DV 2015 AOS Only

[SusieQQQ]

They can't file a new one. They are out of status and in order to qualify for adjustment of status they have to link their AoS to 245 (i).

I'm interested (because we were told it couldn't be done, at least in my case which was F3 family) under what provision you think the old petition can be reactivated?

Wouldn't it have been easier to do consular processing where being out of status wouldn't have been an issue? Or is the problem your friend will get a ban for overstay if he leaves the US now?

 

[Sm1smom]

UPDATE
​

For the benefit of those wondering what's going on with @Sam2015's case, after reviewing some of the documents USCIS included with his package, we've been able to determine that the package got rejected by USCIS Chicago Lockbox due to early filing. Looks like the package was received by one of those over-zealous 'this is my job, and I know exactly what I'm doing' reps (who actually isn't so smart after all) and is not aware or simply chose to ignore the early filing memo directive, hence decided to reject the petition as filed one month early. Sam will therefore wait till July 1st to re-file.

While it is highly desirable to not experience any hiccup during the DV AOS process, getting rejected by the Chicago Lockbox is actually not as ominous as it seems, package gets returned within 3 weeks or so of filing, check isn't cashed, and the case can be re-filed almost right away. If the case makes its way all the way to the FO, and the IO decides to apply the 'inability to establish priority date as at when the case got filed' clause, this will be a case denial (not a rejection as in the case of the Chicago Lockbox), the enclosed check would have been cashed and is none refundable, couple or several months would have gone by before the denial notice is issued. Of course, if this happens early enough, the petitioner can equally re-file, only a new AOS fee would have to be made.

 

[Britsimon]

UPDATE
​

For the benefit of those wondering what's going on with @Sam2015's case, after reviewing some of the documents USCIS included with his package, we've been able to determine that the package got rejected by USCIS Chicago Lockbox due to early filing. Looks like the package was received by one of those over-zealous 'this is my job, and I know exactly what I'm doing' reps (who actually isn't so smart after all) and is not aware or simply chose to ignore the early filing memo directive, hence decided to reject the petition as filed one month early. Sam will therefore wait till July 1st to re-file.

While it is highly desirable to not experience any hiccup during the DV AOS process, getting rejected by the Chicago Lockbox is actually not as ominous as it seems, package gets returned within 3 weeks or so of filing, check isn't cashed, and the case can be re-filed almost right away. If the case makes its way all the way to the FO, and the IO decides to apply the 'inability to establish priority date as at when the case got filed' clause, this will be a case denial (not a rejection as in the case of the Chicago Lockbox), the enclosed check would have been cashed and is none refundable, couple or several months would have gone by before the denial notice is issued. Of course, if this happens early enough, the petitioner can equally re-file, only a new AOS fee would have to be made.

Crazy stuff.

Imagine if USCIS made cars. Sometimes you would get in, turn the key and all would be fine. Sometimes you would not be able to start the car. Sometimes you would turn on the radio and the car would blow up. Every trip would be " a lottery".

For sheez.

 

[Sm1smom]

Crazy stuff.

Imagine if USCIS made cars. Sometimes you would get in, turn the key and all would be fine. Sometimes you would not be able to start the car. Sometimes you would turn on the radio and the car would blow up. Every trip would be " a lottery".

For sheez.

Lol. Yep, it's a lottery

 

[Knot]

I'm interested (because we were told it couldn't be done, at least in my case which was F3 family) under what provision you think the old petition can be reactivated?

Wouldn't it have been easier to do consular processing where being out of status wouldn't have been an issue? Or is the problem your friend will get a ban for overstay if he leaves the US now?

Yes, if they leave for CP they will most likely get a ban. It was initially filed under F1 family.
That same F1 family is gone and cannot be filed again. What they are hoping is that even though normally people out of status can't get a GC through DV, in their case the 245(I) will bring them back to "in status" and make getting GC possible.
Thanks again.

 

[Knot]

Yep, that is the core of the problem your friend is facing: he/she is out of status, and therefore, per se, unable to pursue a DV AOS application. Hence, a valid 245(I) application would need to be proven to be effectively in place in order to overcome the otherwise automatic "out of status assumption" at the DV interview. Lot's to be done and precious little time... Good luck to your friend, we wish her/him well.

Thank you.

 

[Asia174]

Hi mom,
I received the acceptance text from USCIS, i had submitted i484 and i765. When i check the status update, it just says we received you i765 application for employement authorization. It does not say about i485. Is it fine? Will they probably update in a few days? Thanks.

 

[Asia174]

Hi mom,
I received the acceptance text from USCIS, i had submitted i484 and i765. When i check the status update, it just says we received you i765 application for employement authorization. It does not say about i485. Is it fine? Will they probably update in a few days? Thanks.

Hi
Never mind, i received another receipt number for i485. So they sent 2 diff for i485 and 765.

 

[Sam2015]

UPDATE
​

For the benefit of those wondering what's going on with @Sam2015's case, after reviewing some of the documents USCIS included with his package, we've been able to determine that the package got rejected by USCIS Chicago Lockbox due to early filing. Looks like the package was received by one of those over-zealous 'this is my job, and I know exactly what I'm doing' reps (who actually isn't so smart after all) and is not aware or simply chose to ignore the early filing memo directive, hence decided to reject the petition as filed one month early. Sam will therefore wait till July 1st to re-file.

While it is highly desirable to not experience any hiccup during the DV AOS process, getting rejected by the Chicago Lockbox is actually not as ominous as it seems, package gets returned within 3 weeks or so of filing, check isn't cashed, and the case can be re-filed almost right away. If the case makes its way all the way to the FO, and the IO decides to apply the 'inability to establish priority date as at when the case got filed' clause, this will be a case denial (not a rejection as in the case of the Chicago Lockbox), the enclosed check would have been cashed and is none refundable, couple or several months would have gone by before the denial notice is issued. Of course, if this happens early enough, the petitioner can equally re-file, only a new AOS fee would have to be made.

Yes but God is always good and incontrool too. Thanks Sm1smom Thanks for your help and for update the case,sorry for couldn't do it.
and thanks everyone tried to help

 

[Karimm]

UPDATE
​

For the benefit of those wondering what's going on with @Sam2015's case, after reviewing some of the documents USCIS included with his package, we've been able to determine that the package got rejected by USCIS Chicago Lockbox due to early filing. Looks like the package was received by one of those over-zealous 'this is my job, and I know exactly what I'm doing' reps (who actually isn't so smart after all) and is not aware or simply chose to ignore the early filing memo directive, hence decided to reject the petition as filed one month early. Sam will therefore wait till July 1st to re-file.

While it is highly desirable to not experience any hiccup during the DV AOS process, getting rejected by the Chicago Lockbox is actually not as ominous as it seems, package gets returned within 3 weeks or so of filing, check isn't cashed, and the case can be re-filed almost right away. If the case makes its way all the way to the FO, and the IO decides to apply the 'inability to establish priority date as at when the case got filed' clause, this will be a case denial (not a rejection as in the case of the Chicago Lockbox), the enclosed check would have been cashed and is none refundable, couple or several months would have gone by before the denial notice is issued. Of course, if this happens early enough, the petitioner can equally re-file, only a new AOS fee would have to be made.

Hi,

In addition to the the copy of the early filling memo do you think it could help to clearly state in a cover letter why the AOS package submitted that early respects the USCIS procedure ?
thanks

 

[Sm1smom]

Hi,

In addition to the the copy of the early filling memo do you think it could help to clearly state in a cover letter why the AOS package submitted that early respects the USCIS procedure ?
thanks

Worth a try, not guaranteed to always work.

 

[Asia174]

Hi,

In addition to the the copy of the early filling memo do you think it could help to clearly state in a cover letter why the AOS package submitted that early respects the USCIS procedure ?
thanks

Hey,
I think it is chance. You can do it. I was worried after sam's case too. I had submitted the early filing memo but no cover letter. I am current for aug. I got the received text yesterday.

 

[Karimm]

Hey,
I think it is chance. You can do it. I was worried after sam's case too. I had submitted the early filing memo but no cover letter. I am current for aug. I got the received text yesterday.

I think so too. I'm glad it worked for you!

 

[fatimaGau]

Hi,
I met today with a lawyer to hire him for mailing. He refused to take care for my case until my number is current.
For the affidavit of support, he told me the correct form is I-864 and not I-134.
What is the difference between both of them?? and which one should I fill?
thank you

 

[Britsimon]

Hi,
I met today with a lawyer to hire him for mailing. He refused to take care for my case until my number is current.
For the affidavit of support, he told me the correct form is I-864 and not I-134.
What is the difference between both of them?? and which one should I fill?
thank you

So - he doesn't know about the early filing memo and, assuming yours is a DV case, he is plain wrong about the I864/I134.

How much are you paying the lawyer to give you incorrect advice?

 

[fatimaGau]

So - he doesn't know about the early filing memo and, assuming yours is a DV case, he is plain wrong about the I864/I134.

How much are you paying the lawyer to give you incorrect advice?

Thank you for your quick reply
I know, he know nothing about DV lottery.
I met him, because I am not sure if I will keep the same address or I will move. I want him to take care only for mailing.
It was Sm1smom advice to hire a lawyer in case I am not sure about my future address and I felt it was the best advice
Thanks

 

[Sm1smom]

Thank you for your quick reply
I know, he know nothing about DV lottery.
I met him, because I am not sure if I will keep the same address or I will move. I want him to take care only for mailing.
It was Sm1smom advice to hire a lawyer in case I am not sure about my future address and I felt it was the best advice
Thanks

What da heck???

Oh no! I never ever advised you to hire a lawyer for the purpose of receiving your mail because you're possibly going to be moving houses in the process of your AOS. I actually ridiculed the idea, if memory serves me right!

 

[Sm1smom]

Thank you for your quick reply
I know, he know nothing about DV lottery.
I met him, because I am not sure if I will keep the same address or I will move. I want him to take care only for mailing.
It was Sm1smom advice to hire a lawyer in case I am not sure about my future address and I felt it was the best advice
Thanks

As a matter of fact, the last time you talked about hiring a lawyer to receive your mail:

Hi Sm1smom,

Our rent lease will be finished by July 27th. If we want to continue month to month, we will have $300 in addition to the market price at the end of the lease. We don't know where we will go later. Should we hire a notary/lawyer to receive our mails in case we don't decide where to live?
Can a letter from the bank or insurance be a proof of residence?

Thank you

This was my precise response to you below:

You'll rather pay $900 to some attorney to receive your mail, than stay put and pay the extra $300/month for 2 months - August, Sept - which is what is left for the FY to end anyways? Anyway, it's not like you will be required to provide a proof of address, and I don't know if what you're proposing is acceptable by USCIS.

I challenge you to quote or show the post where I advised you to hire a lawyer for the purpose of receiving your mail!!

 

[fatimaGau]

Oh no! I never ever advised you to hire a lawyer for the purpose of receiving your mail because you're possibly going to be moving houses in the process of your AOS. I actually ridiculed the idea, if memory serves me right!

I apologize if I misunderstand you. But I told you that we don't know exactly where we will settle down after July 26th.
and this was your reply: "You'll rather pay $900 to some attorney to receive your mail, than stay put and pay the extra $300/month for 2 months - August, Sept - which is what is left for the FY to end anyways? "
Thank God, It was not completed.

 

[Sm1smom]

I apologize if I misunderstand you. But I told you that we don't know exactly where we will settle down after July 26th.
and this was your reply: "You'll rather pay $900 to some attorney to receive your mail, than stay put and pay the extra $300/month for 2 months - August, Sept - which is what is left for the FY to end anyways? "
Thank God, It was not completed.

I actually posted my complete response just before this post of yours. And where precisely did in the incomplete post you just quoted did I advise you to hire a lawyer? For goodness sake, I actually ridiculed the idea by what I posted!