My details
My nonimmigrant timeline:
B1 4/99- 6/99: filed for extension for 6 months(12/14/99),approved 7/2000
Letter of offer 11/99,started paperwork but University failed to issue I-AP66 until 6/2000 (aknowledged their fault in corresponding letter)
J1 filed on 6/25/2000 approved . Thus 1-94: 4/99 -12/14/99..gap (pending application to extend B1)..6/25/2000
Noid was issued for this reason, replied with letter from the university notifying of technical violation of no fault of my.
Decission:" It is regretable that *** university failed to issue you a Form IAP-66 prior 7/2000 even though they had been notified to do so. However the service cannot excuse this error."
Exempt from Cooks MEMO"
"The 3/3/00 Pearson memo addressed the Service’s change in policy allowing certain aliens with pending applications to remain in the United States beyond the 120 days provided by the tolling provision without accruing unlawful presence “because of the current backlogs, which in some cases extend beyond six months.” As a result, a “period of stay authorized by the Attorney General” was defined to include the entire period during which a timely filed, non-frivolous application for extension of stay or change of status is pending with the Service … “ Specifically, the “period of stay authorized by the Attorney General covers the 120 day tolling period described in section 212(a)(9)(B)(iv) of the Act, and continues until the date the Service issues a decision.”"
section 245.1 section:
(2) No fault of the applicant or for technical reasons. The parenthetical phrase ``other than through no fault of his or her own or for technical reasons'' shall be limited to:
(i) Inaction of another individual or organization designated by regulation to act on behalf of an individual and over whose actions the individual has no control, if the inaction is acknowledged by that individual or organization (as, for example, where a designated school official certified under Sec. 214.2(f) of this chapter or an exchange propram sponsor under Sec. 214.2(j) of this chapter did not provide required notification to the Service of continuation of status, or did not forward a request for continuation of status to the Service);
That's why I beleive that the dicision does not abide the law.
