• Hello Members, This forums is for DV lottery visas only. For other immigration related questions, please go to our forums home page, find the related forum and post it there.

AOS applicants: Beware!

Raevsky, I don't understand why you think I changed the story. I keep talking about the same thing: IN THIS OFFICE, they deny any case that is filed before the number is current, and they don't care about the 1999 memo because I was told that I was not the only one whose case was denied because of this IN THIS OFFICE. If my case should not be accepted, they should have rejected it in the first place instead of denying it everything was done. And I was the one who talked with them, and I don't "rephrase" what I was told. I wrote down exactly what I was told. You are not helping anyone by criticizing my English or my math, please.

And if everyone reads the memo differently, then it IS a problem, and it needs to be fixed.

And it doesn't matter what you think or what I think that would happen if I filed my case after June 6 before the number becomes current. THIS OFFICE WILL DENY IT.

I came here just to share my experience with others and hope I can help a little bit, again, not to argue about what is right and what is wrong. I already feel very bad going back and forth with you. Please don't let me regret my good intention to help others.
 
OK. let's talk about this office only.
they deny any case that is filed before the number is current
Click to expand...
Do you know at least one? Even if you are right but the number of denied cases is still 0 (because the number of people who filed early was 0), your point is unprovable.

Raevsky, I don't understand why you think I changed the story
Click to expand...
I am not saying you did that intentionally. I am just saying you used a smilar group of words but the meaning was different.

For instance, let's assume that the number of early cases in thi s office was 0. Then the officer tells you "all cases filed early were denied". That would be correct, because 0 cases were filed early, and all of them (totally 0) were denied. You rephrase the statement by saying they always deny early cases in this office. The wording is similar, but the sense is different. Because this means they will do it in the future as well, which will not be the case. That was correct only for the past, because the number of those cases was 0.

And if everyone reads the memo differently, then it IS a problem, and it needs to be fixed
Click to expand...
The thing is you CANNOT prove this point just by showing examples of people who were denied because they were supposed to be denied. In order to prove this point you have to get at least one real example when the case was denied while it was supposed to be approved.

You are not helping anyone by criticizing my English or my math, please
Click to expand...
I am not criticizing your English. In fact, mine is probably worse. However, regarding math (or logic) it is a different story. That is just what I am trying to say - applying incorrect logic to correct facts could still lead to incorrect reasults. And I think I am helping others by showing why you got incorrect results. Not because of wrong facts, but just because of incorrect logic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Raevsky, okay, I really feel this is hopeless. I said, I wrote down what I was told. I asked the officer if in the past other people's case got denied because they filed their case before the number was current, and the answer was yes. You want evidence? I don't have any evidence! Does it mean I made it up to set people up? Come on! What are you thinking?

I am not here to mislead people. I am telling what I was told, that IN THIS LOCAL OFFICE, they will deny the case, no matter what the memo says. They follow the law, and the law says you can only file when your visa number is immediately available. Period. You can find all the memos you want and interpret them your way, but it won't change the fact that the policy is not clear and they need to be fixed.

You beliebe what you read in the memos and believe the offices will follow every memo. I am telling you here: THIS OFFICE DENIED ANY CASE THAT WAS FILED EARLY. It doesn't mean other offices will do the same thing, but people need to be aware of it.

I don't know what's up with you, but I think this is rediculous. Neither of us are lawyers and it makes no sense at all to criticize or get criticized like this. And this is a personal experience, not logic. If it is about logic, they would not accept my case, orally approved it, then denied it.

I am going to say no more. It is just wasting people's time.
 
My evidence everything was done according to the memo. The reason for denial is according to the memo. The denial itself is according to the memo. That proves much more the memo is a valid policy than otherwise.

I asked the officer if in the past other people's case got denied because they filed their case before the number was current, and the answer was yes
Click to expand...
I am sure he classified you among them. And that also proves the memo is correct.

I am not here to mislead people. I am telling what I was told, that IN THIS LOCAL OFFICE, they will deny the case, no matter what the memo says
Click to expand...
No. The deny it BECAUSE the memo says so. Not regardless.

THIS OFFICE DENIED ANY CASE THAT WAS FILED EARLY
Click to expand...
And the definition of filing early is just like yours. When it was supposed to be denied.

You cannot claim that the memo is not followed when it is followed in this office. And that is just what you are trying to say. You are trying to convoince everybody the memo is not followed by using the examples when it was followed only.
 
raevsky, I think you just don't get it. Seems like u trying to become an immigration expert, but kflex is just writing his story from the way he EXPERIENCED it. Seems as though he knew nothing about the memo until AFTER he realized that his case was denied. He acted based on what the "PROFESSIONALS" advised him to do. You are having a pointless argument, that I will not have with you. So save your fingers I will not be replying. All in all, it's still a lesson to pass on to people doing AOS

Congrats kflex, after all. And thanks for the post.
 
Well, you know, CP also has a number of pitfalls. The thing is you need to know what you are doing, otherwise you might get into trouble whatever way you choose, CP or AOS.

I agree, another lesson from this is do not blindly rely on advice you get from CIS people. If that is the lesson kflex was trying to present, I totally agree with it.
 
And it is amazing how quickly they processed it for you the second time. I am sure that is because it was USCIS's fault that they gave you wrong instructions from the very beginning. So, they did all they could to fix the problem they had created for you previously. How generous of them!
BTW, did you have to pay twice for I-485? I guess the answer is true.
And for DV lottery surcharge, I guess, the answer is no, just once.
 
Hi kflex,

Can I get the contact number of your lawyer, please? She sounds like a good lawyer with great connections. Just in case if I need one in the future. Please PM me if possible. Thanks.
 
raevsky said:
And it is amazing how quickly they processed it for you the second time. I am sure that is because it was USCIS's fault that they gave you wrong instructions from the very beginning.
Click to expand...

I think it's because of the lawyer. Some of them do perform miracles - it's about who you know and who you are on good terms with...
 
AOS confusion.

raevsky said:
I agree your experience is very helpful for people. However, I think, that proves that this memo should be know and should be followed. That is what I think. If you do not follow the memo, you get into trouble. You got into trouble because you did not follow the memo, not because the memo is not followed by CIS. Everybody who does not follow the memo could get into the same type of trouble. Your story is a good illiustration to this.
Click to expand...
Both Keflex and Raevslky thanks for this constructive and informative argument, I'm sure many those who have eyes can read this and learn a lesson.
Keflex congrats and thanks for your story.
I agree with Raevsky 120% your argument is very valid, had he filed after 6th of June they wouldn't have denied it. Simple and clear.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top