DV2008--AOS only

[niko_france]

Hey MikeM,

You may want to know that I just received the "Your welcome later has been sent, you will probably receive your GC, cross two fingers" email. My background check was submitted late November as I sent out my package on Nov 1st.

Nico

 

[NuvF]

Releif for FBI Name Chk Delays

Thos of you who are stuck with the mighty 'FBI' , take a look at the following and chk with USCIS for releif.

**New rules in aproving I-485 s stuck for more than 180 days due to FBI name chk delays. (see page 2, 1st para in it)

www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/DOC017.PDF


================================================== =====
I am an ordinary layman just like you. You may want to dbl,trpl chk the info I've given.
If you think I am wrong please post your response to that effect too.
Cheers!
Dfdo/

 

[NuvF]

I-485 & US Citizen kids

Those of you who went through the AOS process, can you give some thoughts....?

Do you have to put in the details of your US born kids in I 485? My thinking is you do not have to, making it easy on the income/assets you need to show too...correct or not?


================================================== =====
I am an ordinary layman just like you. You may want to dbl,trpl chk the info I've given.
If you think I am wrong please post your response to that effect too.
Cheers!
Dfdo/

 

[MikeM]

Hey MikeM,

You may want to know that I just received the "Your welcome later has been sent, you will probably receive your GC, cross two fingers" email. My background check was submitted late November as I sent out my package on Nov 1st.

Nico

Good for you, congratulations!

 

[MikeM]

Thos of you who are stuck with the mighty 'FBI' , take a look at the following and chk with USCIS for releif.

**New rules in aproving I-485 s stuck for more than 180 days due to FBI name chk delays. (see page 2, 1st para in it)

www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/DOC017.PDF

Yes, this memo seems to be quite helpful, a lot of people who stuck at namecheck for years received GC last months. The problem is - it could work for DV cases only if case been received by USCIS till mid-end of March. Otherwise 180 days passed after Sep 30 and it hardly helps.

 

[nweizu85]

hi guyz I know I have seen this question before on this forum, but I cant find the answer. What do the biometrics code 1, code 2 and code 3 stand for?

 

[NuvF]

Yes, this memo seems to be quite helpful,...........DV case been received by USCIS till mid-end of March. Otherwise 180 days passed after Sep 30 and it hardly helps.

Following is the other memo which would help in that regards. It allows ppl to file AOS I 485 asap AFTER Oct 1st. This is helpful for those who are filing for DV '09.

****Chk the Q#11 in it and the response to it.

http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/MARCBOQA.pdf

I would attach a copy of the Q&A for #11 page with the early I485 !

================================================== ========
I am an ordinary layman just like 'most' of you. You may want to dbl,trpl chk the info I've given !
If you think I am wrong please post your response to that effect too.
Cheers!
Dfdo/

 

[raevsky]

You cannot file ASAP after October 1st, unless your number is already published before October 1st as current in the upcoming months. I think you are misreading the memo.

 

[Johnkent]

You cannot file ASAP after October 1st, unless your number is already published before October 1st as current in the upcoming months. I think you are misreading the memo.

nah, the memo states that u can file AOS anytime during the Fiscal year but some people have had their applications denied because they filed early. USCIS policies are not consistent and their employees pretty much don't know a whole lot about the ever changing policies so they kinda do whatever.

 

[raevsky]

Original memorandum:

http://www.vkblaw.com/news/six.htm

U.S. Department of Justice
Immigration and Naturalization Service

HQ 70/23.1-

Office of the Executive Associate Commissioner
425 I Street NW
Washington, DC 20536

MEMORANDUM FOR: ALL REGIONAL DIRECTORS

ALL SERVICE CENTER DIRECTORS

FROM: Michael A. Pearson
Executive Associate Commissioner
Office of Field Operations

SUBJECT:

Acceptance of DV-related I-485 Applications During 90-day Period Preceding Cut-Off Number in the Visa Bulletin

DATE: 19 JAN 1999

This memorandum is being issued in order to ensure uniform processing of applications for adjustment of status under the Diversity Immigrant (DV) category.

Section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) requires that an application for adjustment of status may not be filed until a visa number is currently available. Recently, the Department of State issued a memorandum advising the Immigration and Naturalization Service that each month it would provide the cut-off numbers for the Diversity Immigrant category 90 days in advance. This advance notice is being provided to allow the INS additional time to process the background checks for DV applicants.

All offices are hereby advised that applications for adjustment of status filed under the Diversity Immigrant program may be accepted for processing any time during the 90-day period preceding the cut-off date provided in the Visa Bulletin. Offices are advised, however, that while the applications may be accepted for the processing of background checks and scheduling for interviews, visa numbers will not be issued until the cut-off date is current.

It states 90-day policy. I guess, it did not mention it does not work across the year end because it was obvious it cannot be applied across the year end. USCIS had only one pipeline then (as it does now), and before the year end all letters go to the pipeline of the previous year. After the year end they all go to the pipeline of the new fiscal year.
That is why if a letter is received by USCIS before year end, it automatically applies to the previous year and cannot be applied to the new one.

Memo #1

Diversity Visa (DV) Lottery: 245 Application Processing
On January 19, 1999, legacy INS issued a memorandum in which it permitted applications for adjustment of status under the DV program to be filed 90 days in advance of an applicant’s rank cut-off.4 The Pearson memorandum was issued in response to notification from the Department of State (DOS) that the Visa Bulletin would provide cut-off numbers for the DV category 90 days in advance. The memorandum instructed all offices to accept DV related adjustment of status applications for processing “any time during the 90-day period preceding the cut-off provided in the Visa Bulletin.” The current version of the DOS’ Visa Bulletin lists lottery rank number availability only for the current and following month. As such this mechanism now provides a DV applicant 75 days advance notice, 15 days short of the previously afforded 90 day period.
AILA has received reports from members that the advance filing policy articulated in the Pearson memorandum is not being followed by the Chicago lockbox resulting in rejection of DV adjustment of status applications. AILA respectfully requests that USCIS confirm that the advance filing procedure outlined in the 1999 Pearson memorandum is still in place and requests that HQ advise the Chicago Lockbox accordingly.
Response: An alien may apply for adjustment when a visa number is immediately available. Under the Pearson memorandum, USCIS deemed an IV number to be immediately available based on the publication of a rank order number. Therefore the date of publication by DOS of the visa bulletin controls the date on which USCIS will begin accepting adjustment applications made under the DV program for a given fiscal year. When the above memorandum was published in 1999 the visa bulletin was be published 3 months in advance. The memo has been overtaken by events in that DOS changed publication of the visa bulletin publication to 2 months in advance. USCIS is constrained by DOS's visa bulletin publication policy.

Memo #1 confirms that the original memorandum is still in force. It mentions the fiscal year issue too (so that those who do not know USCIS has only one pipline that switches on October 1st, would know that).

Memo #2

Question: In late 1998 or early 1999, legacy INS issued a memorandum in which it permitted applications for adjustment of status under the Diversity Visa program to be filed 90 days in advance of an applicant’s rank cut-off. (Memorandum from Michael A. Pearson, Executive Associate Commissioner, Office of Field Operations, Acceptance of DV-related I-485 Applications During 90-day Period Preceding Cut-Off Number in the Visa Bulletin, HQ 70/23.1 (no date provided). The INS memorandum referred to a State Department memorandum advising the INS that the DOS would “provide cut-off numbers for the Diversity Immigrant category 90 days in advance.” The Department of State Visa Bulletin lists lottery rank number availability for the current month, as well as the following month. But, through this mechanism, a DV applicant has at most only 75 days advance notice. We are hearing of problems even using the current 75-day advance notice system, and we would like confirmation that the USCIS Lock Box (USCIS, P.O. Box 805887, Chicago, IL 60680-4120) is aware of the advance filing policy. Some attorneys report that such advance DV-Lottery I-485 adjustments (as described above) have been rejected under the premise that the DV-Lottery rank is not current. Is there a mechanism in place that can assure the 90-day advance notice?
Response: The Chicago Lockbox accepts all Diversity Visa filings within the fiscal year for which the applicant has been selected. For example, the I-485 for an applicant with an FY 2008 selection letter that filed now would be accepted assuming all filing requirements, including submission of the appropriate fee and a completed signature were included. Discussion is ongoing to ensure that consistent application of USCIS memoranda and policies are followed regarding DV Visa application acceptance. If you believe a specific case has been improperly rejected, please provide specific information to us and we will be happy to look into the matter.

Memo #2 has Q&A form. I'll rephrase it.
Q. Is it true the original memorandum is still in effect?
A. [Absolutely.] Just make sure USCIS receives the letter any time during the same fiscal year (remember my comments to the original memorandum - here they mention it because the fact they have only one pipeline is not obvious outside, though it is obvious inside). If a problem still occures under conditions mentioned, let us know.

So, all three documents state exactly the same thing. And that is crystally clear.

Regarding

but some people have had their applications denied because they filed early

We are not aware of any single case where they filed within 90 day period AND within the same fiscal year and were still denied. All cases of early denial for 90-day memorandum applied to admission done in a previous fiscal year (versus the DV program where the applicant participated and won). That was expected, because the second condition was violated - and the application went into the pipeline of a wrong year, where the applicant did not have a petition approved.

USCIS policies are not consistent

Those three are all very much consistent.

their employees pretty much don't know a whole lot about the ever changing policies so they kinda do whatever

They do not care about the changes. They have always had only ONE single policy since 1999. That is all they know. And when the pipeline switches to the new year or before it switches they have to apply original memorandum only. The switch in pipeline is beyond what the employees need to know. They just see an applicant for DV-2008 did not win DV-2008 (though he won DV-2009). So, that is the reason for denial if the application is done before October 1st.

 

[Johnkent]

Original memorandum:

http://www.vkblaw.com/news/six.htm



It states 90-day policy. I guess, it did not mention it does not work across the year end because it was obvious it cannot be applied across the year end. USCIS had only one pipeline then (as it does now), and before the year end all letters go to the pipeline of the previous year. After the year end they all go to the pipeline of the new fiscal year.
That is why if a letter is received by USCIS before year end, it automatically applies to the previous year and cannot be applied to the new one.

Memo #1



Memo #1 confirms that the original memorandum is still in force. It mentions the fiscal year issue too (so that those who do not know USCIS has only one pipline that switches on October 1st, would know that).

Memo #2


Memo #2 has Q&A form. I'll rephrase it.
Q. Is it true the original memorandum is still in effect?
A. [Absolutely.] Just make sure USCIS receives the letter any time during the same fiscal year (remember my comments to the original memorandum - here they mention it because the fact they have only one pipeline is not obvious outside, though it is obvious inside). If a problem still occures under conditions mentioned, let us know.

So, all three documents state exactly the same thing. And that is crystally clear.

Regarding



We are not aware of any single case where they filed within 90 day period AND within the same fiscal year and were still denied. All cases of early denial for 90-day memorandum applied to admission done in a previous fiscal year (versus the DV program where the applicant participated and won). That was expected, because the second condition was violated - and the application went into the pipeline of a wrong year, where the applicant did not have a petition approved.

Those three are all very much consistent.

They do not care about the changes. They have always had only ONE single policy since 1999. That is all they know. And when the pipeline switches to the new year or before it switches they have to apply original memorandum only. The switch in pipeline is beyond what the employees need to know. They just see an applicant for DV-2008 did not win DV-2008 (though he won DV-2009). So, that is the reason for denial if the application is done before October 1st.

I don't know where u're from, but try calling USCIS and getting information from them and every single customer rep u speak to will tell you something totally different.
Anyway, i know someone who Won dv 2008, filled for AOS in october 2007 and his application was denied because his number was not current. And there was someone else on this site who applied early and in October without his number being current and he was approved. tell me USCIS is consistent with its policies.

 

[raevsky]

If you have any particular examples with full information (dates when the number was current and when the application was sent), bring them here. Otherwise you do not have a case. I cannot discuss something like

his application was denied because his number was not current

, that could be because he applied before this number was published as being current, not because it was not current. Then that is a legitimate reason.

Regarding answers on the phone. Right, they are all different. But adjudicators are not the people on the phone. Generally, people on the phone does not know anything in particular, and adjudicators have narrow specialization and know the policy within it.

I don't know where u're from

If you mean my statement

We are not aware of any single case

, "we" means "forum users", including myself.

Example like this does not violate the policy:

And there was someone else on this site who applied early and in October without his number being current and he was approved. tell me USCIS is consistent with its policies

Here we also do not know whether 90-day policy was violated. We have the date of aplication only, and no date of the number being current has been provided. Case without that data is not a valid case for out purposes.

 

[plus07]

Whether one can file early is unclear and we've had a contentious discussion about this on the forum. I think it's up to the individual to decide whether to take the risk, and whether CP may be a better option. I've tried to summarize the issues in a previous post:

...

 

[raevsky]

Do not forget we still do not have any single documented case of clear violation of this policy by CIS. Without that all discussions make no sense. We just have a confirmed written document with the policy and denial for some cases where this policy was clearly violated by applicants, as well as some approvals for cases where the policy was followed by applicants.
It would be strange to question the policy when there are no clear indications it was ever violated by CIS, just because it COULD be violated or because CIS people give contradicting information over the phone.

 

[niko_france]

Good for you, congratulations!

Thanks !
What I meant is that cases that were stuck are starting to ... unstuck ...

 

[plus07]

Do not forget we still do not have any single documented case of clear violation of this policy by CIS. Without that all discussions make no sense. We just have a confirmed written document with the policy and denial for some cases where this policy was clearly violated by applicants, as well as some approvals for cases where the policy was followed by applicants.
It would be strange to question the policy when there are no clear indications it was ever violated by CIS, just because it COULD be violated or because CIS people give contradicting information over the phone.

I showed a post where an applicant followed your proposed policy, and his or her application was returned.

...

You are alternatively ignoring the example or claiming that the person is not saying the truth.

 

[raevsky]

You are alternatively ignoring the example or claiming that the person is not saying the truth.

The person could be mistaken. And he probably was. It does not mean he did that intentionally.
It is very unlikely he sends two letters to USCIS and for one of them it takes 2 days for the letter to be delivered (actually, the second letter), and for the other one - 6 days (the first letter). If we assume he was mistaken about the time limit for the delivery of the first letter (which could happen if he used a wrong procedure to determine it), and in fact it took also just 2 days for it to be delivered, then everything is according to the memo. Actually, 6 days for delivery within US does not seem right anyway. Mail does not work like that in this country. I could possibly believe 3-4 days, but I cannot believe the delivery took 6 days. I would assume the person was mistaken (he could rely on return receipt, that showed incorrect information), but CIS really received the mail in the previous fiscal year.
I have been for 17 years in the US and I do not remember any mail taking so long to be delivered. That is at least very suspicious and does not look correct.

 

[Johnkent]

The person could be mistaken. And he probably was. It does not mean he did that intentionally.
It is very unlikely he sends two letters to USCIS and for one of them it takes 2 days for the letter to be delivered (actually, the second letter), and for the other one - 6 days (the first letter). If we assume he was mistaken about the time limit for the delivery of the first letter (which could happen if he used a wrong procedure to determine it), and in fact it took also just 2 days for it to be delivered, then everything is according to the memo. Actually, 6 days for delivery within US does not seem right anyway. Mail does not work like that in this country. I could possibly believe 3-4 days, but I cannot believe the delivery took 6 days. I would assume the person was mistaken (he could rely on return receipt, that showed incorrect information), but CIS really received the mail in the previous fiscal year.
I have been for 17 years in the US and I do not remember any mail taking so long to be delivered. That is at least very suspicious and does not look correct.

Dude, it seems like you've been having life so easy in America. Sometimes mails do take a couple of days to get to their destination. Do you realize that mails are sorted by humans and a mistake can be made just like that??
I've had a letter mailed to me take 2 wks before i got it and i had absolutely no idea as to why it took that long.

 

[Johnkent]

For those of you who have had interviews already, do you know if USCIS had ur Info packet from KCC on the day of ur interview?
do you think that their might be a way for USCIS to just look up ur case number and other info on the computer to verify that you did infact win the lottery??
Am just curious.

 

[raevsky]

Dude, it seems like you've been having life so easy in America. Sometimes mails do take a couple of days to get to their destination. Do you realize that mails are sorted by humans and a mistake can be made just like that??
I've had a letter mailed to me take 2 wks before i got it and i had absolutely no idea as to why it took that long.

Maybe it was sent in fact much later than you thought.
Also, CIS could register the mail as received on the day it reached CIS (in 2 days), but the return receipt could be issued when CIS person signs it (in 6 days).

Anyway, this case does not show the 90-day policy was violated by CIS. Because if the mail was really received by CIS in 2 days (not in 6 days), as the second mail of his did, the denial was totally legitimate and done according to the memo. We do not have fully documented case, we cannot ask the person involved how exactly he calculated the date CIS received the letter and receive any answer. Without that it is not worth anything. The strong suspicion is it was in fact received by CIS before the end of the fiscal year. In that case it does not prove the policy is violated by CIS.

Moreover. Imagine that. The letter comes to CIS on September 30th, and gets into a large plastic box marked September 30th. Which goes to DV-200N program. In 4 days this plastic box is sorted and the mail is registered in the mailroom, and the return receipt is signed by CIS person. Of course, it still applies to DV-200N program, because it reached CIS on September 30th and was marked for DV-200N at that time.
The application contains documents for DV-200[N+1] program. He is denied because of applying for wrong program (or because of early application, which is the same reason) 200N instead of 200[N+1] which he won.

The technical details which distinguish between previous and next fiscal year are well beyond the 90-day memorandum and have nothing to do with it. Just do not mail the letter when it is not allowed. Do not assume the date of acceptance for the year end purposes is the date when your letter is open. It might be the date of acceptance for year end purposes is different and is the date when the letter was physically put into the incoming CIS mailbox. It looks more like a case with incomplete information, than like a case proving the policy is violated by CIS.