The OP mentioned that IO wanted to hand over N-14 for something else (not divorce decree) at interview, but that OP's lawyer interjected and the IO backed off. The IO then gave OP "recommended for approval" letter, only to be sent a RFE letter a few weeks later for the divorce decree. Seems like a strange coincidence that IO asked for some other supporting evidence at interview, but missed divorce decree.
RFE after "Recommended for approval"
- Thread starter CZS4ALL
- Start date
Then it can not be retalization. It is juts the lawyer's objection make the IO
forget the other issue. If it is still required, the USCIS may still feel a need to ask for it.
Oh, it's still possible that it was retaliation. For instance, airlines do it all the time. Two years ago, my wife and I were flying home from San Antonio. We boarded the plane, but the flight was delayed for a couple of hours. The captain made an announcement that there was a mechanical problem with the hydraulic system and let the passengers disembark the plane. The less than helpful airline staff at the airport directed everyone to the courtesy phones to make alternate arrangements. I explained to the service rep that it was absolutely imperative for me to get back to NY that night, due to the fact that I had to attend an important meeting at work the following morning. The service rep, who was actually very friendly and helpful, made arrangements for my wife and I to fly on a different airline. When we went to check in for the alternate flight, both of us were "randomly selected" for secondary screening. I didn't think much of it, until I read a rather interesting article on CNN a few months later. The article stated that it's common practice among airlines to tag passengers for secondary screening (by placing a special code on their boarding pass) for having the "audacity" to request alternate flights as a result of problems with their original flight.
The moral of the story is that it's quite possible that USCIS, as a large organization, can just as easily retaliate in a subtle way.
I can only say If I were a USCIS IO and wanted to retaliate, I could
easily make 90% of applicants much more miserable than that.
Agreed. However, it's not necessarily about making someone miserable. It's only about delaying the processing of someone's case, pushing back their oath, and making them sweat a bit more. Keep in mind that if an IO chooses to make an applicant overly miserable, they may involve their lawyer again.
Well, it won't be called retaliation as far as the attorney is concerned. Why? Because the RFE will only help the attorney to charge for more from their clients. By giving out RFE, USCIS is punishing the OP rather than the attorney.
It is strange to send out RFE after the approval esp. when the IO already consulted the supervisor before approving.
Anyway, CZS4ALL, it is just the delay ..I know it is painful..but there is enormous pleasure at the end of this painful journey...just hold on..
If you read out the kind of troubles that another member (nelsonyiga) from Houston is facing....then you may feel that your pain is of no significance...I'm just saying this to make you feel better..
It is strange to send out RFE after the approval esp. when the IO already consulted the supervisor before approving.
Anyway, CZS4ALL, it is just the delay ..I know it is painful..but there is enormous pleasure at the end of this painful journey...just hold on..
If you read out the kind of troubles that another member (nelsonyiga) from Houston is facing....then you may feel that your pain is of no significance...I'm just saying this to make you feel better..
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't know why they would retaliate though?? for what reason?
My lawyer didn't oppose to anything, the IO was asking for proof of my wife and i live together, we gave him our joint tax returns for the last 5 years (we own a business together).
He then old me that he would have to give me an N-14 for more supporting evidence , then my lawyer told him that the tax returns should be sufficient enough, then he said "OK" that's fine, then I told him i may have more documents in my briefcase, he said that's ok, go ahead and look for them and i will meet you guys downstairs with the approval letter and you can give me what you have!
We went downstairs and while waiting on him i ran to my car to get the auto insurance with both our names on it, i did find some more bills as well, i gave him everything i had and he handed me the "recommended for approval" letter, he then shook my hand and congratulated me.
My lawyer and i specifically asked him if i can be in the June 25th oath ceremony, he said he'd already checked and that he couldn't put me in that one and then he said it would be highly possible that i can be in the next one coming up (July 30th).
My wife and i were married in the beginning of 2004, been living together since 2003, i didn't obtain my GC through marriage, i received my card in 2006.
My lawyer didn't oppose to anything, the IO was asking for proof of my wife and i live together, we gave him our joint tax returns for the last 5 years (we own a business together).
He then old me that he would have to give me an N-14 for more supporting evidence , then my lawyer told him that the tax returns should be sufficient enough, then he said "OK" that's fine, then I told him i may have more documents in my briefcase, he said that's ok, go ahead and look for them and i will meet you guys downstairs with the approval letter and you can give me what you have!
We went downstairs and while waiting on him i ran to my car to get the auto insurance with both our names on it, i did find some more bills as well, i gave him everything i had and he handed me the "recommended for approval" letter, he then shook my hand and congratulated me.
My lawyer and i specifically asked him if i can be in the June 25th oath ceremony, he said he'd already checked and that he couldn't put me in that one and then he said it would be highly possible that i can be in the next one coming up (July 30th).
My wife and i were married in the beginning of 2004, been living together since 2003, i didn't obtain my GC through marriage, i received my card in 2006.
Last edited by a moderator:
Its possible the airline purposely tagged you for the secondary inspection. But the secondary inspection code (4 S) has its logic and you can read about it by googling. I get it all the time. One of the basis to get 4S is the situation when a passenger is switched to alternate flight.
Take another look at the last few posts by Bobsmyth, WBH and I. The possible retaliation wasn't against the attorney, but against the applicant whose attorney prevented the IO from issuing an N-14 for a document that wasn't necessary.
So all the thousands of people who have lawyers have something to hide??? and what the heck do lawyers go to law school for then??
and if i have something to hide do you think the lawyer will cover it up???
In fact having a lawyer should give the IO the impression that i'm a good applicant because believe it or not lawyers wouldn't even take your case if you aren't CLEAN! at least this is what happened in my case.
The sad part is that some DISHONEST people make it very hard for others and consequently the USCIS would assume the worst!
Last edited by a moderator:
Not something too hide, but soemthing complicated
Congratulations
Congratulations!The only complication I could see is if they misplaced your response to the RFE it seems it has all gone smoothly.
you have no idea how happy i'm now
Are you more happier now than the first "congratulations!!" right after the interview? My guess is you should be
Last edited by a moderator: