DV2008--AOS only

[orangeandwhite]

Dear friends, I need your advices and help or if any one is in the same situation as mine.
I am a winner of DV-2008 (Diversity lottery winner) and applied to do the AOS. Every thing was all right till now. I received the notice of action and my biometric is taken by my local office around 2 weeks back.
Now, I received a call from an FBI agent asking me for a meeting within this week!!! The agent said, there is nothing to worry about and it is a routine check. I got very worried and asked what the purpose is? The agent said, generally, it is based on where you come from!! And I said I never heard about it. The agent said I know!
Firstly, I thought it may be a scam and asked for the agent’s identity. The person gave me cell phone number, their office number, name and other information for me to confirm.
I found those information on FBI site. So, the agent should be real not a scam. I also asked the agent if they can send me a letter by mail for this purpose. The agent did not answer this question and repeated that I should call their FBI office and confirm the identity. Again, the agent insisted that there is nothing to worry otherwise they would never give me a week to arrange a time to meet each other. And, I said I am not worried because I even did not get a traffic ticket in U.S.!! And, the agent said I know!

By the way I am a student from Iran and, never been involved in any problems in all my entire life. Also, I am shocked how come I ‘ve never been asked for this “routine check” during my few years stay in U.S. and how it pops-up after I applied for AOS.

Anyway, I am going to consult my lawyer. And, I thought you guys may have some opinion that may help the situation.

Thanks

There has been some recent controversy regarding the DV program in that "axis of evil" countries could infiltrate intelligence officers into the US by submitting lots of DV entries in random names, collecting the NLs, and manufacturing passports for spies to match the NLs. Iran was the country people were concerned about. So maybe the FBI wants to take a special look at Iranian DV AOS candidates. There are probably not very many of them. You might be the only one!

You can resolve the scam issue by insisting that any "meeting" take place in your local Federal building in the FBI office. That is a reasonable request.

The FBI is an organization to be taken seriously, much more so than the USCIS (a joke in comparison), and I would suggest bringing a lawyer to any meeting with them.

The bright side is that at least someone is looking at your AOS... if you pass the interview your name check will likely clear after.

Do you study an interesting subject, like physics? Is there any reason why the CIA might find you interesting?

 

[masematn]

You obviously started with violating instructions. As you say, the instructions are clear about the advice not to ask KCC for any kind information. You obviously ignored those clear instructions and did just the opposite.

Incorrect logic. And your phrasing is not very successful either. Don't you think that "violating instructions" is a little bit too strong of an expression? DV lottery is not a labor camp (a step to the right, a step to the left, you know what I am talking about), and asking a question when something is not clear is never a violation, at least in the US. Especially when KCC includes its phone number (606-526-7500) in the letter: "If it should be necessary to contact the KCC by telephone..." And I never said anything about "not to ask KCC for any kind information," this is your fantasy. In fact, the exact wording of the NL letter is "it will not be necessary for you to contact the KCC for any further information or instructions if you apply to adjust status in the United States, and the KCC will not contact you again." Note the clause here! It becomes not necessary to call them only after you apply, but not before you apply. And the situation under discussion in this and some other threads is a situation in which people find themselves shortly after the NL arrives. The contacting KCC we talk about are the calls before any applications are made. But for you these calls "violate instructions." A weird look on things I would say..

 

[raevsky]

Incorrect logic

Mathematical logic.

I am sorry. It does not say before, and it does not say after. Instead, it says if. It just warns you from contacting KCC if you proceed with AOS, reardless of whether that is before or after. So, to me it seems obvious you could contact them if your final decision is CP. If it is AOS, it is not a good thing to ask KCC, because KCC is not authorized to answer AOS questions, whether that is before the application is made or after.
It is strange you have not noticed yet that you always risk getting misleading wrong answer when you are asking wrong persons, who have no clue. That is exactly the case about KCC. You were warned, and you are still trying to contact wrong people.

I do not think I am saying it too strong either. I am just saying right, to say what is appropriate to say here. They warned you and you did not follow, got wrong results. So, I am trying to clarify, because it, ovbiously, was not said clear enough.

DV lottery is not a labor camp (a step to the right, a step to the left, you know what I am talking about),

Of course, they don't kill you if something is wrong. I have mentioned the consequences you could be facing in that case. Not a big deal, just AOS abandoned. You will still be alive, and CP is still fine This is not a labor camp, this is a country of laws and policies.

 

[masematn]

Mathematical logic.
It does not say before, and it does not say after. Instead, it says if. It just warns you from contacting KCC if you proceed with AOS, reardless of whether that is before or after.

Yes, it doesn't say so, otherwise I would have used quotation marks. "Before" and "after" is my own interpretation of the temporal relationship in a phrase "you will not [have to do something], if you [do something]. It is not math, it is just English grammar. Also, KCC letter says nothing about "proceeding." It uses a completely different word, "apply," which implies filling out and sending a formal application. You may "proceed with AOS" for months, and still do nothing, depending on your understanding of what it means, but filing an application is a one-time action, and once you send it, you start being placed between "before" and "after," whether you like it or not. I cannot agree with your reading of the DV-2009 NL. Do you have the package in front of you or not?

 

[raevsky]

It is not math, it is just English grammar

It is not English grammar, it is just an incorrect logic. If means exactly if, regardless of the timeframe.

What is the difference between proceeding with AOS and applying for AOS? Are you talking about the case of frivolous application for AOS, without the purpose to proceed with it? or about making an application when you are not eligible for AOS at all?

Yes, I have the package as a pdf file, in front of me.

 

[raevsky]

Well, actually, I see you have scheduled an appointment and are going to proceed according to the instructions. This is much better. That is the correct logic.

 

[claire08]

@ badluck2,

I have heard of these checks, they were started after 9/11. I honestly don't know that they are even related to your AOS, although it might have speeded it up. Basically as I know it, the FBI does random checking of people of a certain profile: generally, younger male, student, muslim, from certain countries (yes such as Iran). You are lucky they called you in advance, I have heard stories where they just show up at your house, I saw this discussed a few years back in a student newspaper. I would not panic but I would also be careful that all your "papers are in order" and it probably doesn't hurt to have a lawyer, although obviously you can be ok without one since many others had no warning. I do not think you are being singled out here, I think this is in fact routine. But of course FBI is not casual so you should still behave carefully. As I have heard, they ask a lot of questions about intent, about what you study, about some of your attitudes... really this is about trying to prevent "student visa terrorism"...

 

[masematn]

It is not English grammar, it is just an incorrect logic.

No, it is grammar. And even not only the English one. Subordinate conjunctions function in a very similar way in most of the languages. Their meaning is constituted by a few factors, and the context is one of them. Why did they use future tense in that phrase? Why not the present, a common tense for instructions? Because they send this letter to people who have no clue about the procedure. The only thing they know at the moment of receiving the NL is that they are the winners. In that minute they are not going to do anything. Maybe get a six pack, but nothing legal, I am sure. Then after a while people start making decisions: get a GC or not? do CP or AOS? marry somebody or not? and so on. Those who decide to do AOS eventually apply for it. And here come the KCC's "if" and my "after." It is obvious, that application for AOS can be done only some time after the reception of NL, isn't it? And KCC doesn't want to hear from the winners who actually applied for AOS, but not at all from those who are only considering it.

If means exactly if

You made my day with this statement! I wish my committee accepted something along these lines

What is the difference between proceeding with AOS and applying for AOS?

The difference is huge. A person who "proceeds with AOS" upon receiving a first letter from KCC, simply decides to do AOS. He goes online, reads a lot, discusses it with friends, and so on. He definitely moves on, which is the first meaning of the word "to proceeed," since he is getting information, preparing documents, making translation - the list is too long to continue. He may or may not send out the forms, this is irrelevant to "proceeding." Now, the one who "applies for AOS" is the one who submits an application package. Coming to the local office with questions about AOS does not mean application for AOS. Do you see the difference now?

 

[raevsky]

No, it is grammar. And even not only the English one. Subordinate conjunctions function in a very similar way in most of the languages. Their meaning is constituted by a few factors, and the context is one of them. Why did they use future tense in that phrase? Why not the present, a common tense for instructions? Because they send this letter to people who have no clue about the procedure. The only thing they know at the moment of receiving the NL is that they are the winners. In that minute they are not going to do anything. Maybe get a six pack, but nothing legal, I am sure. Then after a while people start making decisions: get a GC or not? do CP or AOS? marry somebody or not? and so on. Those who decide to do AOS eventually apply for it. And here come the KCC's "if" and my "after." It is obvious, that application for AOS can be done only some time after the reception of NL, isn't it? And KCC doesn't want to hear from the winners who actually applied for AOS, but not at all from those who are only considering it

How would you explain the meaning of the following statement?

You need to avoid drinking heavily if you give birth in 9 months

Do you need to avoid heavy drinking before you give birth or after it?
If the question is made 200 years ago, when baby formulas were not available, it would definitely mean both, 9 months before and several months after the delivery (the whole period of breastfeeding). Even now if would definitely mean 9 months before the delivery, and probably some time after it too, because usually mothers breastfeed at least for some time. However, this example somehow contradicts to the logic of your statements. How would you explain that?

You made my day with this statement! I wish my committee accepted something along these lines

I hope I can make your other days too, by providing other examples of correct logic. I am really glad it is easy to make your day.

The difference is huge. A person who "proceeds with AOS" upon receiving a first letter from KCC, simply decides to do AOS. He goes online, reads a lot, discusses it with friends, and so on. He definitely moves on, which is the first meaning of the word "to proceeed," since he is getting information, preparing documents, making translation - the list is too long to continue. He may or may not send out the forms, this is irrelevant to "proceeding." Now, the one who "applies for AOS" is the one who submits an application package. Coming to the local office with questions about AOS does not mean application for AOS. Do you see the difference now?

The meaning of "proceed with AOS" is more narrow in my statements. There are just two ways to poceed with immigration once you win the lottery and if you want to immigrate. The first way is CP, the second one is AOS. Proceeding with AOS definitely includes applying for AOS in the process. So, my original statement

It just warns you from contacting KCC if you proceed with AOS, reardless of whether that is before or after.

Has exactly the meaning equivalent to

It just warns you from contacting KCC if you apply for AOS, reardless of whether that is before or after.

, except the case when you apply for AOS frivolously, without actually having an intent to proceed further with immigration.

BTW. It looks like you really like word puzzles. How would you explain the meaining of the following statement? I am asking because this statement somehow is misunderstood by a large amount of people.

...if you were born in a country whose natives are ineligible, but neither of your parents was born there or resided there at the time of your birth, you may claim nativity in one of your parents’ country of birth...

 

[fjelltronen]

4) Find a good immigration lawyer and go for a free consultation. How quickly you want to do this depends on how much free time you have. (The congressman inquiry will hopefully solve the problem.) But I would definitley find a lawyer by the beginning of August.

It's important that the lawyer understand the details of DV, and is aware of past DV litigation. The lawyer should have experience in dealing with USCIS, so that they can hopefully resolve your case without a lawsuit (a million times cheaper and faster). At the same time, the lawyer should have litigation experience - in case it's needed.

5) Have the lawyer represent you. How quickly you want to do this depends on how much money you want to spend. For example you could go to your next INFOPASS with your lawyer. He or she would be able to explain much more persuasively to USCIS the legal restrictions. In many cases USCIS takes corrective action once they realize they're wrong.

---

So in summary, I would do another INFOPASS and write to the congressman asap. And prepare to get a lawyer in the summer.

Hopefully what I described in 1) will solve the problem. If not, simply writing to the congressman should help. If that doesn't help, hopefully going to the next INFOPASS with your lawyer would solve the problem. And only in the unlikely case when you're still stuck, you would have serious legal action.

Thank you so much, plus07 !! Infopass is currently unavailable, but as soon as it comes back up, I'll schedule an appointment and try to talk to them again. It was difficult to talk to them, especially when they don't see any problems with the way my case is being process. I'll follow your advice and ask them to check with their supervisor. I'm really hoping to get them to understand the urgency of the situation.

Thanks a million !

Do you know whether, besides the Sept. 30th deadline, I should be worried about the 55,000 visa getting over (in the last months on the 2008 fiscal year) ? Can I really wait until Sept. to get the gc ?

 

[masematn]

How would you explain the meaning of the following statement? You need to avoid drinking heavily if you give birth in 9 months Do you need to avoid heavy drinking before you give birth or after it?

You definitely like logic more than grammar. Otherwise you would not ignore the future tense of the original phrase. You drinking statement is irrelevant because it structured and conditioned differently. You make correct conclusions for your statement, why not do the same for the KCC's? Look at this example, which is correct from the tense persepctive:
You will not be granted a citizenship, if you give birth in 9 months. Will you insist that this statement is not valid only for the period after the child is born, and not for the 9 months of pregnancy?

If the question is made 200 years ago, when baby formulas were not available

This is more of an off-topic, but long before formulas became available people could feed their kids with some other woman's milk. That was a very common practice. Therefore, your 200 years is not so important here.

The meaning of "proceed with AOS" is more narrow in my statements.

Yes, it appears so. Why not simply follow the dictionary in such case? Is Webster enough authoritative for you? The relevant meaning is "to begin and carry on an action," which is more than wide...

 

[raevsky]

Otherwise you would not ignore the future tense of the original phrase

OK. Is it relevant? What about the following statement?

You will need to avoid drinking heavily if you give birth in 9 months

Is that before or after?

You will not be granted a citizenship, if you give birth in 9 months. Will you insist that this statement is not valid only for the period after the child is born, and not for the 9 months of pregnancy?

Exactly. If we forget about the correctness of logic here, that is the point. You will not be granted it, before or after the birth (unless you have some reasons for citizenship). The same thing, timing is irrelevant here. What is problematic (because of incorrect logic here), on the other hand, is that giving birth here is the reason for not giving citizenship. So, here you are using inside-out logic as well. You do not understand logic. The real reason for not being granted citizenship is lack of reason for that, not giving the birth. Because even if you do not give the birth, you will still not be granted citizenship. Your statement ignores that completely. It assumes that the reason for not granting citizenship is the childbirth.

I think I have already made your day today as well by showing you another example of a correct logic.

This is more of an off-topic, but long before formulas became available people could feed their kids with some other woman's milk. That was a very common practice. Therefore, your 200 years is not so important here

OK. Agreed. So, that always means "before giving the birth", and most likely "after giving the birth" too. In my previous example you somehow ignored "before", and assumed "after" only. That is not what is written both here and there. There it means always, and here it means always "before" and most likely "after". But you are trying to apply "after" only to my example.

Why not simply follow the dictionary in such case?

Do you mean forgetting the context and apply the meaning from webster regardless of what was said earlier? So, you want to break the logic of the proof by applying generic meaning and ignoring the implications used, as in the case with citizenship? That is called manipulating phrases taken out of the context.

 

[MikeM]

Have an infopass today - namecheck still pending.
Almost 4 months sinse it was submitted - Jan 13.
Well, looks like I'll verify how 180 days rule works in DV cases.

 

[masematn]

That is called manipulating phrases.

As you wish. Our discussion is becoming meaningless. Let's stop it here. And thanks for some useful information here and on the other forums.

 

[plus07]

Do you know whether, besides the Sept. 30th deadline, I should be worried about the 55,000 visa getting over (in the last months on the 2008 fiscal year) ? Can I really wait until Sept. to get the gc ?

Currently the worldwide limit for DV is 50,000 and there are also per-continent limits. And per-country limits for high-volume countries (I don't know if this applies to you).

Try not to worry too much. But definitely this is a factor to take into account, so if you don't get any definite results by August, I would certainly talk to a good lawyer.

In the last ten years this has happened only in 2003, when USCIS & DOS actually went over the wordwide limit and had awarded 50,810 DV visas. In the other years, they awarded strictly less than the worldwide limit.

You can learn more by reading the Report of the Visa Office 2007. You want to look at Table VII.

Of course we don't know if 2008 will be like 2003 or like 1998-2002 + 2004-2007. And there are also the per-continent and per-country limits.

 

[raevsky]

And thanks for some useful information here and on the other forums

Welcome.
BTW. I hope you understand that if/when you discuss your BC issue with a CIS officer tomorrow, it is not in your best interest to call your current (russian-made) document a BC. The correct point of view on the subject is you have never had a BC since birth and you need one (the document you have is not a BC, and you should not mention it). That will keep you out of trouble for now. Otherwise the CIS officer might make a determination you are not eligible for AOS.

 

[masematn]

if/when you discuss your BC issue with a CIS officer tomorrow

I'll try not to discuss my BC at this point at all. It is more of touching the ground. I do not think they can expect anything but a KCC package and my photo ID. So let them confirm my eligibility for adjustment, give me some forms (which I have already), some instructions, that's it. Depending on how it goes in Ukraine and Russia, I may want to come for the second time later this summer.

 

[raevsky]

That's right.

 

[arames07]

I have a question for you guys,

I want to know if the reciept that comes in the NL, for AOS fees or CP fees receipt?
Thanks.
When I send I-485 form for AOS, do I have to put the check or money order in the same envelope with the I-485 or send it separatly.

 

[MikeM]

I just received the welcome letter today.

I wish everyone luck with AOS, the only thing i hate about AOS is waiting and being worry all the time.

thanks for your help guys

Congratulations Van_7788!