M plus D

Hi Taylor, To keep things simple, your category for the EAD is (c)(9) "Pending adjustment of status under Section 245 of the Act", yes. You are also correct that you are NOT filing your i-485 under section 245(i). However you ARE filing under section 245 in general, just not that specific subsection of it (subsection (i) of section 245). Also, keep in mind that fees for i-765 (EAD) are halved when filing for category (c)(9) with a pending Adjustment of Status. You pay only USD$ 260 instead of USD$ 520 (source).

You're correct that the left hand often doesn't know what the right one does. And it is definitely worth adding with a statement if you have it. It is just that panel physicians also make mistakes a lot, including at times not providing a copy of DS-3025. It is an important distinction that it is recommended, but not required. It should be made clear to people that if they did not and cannot obtain a copy, that this does not mean they are lacking any officially required evidence for AOS. Rather, they can replace it with a written statement that an abroad medical had taken place, and it serves the exact same purpose (i.e. the adjucating officer being made aware of the K-1 excemption due to medical performed abroad).

Keep in mind that the adding of the DS-3025 is not necessary beyond servering as a subtle reminder for the adjucating officer that there has been a medical exam abroad. The beneficiary's copy of DS-3025 itself holds no weight evidence-wise; only the originals that USCIS receive back from CBP do.

Just to clarify: it is not necessary for AOS that you have and include a copy of DS-3025. It is not required as evidence. One reason to have it, like mentioned in posts above, is so you can review the DS-3025 yourself and see if it has been marked as completed or not. People also include it in the AOS application as a subtle reminder for the adjucating officer that an abroad medical has been performed. However, USCIS should have gotten the originals from CBP (after they themselves took it from visa holder at port of entry). Your copy is not a deciding factor evidence-wise. In fact, if the package from CBP was not sent or lost, USCIS won't take your copy of DS-3025 as evidence. You will still need to repeat medical inside US through Civil Surgeon and form i-693. In short, you only need to re-do medical in US if: your DS-3025 wasn't marked as complete, which means you must do the vaccination portions of i-693 at a Civil Surgeon in the US for AOS OR if your entire medical was somehow lost between CBP and USCIS. In that case, USCIS will ask you to repeat the entire medical at a Civil Surgeon (form i-693), because they do not have the original results of your medical abroad. OR LASTLY if you file AOS more than a year after your medical exam abroad, then the validity has expired for AOS excemption purposes, and you must repeat an entire medical exam. If you do not have your DS-3025, just add a statement in the file that you've completed a medical abroad. That serves fine as a subtle reminder too, really. If they have received your medical results, and process correctly, you will find out whether your DS-3025 was marked as complete or not. If it's complete, there will be no RFE. If it is not complete, you get an RFE.

You did not specify any other timeframe, which makes it a statement about the present. Also, if you believe that that is a factor for accuracy, why didn't you ask OP when the medical exam was performed? You are the one who initially failed to ask this and take it into consideration. That is, if you were truly considering that at the time. To me, it looks like another attempt to retro-actively legitimize misinformation. You also didn't specify whether you meant a Civil Surgeon's instructions or a Panel Physician's instructions. Yes, they differ. Perhaps, if you do not want people to make wrong assumptions about what you mean, you should try to be more precise with your information.

I understand that most people come from a good place. I know that there is a lot of good information here, including tips about credit card being less reliable, as you mentioned. I also understand that a lot of people spread misinformation, and that this is double as dangerous when coming from someone who is a moderator and argues strongly about it. I see no argument in the slightest for getting someone else's A-number or such by user-error. I really do not. I also would like to point out that just below this post, there is a post of someone else missing their biometrics due to their letter arriving after the actual scheduled date. The same person replied in that thread and should be aware that this can happen. Only to then have them disregard that thread and claim in here you should always wait for the physical mail, all-the-while trying to convince people to not do something perfectly safe that could prevent this. This sounds to me like someone who either does not connect the dots or who will compartmentalize their experience per thread to win "challenges". To avoid going too off-topic, I will only add that RFEs for e-files do refer to being able to respond online, and people have successfully used it. Both physical and digital have their advantages, and it everybody's choice to reply as they see fit.

COVID requires ONE updated 2023/2024 formula COVID vaccination per current instructions. That is, for not immunocompromised persons of ages 12 and above. Exception: when never vaccinated before and being vaccinated with Novax vaccine, you will need two shots of 2023/2024 formula Novax. Keep in mind that these are the instructions that Civil Surgeons have to follow for COVID vaccines: Clinical Guidance for COVID-19 Vaccination | CDC The reference to the above CDC page is also found on the COVID section of the official page for Civil Surgeon Medical Exams: Vaccination Technical Instructions for Civil Surgeons | CDC

To start, lets clarify that an online agent in EMMA can only provide an Online Activation Code, they cannot generate it. Once the OAC is given, you gain access to that Applicant's online environment for those cases. If this was a completely different immigrant, the biometrics notice in the online environment would've had a different A-number and different name/DOB. Seeing that this isn't the case, obviously USCIS somehow assigned a duplicate A-number for the same person. To clarify, the keyword you highlighted is "eventually",, regarding the timeframe someone getting their Biometrics notice. You didn't quite articulate what you meant with the highlighting, so let me just make a general statement: Biometrics appointments for AOS are often scheduled 3 week out, but I have seen the occasional 2 weeks. This is a very tight timeframe for some, especially considering mail can get lost. It is much safer to contact the EMMA representatives to ask for your OAC as soon as possible, so that you may access the digital version fo the biometrics scheduling letter. And yes, in case you know, the biometrics notice in the online environment is not exactly the same as the physical one mailed to you. However, they accept them as Application Service Centers, something I have done personally. If they receive a physical biometrics notice with the correct A-number, there would be far bigger implications. The existence of two biometrics for the same person, differing only by A-number, would mean there would have to be two duplicate AOS filings for the same person, with duplicate biometrics notices and duplicate MyUSCIS-environments. All differing only in the A-number. Furthermore, OP mentioned that the AOS NOA1s did show correct A-number. Therefore, if the Biometrics notice is visible for them in the online environment under the i-485, which does have the correct A-number, clearly the two A-numbers are connected to the same case. This means that the above theory of "everything might be duplicate" doesn't fly. Lastly, quick search on Google already shows that USCIS does assign new A-number to people at times, for whatever reason or non-reason. There is no need to further double-down on your stance by digging into a deeper complexity. The amount of comments someone has on a single forum cannot be directly equated to knowledge. You have what most would consider a substantial amount of posts on VJ, yet I find your knowledge on the whole lacking and bordering on misinformation. Also, what is your experience with e-files/IOE-cases? Do you keep up-to-date with developments? I have also seen you claim in a different thread that people that filed on paper but get an e-file (IOE) are somehow not elligble to respond to RFEs via the online environment, which is also not true.

If USCIS has started processing forms at triple the speed, it would not be weird for NVC to not be able to keep up. I am slightly worried one bottle neck has been traded for another.

Just received our approval: NOA1: JANUARY 20, 2022 NOA2: APRIL 18, 2023