I’m hoping I’ll get it  next week and I’m assuming they don’t issue text notices on Saturday’s right?

I assume no. I am refiling my package, they were still fast back in dec 15, the turnaround was like 3 days. I sent my moms package and they received on the 8th and got a text on the 13th

Just an update, have not received any text messages and my check is still not cashed

They received my package on the 27th.

Has anyone here that filed after Christmas received their NOA text or got they checks cashed?

USCIS tweeted this on Dec 30th but I don't know if they are referring to text notifications or mailing out the NOA

"Receipt notifications for all properly filed petitions are currently in the process of being mailed out. The intake of the supplemental petitions, along with the issuance of receipt notices, was delayed 5 business days from the date of the first proper filings."

Sent my AOS package on December 20

Delivered on December 27

Waiting for texts messages.

Had to refile it after getting rejection notice because of outdated forms

Called USCIS today to see if they had any information linked to the receipt notice included in the rejection letter but no luck

Money order hasn't been cashed yet

I'm hoping that by next week they will have at least cashed the check, don't want to go through refiling it again, the whole process takes 2 weeks or more.

6 minutes ago, Family said:

Well , OP, I am back to agreeing with you..Yes is the right answer. 

 

https://cliniclegal.org/resources/ground-inadmissibility-and-deportability/public-charge/public-charge-related-questions

 

Question 61 asks whether the applicant is subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility. The adjustment of status applicants who are exempted from the public charge ground of inadmissibility are listed in 8 CFR § 212.23(a).

Question 62 asks for the size of the applicant’s household. The applicant must include himself or herself and the following persons if they are residing with the applicant:

I don’t blame you, wording is very confusing, specially with the weird name this Public charge thing has, the “inadmissability” part makes you think you would only answer yes if you were inadmissable by using benefits. This had me running back to UPS to ask them if i could open the package and exchange the pages with new ones.

4 minutes ago, OldUser said:

@joaovily did you go through I-485 instructions?

Yes, if i remember correctly on this question it tells you to read about the public charge

Heres a Q&A from the USCIS page about Public charge ground of inadmissibility

Q: Who is exempt from the public charge ground of inadmissibility?

A: The following noncitizens are exempt from the public charge ground of inadmissibility when applying for visas, admission, or adjustment of status:

• Asylees and refugees;
• Amerasian immigrants at admission;
• Afghan and Iraqi interpreters or Afghan or Iraqi nationals employed by or on behalf of the U.S. government;
• Cuban and Haitian entrants at adjustment of status;
• Applicants seeking adjustment under the Cuban Adjustment Act;
• Nicaraguans and other Central Americans who are adjusting status to LPR;
• Haitians who are adjusting status to LPR;
• Lautenberg parolees;
• Special immigrant juveniles;
• Applicants for registry;
• Applicants seeking Temporary Protected Status (TPS);
• Certain nonimmigrant ambassadors, ministers, diplomats, and other foreign government officials, and their families;
• Human trafficking victims (T nonimmigrants);
• Victims of qualifying criminal activity (U nonimmigrants);
• Self-petitioners under the Violence against Women Act (VAWA);
• Certain battered noncitizens who are “qualified aliens” under PRWORA;
• Applicants adjusting status who qualify for a benefit as surviving spouses, children, or parents of military members;
• Noncitizen American Indians born in Canada;
• Noncitizen members of the Texas Band of Kickapoo Indians of the Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma;
• Nationals of Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos applying under the Indochinese Act;
• Polish and Hungarian Parolees;
• Certain Syrian nationals;
• Applicants adjusting under the Liberian Refugee Immigration Fairness (LRIF) law; and
• Any other categories of noncitizens exempt under any other law from the public charge ground of inadmissibility provisions under INA 212(a)(4).

If you do not fall into one of the categories in the list, my personal opinion is that you should answer YES and describe your education level, income etc. 

I’ve read a official statement linked in the USCIS page. It says that any non-citizen is subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility, unless they have some exempt status or have been exempted by the Congress. I think that what people on this topic have got confused is that being subject to this public charge act does not come from using benefits, but in reality that wording only means DHS reserves the right to determine if you are a Public charge or not. That would be based on your education level, age, health, if you used benefits etc..

Answering yes just demonstrates that you fall into one of the categories of people who USCIS are not exempting from the Public charge act.

This is also validated by the fact that theres a question asking if you have used benefits inside that part of the form, so saying yes or no to the question in the pic doesnt mean you are answering that you never used benefits.

Again i’m not trying to butt heads with anyone, since i made my decision on what to say on mine way before posting here. 

Quote from the federalregister.gov link:

”Noncitizens who are applicants for visas, admission, and adjustment of status must establish that they are not likely at any time to become a public charge unless Congress has expressly exempted them from this ground of inadmissibility or has otherwise permitted them to seek a waiver of inadmissibility.”

1 minute ago, mytruelove18 said:

I answered no, on my friend application so i will see what happen.

Should be fine unless the person has actually used benefits, and doesnt have a sponsor. Only people i have seen having problems with this in the past is the ones applying for K1 visas in embassys outside the USA. They are a lot more careful about who to let into to the United States.

7 minutes ago, Family said:

Well said @powerpuffI admit on first look , I was foxed and it took me scouring the policy manual

, federal register and more just to get clarity. 
 

Would have preferred the simple old Trump era question , have you ever used public benefits  ..followed by what type and then details on skills/resources…

 

I think there will be a wave of filings with Yes and we will soon hear if they will issue RFE s or just deal with it at final adjudication. 
 

OP if you decide to change your response later on , after you get the Receipt Notice for I-485 , you can fiel an e-request for Typographical error.

I guess what matters at the end is if you have used any benefits, thanks for the tip though. To be honest i think this question is ridiculuos taking into consideration most people cant even use benefits.

1 hour ago, powerpuff said:

Several people have already said that the answer is no. You’re not inadmissible because you did not use public benefits. Immediate relatives are subject to it IF they have indeed used public benefits (immediate relatives are not exempt from this just because they’re relatives of US citizens - that’s what the USCIS chart you posted is about). If you really want to put yes, you can do that since that’s your petition. But that would be an incorrect answer that would bring extra unnecessary attention to your petition. 

I appreciate all the attention, i made this post after i had already put the package in the mail, so i cant go back and redo my answers. 

Anyways, i am not too focused if the answer is yes or no, since i already said yes, it is what it is.But my question is how is this impacting people at the time of interview, does anybody know about that?

8 minutes ago, Family said:

I need to correct my position. The answer is NO , you are not subject to the inadmissibility rule since you have not used any public benefits. 
 

but the question is not if you used benefits, you can still be subject to the public charge, just because you MIGHT be eligible for benefits, they do ask if you use any benefits later on. 

4 minutes ago, Family said:

You are reading it correctly and Yes was / is the correct answer. Being subject to the rules of public charge does not affect you negatively if you have NOT used any public benefits.

 

It felt weird saying yes, but its what they are telling you through the website, it’s a weird ruling, since most people will never use benefits. Hopefully other people that are also DIYing their way through AOS can find this thread.

here is what i found through uscis website

they are considering that if theres a slight possibility of you having used benefits you are considered subject. I hope this clarifies

2 hours ago, mytruelove18 said:

Your answer is no, then jump to question 69

This is confusing, according to one of the guides on uscis website, it says that anyone applying through a immediative relative is subject to the public charge of inadmissibility. Unless you are amerisian or under some other special case then you wouldnt be subject. The wording of the question is confusing, makes you think if you never used benefits you are not subject. But come to find out i was subject. Well i could be wrong, but i already submitted the form yesterday saying i was and answerd the following up questions about how i never used benefits. This comes into effect tomorrow so its really new. Hopefully it doesnt affect anything

I had filed my application on 12/15/2022, but due to having two expired forms, the USCIS sent it back to me. Now I found out they released a new form I-485 with this question about Public charge.

It is my understanding that since I'm applying as a immediate relative (U.S. Citizen spouse), I would indeed be subject to the Public charge ruling. This is making me really scared since I have a joint sponsor.

My question would be how is this affecting applicants from inside the United states? Has anybody heard of marriage green card applicants (AOS)  being denied during the interview part?

I have been working and supporting myself for the past 6 years in the USA, never used any type of benefits and never even been to a Hospital.