diadromous mermaid

One more issues that you should be aware of. When an alien enters the country on a VWP and remains to apply to adjust status, he essentially waives his right to appeal. So, if for some reason USCIS didn't buy that this was an impromptu trip with no prior intent to remain, if for some reason the application were denied, he'd have no right to appeal. He already has an overstay (how long, by the way?)...he'd have another on his hands.

he has a plain I-94 no visa wavier, he has no overstay now, so why not do the I-130 and stay like he did in 2004?

Hmm. Much to be learnt. Did your husband apply for a tourist visa to come to the USA this last time?

Commute miles to work are not expense that can be deducted. So, in this particular case, you and the employee are in the same boat, unless you schedule a business call at the end of your driveway both first thing in the morning and last thing at the end of the day.

Actually, no I'm not a W-2 type If it makes a difference I am a CEO of a corporation.

By the way, the "benefit" to which you refer, for mileage is what IRS claims is the requisite value of operating a vehicle for business use. It goes beyond a consideration for fuel. Haven't you considered that your "employer" is having you use your vehicle for "his" business purposes, and is accelerating the date when you'll be facing disposal of that asset due to extra use and at a lower market value.

What pushbrk and I have been trying to state (he better than I, in this case) is that a "deduction" is not a "deduction" in the sense you are proposing. You are confounding the vernacular.

Ah, but therein lies the rub. I am assuming your employees must show up for work every day and that at least some of them drive. They have to put wear and tear on their vehicle, pay for gas, parking, tolls, and insurance, and are not allowed to write off a single penny of it.

I make out a lot better than them because I am given a tax deduction that takes into account all of these things. Not only that, I can deduct myriad other things, some at cost, some at a rate that far exceeds actual cost. (hello, per diems in Alaska!) If I work in town and ride the subway in, it's a tax write-off as well. Not for them, though.

So who makes out better? When all is said and done, who has more left at the end of the day to support their family? The poor devils who spend $10 a day for gas and another $15 for parking, or the guy who not only gets to write off the $25, but gets to write off an additional $40?

And really, isn't the whole purpose of this is to ensure that we're able to support our family?

This is my entire point and is why I am fighting this.

Ah, if only it were that simple.

Good luck on your quest, but please don't place too much hope on a positive outcome. Your time is worth far more to you if expended elsewhere.

Actually, no I'm not a W-2 type If it makes a difference I am a CEO of a corporation.

By the way, the "benefit" to which you refer, for mileage is what IRS claims is the requisite value of operating a vehicle for business use. It goes beyond a consideration for fuel. Haven't you considered that your "employer" is having you use your vehicle for "his" business purposes, and is accelerating the date when you'll be facing disposal of that asset due to extra use and at a lower market value.

What pushbrk and I have been trying to state (he better than I, in this case) is that a "deduction" is not a "deduction" in the sense you are proposing. You are confounding the vernacular.

Ah, but therein lies the rub. I am assuming your employees must show up for work every day and that at least some of them drive. They have to put wear and tear on their vehicle, pay for gas, parking, tolls, and insurance, and are not allowed to write off a single penny of it.

I make out a lot better than them because I am given a tax deduction that takes into account all of these things. Not only that, I can deduct myriad other things, some at cost, some at a rate that far exceeds actual cost. (hello, per diems in Alaska!) If I work in town and ride the subway in, it's a tax write-off as well. Not for them, though.

So who makes out better? When all is said and done, who has more left at the end of the day to support their family? The poor devils who spend $10 a day for gas and another $15 for parking, or the guy who not only gets to write off the $25, but gets to write off an additional $40?

And really, isn't the whole purpose of this is to ensure that we're able to support our family?

This is my entire point and is why I am fighting this.

One more issues that you should be aware of. When an alien enters the country on a VWP and remains to apply to adjust status, he essentially waives his right to appeal. So, if for some reason USCIS didn't buy that this was an impromptu trip with no prior intent to remain, if for some reason the application were denied, he'd have no right to appeal. He already has an overstay (how long, by the way?)...he'd have another on his hands.

They said they couldn't allow him a 90 day visa wavier, so they gave him a normal I94 for 30 days. But I think it's unfair that we have to leave so quick!

I think, actually, you are very lucky. Many would have been turned back at the POE!

You've already demonstrated "immigrant intent" by filing an I-130 earlier (even though you left to go to the UK before it was complete). Frankly, you should be counting your blessings that your husband was only slapped on the wrist. Why are you pushing it?

You can try for an extension, and if your mother's death is imminent (as proven by doctor's letters, he may get it for another month or so, but I wouldn't count on it. You can file for the I-130, but your husband would need to return to the UK after his current visa is up, and await the approval of the I-130 and subsequent visa.

I don't think a lawyer is going to help from getting the visa point of view, but as you are stressed with the kids and MS and your dying mom, a lawyer might be a good idea just to help with any paperwork and make sure you don't forget anything if/ when you file for whatever. Good immigration lawyers tend to be very expensive though.

You have a very hard situation there, and I understand with your illness and your mother's health it would be difficult for you to look after the kids too, but from the US government's point of view, they are not stopping you from being in the USA, or going to the UK, they are only concerned with your husband.

but can't he stay while they do the I-130? he stayed the first time while we were waiting on the I-130, why can't he now when it is even more important?? I don't understand any of this

Actually, no I'm not a W-2 type If it makes a difference I am a CEO of a corporation.

By the way, the "benefit" to which you refer, for mileage is what IRS claims is the requisite value of operating a vehicle for business use. It goes beyond a consideration for fuel. Haven't you considered that your "employer" is having you use your vehicle for "his" business purposes, and is accelerating the date when you'll be facing disposal of that asset due to extra use and at a lower market value.

What pushbrk and I have been trying to state (he better than I, in this case) is that a "deduction" is not a "deduction" in the sense you are proposing. You are confounding the vernacular.

I wasn't comparing legal and illegal. I was trying to understand why the OP is focused on the fact that the figure he transfers from his Schedule C to line 7 is a penalising him. Frankly, I think and I am not a tax person, that he's confusing business deductions from personal deductions.

But why should there be a difference in how they are treated? A deduction is a deduction is a deduction. And honestly, in the long run, from a standpoint of who ends up with the most money, I win.

For instance, I am allowed to deduct what amount to four times what I actually pay for gas for my commute to/from jobs, not to mention whatever I pay in tolls and parking. In essence, I am getting a very hefty tax credit, especially since I am driving an already-paid for car and very little monthly insurance.

I'm assuming you're a W2 sort- you're not allowed to deduct anything. You get your paycheck and out of pocket you have to pay gas, tolls, parking, insurance, etc.

So I get a tax deduction to the tune of about $.35-$.40 for every mile I drive, which lowers what I report as my gross income on my 1040 on line 22 but in reality puts more money in my pocket by lessening my tax hit significantly. (and yes, this is all 100% legal)

You? Not only do you have to pay higher taxes because you're not allowed to take these deductions, you also have the out-of-pocket cost of gas/parking/tolls on top of it.

Does this make it a little more clear?

Oh brother. Now look, after reading your other post (thanks Mister_Bill) it appears you've got yourself in a bit of a mess. But rather than complain about the system, a system, mind you, that your husband abused not once, but is intending to abuse again, why not just work WITH it?

If you really are here for your dying mother, why on earth didn't you mention that as part of the hardship you'd face? It might seem harsh, but I think you are grasping at straws instead of facing this head on. Your husband could return to the UK and await a petition. You could remain here and tend to your ailing mother.

Someone told me if we could prove hardship they coudn't deport my husband if he overstays again while applying for a green card. I think it's pretty ####### to force me to live abroad when I don't want to and my mother is dying and I can't be near her then. being near your kids isn't important enough for them? that is pretty sad, esp when I know there are so many people in this area we are in that are not legal and living off the state

Help me to better understand your feeling that the business eowner is being penalised. Where is the business owner's dilemma (unfairness in the "income" requirement) any different from a hard-working food server that gets cash tips that far exceed her income that is paid direct from the employer? She can report her tips and show a healthier income for USCIS purposes, and pay more tax as a consequence, or she can not declare a sizeable amount of her earnings, and reap the tax rewards, and fail to meet the USCIS income requirement. How does that differ from what you are claiming?

No, I'm not confusing it.

No, you're not confusing it, just conveniently misinterpreting it. The context is quite clear and is defined further as income from line 22 of the 1040 form. I'm self employed too, have no employees, overhead or inventory, (Well one of my businesses has a little inventory now and then.) and I'm not incorporated. It's all 1099 or direct income. Line 22 rules. You'd best learn to live with it. The tax advantages of being self-employed can come back to bite you on an affidavit of support.

Can you cite precisely the law or regulation where it says that "preduction income" is defined by only by what is entered Line 22?

Nothing that I have read has specifically said that this is the only interpretation. The wording is very hazy in the reg I cited, only stating "pre-deduction income" on the "income tax form". Well, Schedule C is an "income tax form" and I've established my preduction income via my 1099s and W2s, so failing a direct regulation or ruling that establishes Line 22 as the ONLY definition, I have a valid legal argument. More than valid, actually, because in this instance, the government appears to be violating the regulation by considering post-deduction income, contrary (again) to the regulation I cited.

And really, "learn to live with it"? I'm not the sort to stand by silently and be incorrectly penalized and just because others have chosen to done so does not validate that as a reasonable course of action. If according to the regulations (and I am shown so conclusively) I am incorrect, then I will accept it. But to this point, the issue remains wide open.

Well just to put you back out in the pasture ONE is illegal and ONE is not...Thanks for joining play again soon.

I wasn't comparing legal and illegal. I was trying to understand why the OP is focused on the fact that the figure he transfers from his Schedule C to line 7 is a penalising him. Frankly, I think and I am not a tax person, that he's confusing business deductions from personal deductions.

Sorry, but I just don't see your point. The "total unadjusted income before deductions", in my opinion is not referring to business deductions (namely the costs incurred to provide the service) but rather the social security deduction and other deductions (if applicable) which appear below line 22 (LINES 23-35) on the 1040.

Help me to better understand your feeling that the business eowner is being penalised. Where is the business owner's dilemma (unfairness in the "income" requirement) any different from a hard-working food server that gets cash tips that far exceed her income that is paid direct from the employer? She can report her tips and show a healthier income for USCIS purposes, and pay more tax as a consequence, or she can not declare a sizeable amount of her earnings, and reap the tax rewards, and fail to meet the USCIS income requirement. How does that differ from what you are claiming?

No, I'm not confusing it.

No, you're not confusing it, just conveniently misinterpreting it. The context is quite clear and is defined further as income from line 22 of the 1040 form. I'm self employed too, have no employees, overhead or inventory, (Well one of my businesses has a little inventory now and then.) and I'm not incorporated. It's all 1099 or direct income. Line 22 rules. You'd best learn to live with it. The tax advantages of being self-employed can come back to bite you on an affidavit of support.

Can you cite precisely the law or regulation where it says that "preduction income" is defined by only by what is entered Line 22?

Nothing that I have read has specifically said that this is the only interpretation. The wording is very hazy in the reg I cited, only stating "pre-deduction income" on the "income tax form". Well, Schedule C is an "income tax form" and I've established my preduction income via my 1099s and W2s, so failing a direct regulation or ruling that establishes Line 22 as the ONLY definition, I have a valid legal argument. More than valid, actually, because in this instance, the government appears to be violating the regulation by considering post-deduction income, contrary (again) to the regulation I cited.

And really, "learn to live with it"? I'm not the sort to stand by silently and be incorrectly penalized and just because others have chosen to done so does not validate that as a reasonable course of action. If according to the regulations (and I am shown so conclusively) I am incorrect, then I will accept it. But to this point, the issue remains wide open.

I'm not going to compare apples/oranges here, nor get into the ethical issues of filing a fraudulent return/falsely declaring income. Those are other discussions for other posts. I am only concerned about this narrow issue which directly affects me.

My contention that I am being penalized stems from all the arguments I've laid out in my previous posts- that those of us who receive 1099 income are being treated differently than those who receive W2 income in that for us, they are considering post-deduction income, which directly contravenes 9 FAM 40.41 N5.5-1, which state that income is defined as follows:

"Income", for the purpose of Form I-864, means total unadjusted income as shown on the tax return, before deductions. Total unadjusted income includes not only salary (if any) but also monetary gains from any other source, such as rent, interest, dividends, etc.

Read it and parse it carefully and then show me where the regulation directly refutes my argument. It doesn't. Others here think it does, but they are only offering their interpretation of what the regulation says, unsupported by any direct citation of the regulation or immigration court precedent.

Help me to better understand your feeling that the business eowner is being penalised. Where is the business owner's dilemma (unfairness in the "income" requirement) any different from a hard-working food server that gets cash tips that far exceed her income that is paid direct from the employer? She can report her tips and show a healthier income for USCIS purposes, and pay more tax as a consequence, or she can not declare a sizeable amount of her earnings, and reap the tax rewards, and fail to meet the USCIS income requirement. How does that differ from what you are claiming?

No, I'm not confusing it.

No, you're not confusing it, just conveniently misinterpreting it. The context is quite clear and is defined further as income from line 22 of the 1040 form. I'm self employed too, have no employees, overhead or inventory, (Well one of my businesses has a little inventory now and then.) and I'm not incorporated. It's all 1099 or direct income. Line 22 rules. You'd best learn to live with it. The tax advantages of being self-employed can come back to bite you on an affidavit of support.

Can you cite precisely the law or regulation where it says that "preduction income" is defined by only by what is entered Line 22?

Nothing that I have read has specifically said that this is the only interpretation. The wording is very hazy in the reg I cited, only stating "pre-deduction income" on the "income tax form". Well, Schedule C is an "income tax form" and I've established my preduction income via my 1099s and W2s, so failing a direct regulation or ruling that establishes Line 22 as the ONLY definition, I have a valid legal argument. More than valid, actually, because in this instance, the government appears to be violating the regulation by considering post-deduction income, contrary (again) to the regulation I cited.

And really, "learn to live with it"? I'm not the sort to stand by silently and be incorrectly penalized and just because others have chosen to done so does not validate that as a reasonable course of action. If according to the regulations (and I am shown so conclusively) I am incorrect, then I will accept it. But to this point, the issue remains wide open.

If you can just as easily move to reunite with your husband than to stay here without him, what sort of hardship are you really representing? I'm being honest, not flippant. The immigration service, when considering waivers, would look into the hardship posed to the US citizen, that would not exist were it not for the alien's inadmissibility. If you have MS and that requires assistance for you, and for you with the children, then so state. If your medical condition would be worsened by having to relocate to the EU, where you would not be able to secure the care you require, then so state.

From the little you've shared about the specifics, it's hard to know what her intentions were from the start. My hunch is that it was a genuine relationship between two people that grew apart during the years. You say you had a lot going against you. Perhaps it is the result of that and othe day-to-day issues. We can't know.

What I can share is that it is unlikely that someone that was only interested in being able to move and reside in the USA would have been able to maintain a facade for 8 years. Nor would an individual that had ulterior motives either encourage or go along with a spouse adopting her child if she knew that within a matter of years the relationship would no longer serve a purpose. I think you need to let the news settle in a bit before you jump to any conclusions like that.

To the rest of the people that responded to this thread with sarcastic comments or troll alert claims:

Please resist the sick temptation. I don't know from one post whether a member is genuine or not. And I suspect neither can you. If you think a member is a troll, please wait until it becomes patently obvious before having your fun. The hazards of that behavior to what might very well be a legitimate plea for help could be dire. Please use common sense.

Hello everybody,I googled- my wife just got her citizenship and left me. (I also adopted her son 6 months ago BTW) I was directed to this website with a somewhat similar case. My wife did not get mean and say it was business. She did say it was a bad time in her life when we met and she still sees what a wonderful person I am after about 8 years of marriage... That being said and done when you enter into a relationship you must look at things for what they are. I'm babbling, it's only been a few days and I am drunk. I don't hate her just wish she would have been more honest with me from the beginning. Maybe it wouldn't have hurt so bad after living a fairy tale. Nobody I know understands. Just thought I would post on here because it sounds like some of you here have had similar problems. She realized that she can't be who she was for me any more and doesn't want to take everything from me. It's just sad. I feel like this could happen to anybody, please tell me that nobody can put on such an act after so long. There was so many things going against us and it just didn't work. I really want to beleive that

Well, for the instant perhaps, but a PR can become naturalised (felonious acts, clandestine affiliations and immoral character withstanding) if s/he chooses, and thus the only right oif a USC not available would be to run for President.

I'm the USC, and a proud one for that matter.

So you're a proud US citizen; so proud that you choose to get an education in another country, eh? I am offended that you appear to be suggesting that as a US citizen you have a right to complain about what a PR does with his time and where. The arrogance in your posts is palpable. NOT becoming at all, I might add. It's as you believe you are of a higher order!~ Well, I hate to burst your bubble and all that, but when it comes to PRs they have all the rights that US citizens have (except for becoming the US President, of course). For heavens sake, don't come back and tell us that you are running for office!

I'm not offended that the OP complains about stuff : complaining about stuff is simply exercising the hallowed and protected First Amendment right to Free Speech - something all USCs are entitled to. How USCs use their speech is another matter- if a USC says something entirely moronic, he/she has done two things - exercised a constitutional rights, and made a moronic statement.

Oh, and an LPR does nto have the same rights as a USC - an LPR cannot vote or run for any office, not just President. You have confused the concept of a naturalized (as opposed to natural born) USC, who cannot run for President.

I'm the USC, and a proud one for that matter.

So you're a proud US citizen; so proud that you choose to get an education in another country, eh? I am offended that you appear to be suggesting that as a US citizen you have a right to complain about what a PR does with his time and where. The arrogance in your posts is palpable. NOT becoming at all, I might add. It's as you believe you are of a higher order!~ Well, I hate to burst your bubble and all that, but when it comes to PRs they have all the rights that US citizens have (except for becoming the US President, of course). For heavens sake, don't come back and tell us that you are running for office!

What state do you reside in?

There could be two ways to interpret the notion that she likens the marriage to a business transaction. First, we don't know if those were her exact words, verbatim, or if she said something along those lines. If she said it exactly that way, then her intentions were not sincere. But depending upon context, I wouldn't find a spouse intent on ending a relationship and referring to separating and terminating a marriage as akin to a "business transaction" all that out of line. At the point where love and commitment are gone, the next steps taken in unravelling a marriage are equivalent to a business transaction

Old Dominion,

In his original post (the thread spiraled out of control yesterday and got locked), the OP stated that she had told him specifically that "it was just a business transaction" for her so she could get her GC.

OP,

if you have ANY compelling evidence that she acted fraudulently, show it to USCIS and maybe she'll get deported (or not). Either way you have nothing (except a pricey hook) to lose.

I think you're confounding "business income", or in your case "the income derived from the services you provide" from "personal income". In determining income for USCIS, a self-proprietor takes the inome of the business that is attributed to himself or left over to pay himself for the service he has offered to his entity ( that would be after business deductions, cost of goods sold, expenses etc) and uses that figure (from Schedule C) in lieu of providing a w-2, which is what an employee would have. The citation you quote from the FAM is written as it pertains to an individual, an indididual's income (not an entities' income), so "deductions" in this context refer to personal deductions, itemized and the federal standard deductions.

Actually, I'm in a discussion now with the US Consulate in Moscow on this very topic, as this is throwing a major wrench in the visa applications for my wife and stepdaughter.

I work mainly as an independent contractor and the majority of my income is reported to me on 1099s. When I do my taxes, I fill out a Schedule C and on line 7, enter my total income. Further down the form, I then enter all my deductions, subtract them from my income, and this figure gets transferred over to my 1040 on line 12.

Now, the issue of contention is this. According to the Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 9 (which is the guidebook for the regulations involving, among other things, immigrant visas), in section 9 FAM 40.41 N5.5-1, income is defined as follows:

"Income", for the purpose of Form I-864, means total unadjusted income as shown on the tax return, before deductions. Total unadjusted income includes not only salary (if any) but also monetary gains from any other source, such as rent, interest, dividends, etc.

It is my argument that the amount that gets transferred over to the 1040 line 12 is not unadjusted income, but adjusted income, since that figure represents my income minus deductions. As you can see, that conflicts with the directive I quoted above.

Instead, when considering income, I am contending that the State Department should use the figure on line 7 of the Schedule C and all other income on lines 7-11 and 13-21 on form 1040.

I will post a new comment when the Consulate issues their ruling. In the meantime, I'll continue to be sick to my stomach from worrying and unable to sleep. Isn't this fun?

Well, only if Laurel is his attorney.

Laurel Scott told you

Uh, attorney/client privilege, anyone, or was this made public before, and by the OP?

But he didn't contact you, he spoke with your sister who then relayed a message. I don't believe that would be construed as a violation of the order.

yesterday he called my baby sister asking her if i could send him some money so he could buy food, it does hurt to know that he might not be eating well but it bugs me that to him im a bad person when he wants me to be to take me to court and almost get sent to jail im bad but now that he needs me he has violated therestraning order by getting in contact so i really dont understand him

That's not it's true purpose.

Shouldn't it be, 'That's not its true purpose'?

All kidding aside, and back on topic, what I'd like to inform msdelila is that the statutes permit a Permanent Resident to leave the country, and for large slugs of time, as long as he/she maintains the USA as his/her permanent country of residence. It's not for us, or USCIS, CBP or DHS to determine what we do with our time, or where we choose to spend it, unless in doing so we fail to preserve the US as our permanent residence. As far as I can see, the OP is not violating any statute.

Erhm, I hope that Master's Degree is not in English comprehension! He clearly said he was not interestedin Naturalising, so he is not about to venture into what you declare is reprehensible.

Notwithstanding, the OP should beware that spending large amounts of time outside of the USA, even if he has a re-entry permit does not necessarily preserve his right to remain a resident. He should take care and research abandonment of residency to ensure he doesn't get snared by his frequent absences.

Why are you even bothering with becoming a citizen and such, if you plan on living in Egypt for the majority of the time? 10 months, and maybe 2 years next time. Do you even care to live in the USA?

I'm American, and I really don't like when people get their citizenship, only to get their passport and move back to their home countries the minute they get their passports. Then, they apply for all their family members, who do the same. And these people have the time to wait, since they don't do anything in their lives. I just hate it. And sorry to generalize, but I've met a lot of people who do that from the Middle East. First one person in their family gets citizenship, then they apply for the whole family, which is usually a lot.

A long time ago, wasn't your passport revoked, if you became a naturalized citizen and didn't live in the USA for the first 5 years in the country?

I think they should bring this law back.

For everyone else who wants to ask me, the only reason I am here in Israel is because I did my Masters Degree, and now I am moving back HOME to the USA.

INFOPASS at your new local office?

I am really upset. I filed my petition May 12th. I moved out of state and changed my address on June 16th. I received a letter confirming the address change. 45 days from file date went by with no biometrics appointment letter. I called the USCIS on July 1st to ask they have my new local office to send me a Biometrics appointment. Today a letter made it to me through USPS forwarding land, from my old address in Seattle, which has an appointment for me at my OLD local office. The letter is dated July 7th, which means they set up an appointment at the old address 21 DAYS after they confirmed my new address! The appointment is for July 29th, which is 13 days away. I called USCIS again, and the woman on the phone who didn't have a clue finally said what I need to do is check the reschedule box and send the appointment notice back to Seattle, who will apparently be able to reschedule me to my new local office ... which sounds fishy to me.

My concern is that the soonest possible time I could have the letter back to them now is on Monday, which gives them less than 9 days to sort out the reschedule request before my appointment there. As we all know, if I miss that appointment my petition is considered ABANDONED, which is a ridiculous hassle I do not want to deal with if at all humanly possible. I don't trust them to reschedule my appointment in less than 9 days - I've never had any luck with them figuring things out reasonably - hence this problem.

It seems like my options are as follows:

-Mail back the appointment letter with a reschedule request and PRAY TO GOD they get it figured out before my appointment

-Fly back to Seattle and just go to the appointment in the wrong state

I'm not sure if there are any other good options so I'm turning to you guys in hopes that there is some kind of consensus on what would be the best course of action. I need to figure this out ASAP so that I can get that appointment letter back for rescheduling on Monday if that's the thing to do. I'd hate to burn money I don't have right now on flying to Seattle if I don't have to, but if that appointment gets missed I'd be out a ton more money hiring a lawyer to appeal the abandonment of my case. It's ultimately a miracle I even got this appointment letter considering they aren't supposed to be forwarded. God I'm pissed they screwed up the address

Please, PLEASE offer me your advice!

Eli

If those were her exact words then you were deceived and she did marry to evade immigration law. Any other indications that are written that suggest the same?

My wife received her Permanent Residence Card and now is filing for divorce. I thought her intentions were true and that she was really in love with me, but she told me it was just a business relationship for her to get into the US. I feel like I got scammed, is there anything I can do to stop this scammer?

I *think* I can be evil, if you really insist

Sign up here. I am going to ask for 10-15 beta requests. The requirements are that you will be helping me shake out the new forums... specifically as I integrate the new "look and feel" and in terms of all other features. The moderation team will have access to try some mod features (so you will have to be evil as well to help with that -- just a little). As I make updates you will receive emails asking yuo to come over and check things out. Once the board is set to go it will be closed and VisaJourney will be updated (this forum) officially. This is a closed beta and the forum is not designed for chit chat (that can be done here).

If you feel up to it and would like to help shape the direction of the future VisaJourney forums (and site) reply back here!

Why all the bother over filing to remove conditions? He could have already done that (one can if one is out of the country, you know) , in fact, if you look at his signature, he notes he did on June 29. 2009.

True. If he files by express mail he will be on time.

Actually, he can file today (by express mail) and still be on time.

If he does not file today and he is a few days late, he will likely be forgiven, because he was out of the country (better reason for being late than many).

Also, one can be outside of the US for up to 1 year and not lose the PR status (depending on other circumstances, and once he's in - he's in, he already did not lose his status). He will have to wait another 3 years before he becomes eligible to file for naturalization, but hey, may be he does not even want to naturalize.

Well, don't sing victory. You obviously didn't apply in time for Removing the conditions of your residence; plus have remained outside of the country for more time than allowed in order to maintain your status.

I would not be surprised if you were soon notified of failure to comply and your GC revoked.