ND-July2002
Registered Users (C)
Is it the day your 485 is approved OR the day you get your passport stamped.
- Home
- Forums
- Immigrant Visas (Green Cards)
- I-485 Issues
- I-485 Issues Common to All Services Centers
- General I-485 and Related Issues
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
When are you "granted permanent resident status" ?
- Thread starter ND-July2002
- Start date
ND-July2002 said:Is it the day your 485 is approved OR the day you get your passport stamped.
I-485 approval date.
kerberos72
Registered Users (C)
unless you case is transfered for interview then its the day the officer approves your case and stamps your passport
TheRealCanadian
Volunteer Moderator
kerberos72 said:unless you case is transfered for interview then its the day the officer approves your case and stamps your passport
Really, the same thing as the previous post. (emphasis mine)
ND-July2002
Registered Users (C)
When transfered and approved
Then the officer does both on the same day.. approve and stamp .. so it is does not make any difference.
The difference is when the case gets approved at USCIS and the applicant gets passport stamped at a later date. Now in this situation we have 2 dates.
My question is on which date is an applicant "granted permanent resident status".
Why am I asking this?
I got approved on 01/03/2005 and got my pp stamped on 01/19/2005.My online status has not changed to "Card Ordered" as yet.
Now when I checked the USCIS phone system it says that
"if you have been granted permanent resident status 30 days ago and you have not recd. a welcome notice you can call"
So if date of approval is when I was granted permanent resident status then I am eligible to call. If the date of stamping is the date then i have to wait.
Thanks.
Then the officer does both on the same day.. approve and stamp .. so it is does not make any difference.
The difference is when the case gets approved at USCIS and the applicant gets passport stamped at a later date. Now in this situation we have 2 dates.
My question is on which date is an applicant "granted permanent resident status".
Why am I asking this?
I got approved on 01/03/2005 and got my pp stamped on 01/19/2005.My online status has not changed to "Card Ordered" as yet.
Now when I checked the USCIS phone system it says that
"if you have been granted permanent resident status 30 days ago and you have not recd. a welcome notice you can call"
So if date of approval is when I was granted permanent resident status then I am eligible to call. If the date of stamping is the date then i have to wait.
Thanks.
PrinceofJungle
New Member
http://www.twmlaw.com/new/insapproval.html
The Notice of Approval : When It Can't Be Trusted
Two recent federal district court decisions – one in California, the other in Florida (just affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit) – address the question of what constitutes a decision granting lawful permanent residence. Both arose in the context of adjustment of status, the process by which noncitizens in a temporary or irregular status can convert to lawful residence, sometimes referred to as “green card” status. (In the Florida case, one of the authors of this column, Stanley Mailman, testified on this process as an expert witness for the plaintiff.) As a result of these decisions, immigration lawyers now have to wonder, despite an official INS stamp (called “Temporary Evidence of . . . Lawful Permanent Residence”) whether the Service has actually granted their client’s application for permanent residence, or will do so. And in other ways the decisions leave a wide swath of uncertainty.
In Bassey v. INS, 2002 WL 31298854, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19726 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2002), the plaintiff filed his application for adjustment of status to permanent residence (Form I-485) with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS or Service) on September 15, 1998. The application accompanied the petition of Bassey’s U.S. citizen wife (Form I-130), seeking to classify him as an immediate relative and therefore exempt from the need for a visa number. According to the Service, it mailed Bassey a notice on September 23, 1999, advising that he had received permanent resident status. In any event, it informed him on June 14, 2000 that his application was approved and the next day placed a stamp in his passport indicating that he was now a lawful permanent resident of the United States. (As discussed below, that stamp, known as the temporary I-551, is used for all purposes in lieu of the green card, e.g., to evidence work authorization, and to travel outside the United States and reenter as a lawful resident. The INS stamps the endorsement because it takes several months to process the permanent Form I-551, the actual green card (now pink), which it backdates to the grant of residence.)
Later, however, the INS initiated a series of actions that triggered Bassey’s lawsuit. After first notifying Mrs. Bassey and giving her an opportunity for rebuttal, the Service denied her I-130 petition on the ground that an earlier marriage fraud by her husband barred the petition. It then denied Mr. Bassey’s application for adjustment for lack of a supporting I-130 approval and physically canceled the stamp in his passport, indicating that it had placed it there in error. When the Service instituted proceedings to remove him from the United States, Bassey sued to invalidate the cancellation and to compel the Service to issue new evidence of his residence status.
Resolving certain jurisdictional issues in Bassey’s favor, the district court posed the central question as follows: Had the INS by its actions granted Mr. Bassey permanent residence? Or, as the INS claimed, had it simply misadvised him that it had done so, having never stamped “approved” on the forms I-130, I-485, and I-181 (an internal record of adjustment approval)? The district court found those stamps essential to approval of the adjustment application, citing Nelson v. Reno, 204 F. Supp. 2d 1355 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 29, 2002), aff’d without opinion, (11th Cir. Jan. 28, 2003), and quoting it as follows:
The I-551 stamp placed in the applicant’s passport then serves as the applicant’s proof to employers and even the INS, in some cases, that he or she is a lawful permanent resident of the United States. While the stamp typically serves as a record – in fact, the applicant’s only record – of an approval, it is not an approval. Id. at 1359-60.
Bassey, slip op. at 4. The Nelson opinion continues: “Thus, it follows that an erroneously placed I-551 stamp does not create an approval where no such approval was actually granted.”
Nelson’s situation was indeed similar to Bassey’s. Interviewed with his wife, Nelson was told by the examiner that everything was okay and that they didn’t need to return for a further interview. But because of a problem in processing Nelson’s fingerprints there was a delay in stamping his passport. When the fingerprints later cleared, the examiner did place the I-551 stamp in Nelson’s passport and told him that he was a permanent resident of the United States with the right to work and travel. However, as it turned out, the examiner failed to stamp or otherwise note the “action” blocks in the I-130 and I-485. Nor did the Form I-181 in Nelson’s file bear any mark signifying approval.
The reasoning in Bassey and Nelson seems to sidestep the central question – whether an authorized examiner made a deliberate decision to approve the adjustment application and thereby grant the applicant permanent residence. If he did, it shouldn’t matter, in the posture of these cases, whether he failed to complete certain paperwork. Nor should it matter if the examiner failed to approve the visa petition first. In cases like Bassey and Nelson, where the applicant is interviewed with his or her spouse, the decision to approve the visa petition is made in considering the adjustment application. An examiner may commit error in granting adjustment, either procedurally or because the applicant is ineligible for lack of a visa number or inadmissible, say, for conviction of a drug offense. But should his decision be treated as a nullity any more than a judge’s misguided decision that is subject to appeal or formal rescission? Rescission is precisely the remedy under the immigration statute where the applicant was ineligible for adjustment when it was granted. See INA § 246, 8 U.S.C. § 1256.
This analysis assumes of course that the approval stamp is not a counterfeit or affixed by simple oversight. But there is no suggestion in these cases that the I-551 stamp was secured by fraud or through INS inadvertence. In Bassey, the Service explicitly notified the applicant twice that his application was approved, even before placing the stamp in his passport. In Nelson, the INS examiner acted with equal deliberation: he was only awaiting clearance of the fingerprints to approve the application and told the applicant when he stamped his passport that he was now a lawful permanent resident.
The harder question is, What is an effective decision? The INS regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 245.2(a)(5) state that “[t]he applicant shall be notified of the decision,” but they do not prescribe the form of the decision or the procedure to follow in making the decision. Nowhere, for example, do the regulations, or even INS internal manuals, require the endorsement of any forms before the decision can be effective.
It would seem therefore that any formal action reflecting that an authorized INS examiner has considered and deliberately approved an application should amount to an official approval. For example, an INS inspector reflects her decision to admit a new immigrant as a lawful resident by stamping the temporary I-551 in his or her passport at the airport before any other records are created. See INS Field Inspectors Manual § 14.4(a)(3). And the Form I-181, entitled “Memorandum of Creation of Record of Lawful Permanent Residence,” has been held prima facie evidence that the INS granted the applicant residence even though he wasn’t given notice of the approval. See Berahmand v. INS, 549 F.2d 1343 (9th Cir. 1977).
INS regulations also specify that the I-551, as well as “passports . . . endorsed by the Service to show admission for permanent residence,” are deemed “official records” for purposes of verifying lawful admission to permanent residence. Moreover, “in the absence of countervailing evidence, such official records shall be regarded as establishing lawful admission for permanent residence.” 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(17).
An indication of fraud or simple inadvertence might be strong countervailing evidence. But while ineligibility could be relevant to whether the examiner made a conscious decision, it shouldn’t be conclusive. Examiners, like judges, sometimes err after the most careful consideration. And in Bassey and Nelson it is clear from the manner in which the decisions were conveyed that they were reached deliberately.
Stamping the passport with the I-551 legend as an official record of lawful residence is an INS practice that goes back at least to the 1970s and is reflected in INS regulations. See, e.g., Reid v. INS, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4479 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 7, 1994) (discussing inter alia INS testimony on early government memoranda); 8 C.F.R. §§ 274a.2(b)(1)(v)(A) (listing as an acceptable document for work authorization an “unexpired foreign passport that contains a temporary I-551 stamp), 320.3 (listing as evidence in support of an application for certificate of citizenship an “I-551 stamp in a valid foreign passport”).
Both Bassey and Nelson concede that both adjustment applicants and the Service rely on the I-551 stamp as evidence of lawful residence. See Bassey, supra at 4, quoting Nelson, at 1359-60, with approval. At least until these decisions, those who had that stamp could travel abroad knowing that the INS would admit them as lawful permanent residents. Moreover, other agencies give the stamp similar recognition. With it, noncitizens can obtain a social security card and therefore a driver’s license, and qualify for various state and federal benefits.
Good Luck
The Notice of Approval : When It Can't Be Trusted
Two recent federal district court decisions – one in California, the other in Florida (just affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit) – address the question of what constitutes a decision granting lawful permanent residence. Both arose in the context of adjustment of status, the process by which noncitizens in a temporary or irregular status can convert to lawful residence, sometimes referred to as “green card” status. (In the Florida case, one of the authors of this column, Stanley Mailman, testified on this process as an expert witness for the plaintiff.) As a result of these decisions, immigration lawyers now have to wonder, despite an official INS stamp (called “Temporary Evidence of . . . Lawful Permanent Residence”) whether the Service has actually granted their client’s application for permanent residence, or will do so. And in other ways the decisions leave a wide swath of uncertainty.
In Bassey v. INS, 2002 WL 31298854, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19726 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2002), the plaintiff filed his application for adjustment of status to permanent residence (Form I-485) with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS or Service) on September 15, 1998. The application accompanied the petition of Bassey’s U.S. citizen wife (Form I-130), seeking to classify him as an immediate relative and therefore exempt from the need for a visa number. According to the Service, it mailed Bassey a notice on September 23, 1999, advising that he had received permanent resident status. In any event, it informed him on June 14, 2000 that his application was approved and the next day placed a stamp in his passport indicating that he was now a lawful permanent resident of the United States. (As discussed below, that stamp, known as the temporary I-551, is used for all purposes in lieu of the green card, e.g., to evidence work authorization, and to travel outside the United States and reenter as a lawful resident. The INS stamps the endorsement because it takes several months to process the permanent Form I-551, the actual green card (now pink), which it backdates to the grant of residence.)
Later, however, the INS initiated a series of actions that triggered Bassey’s lawsuit. After first notifying Mrs. Bassey and giving her an opportunity for rebuttal, the Service denied her I-130 petition on the ground that an earlier marriage fraud by her husband barred the petition. It then denied Mr. Bassey’s application for adjustment for lack of a supporting I-130 approval and physically canceled the stamp in his passport, indicating that it had placed it there in error. When the Service instituted proceedings to remove him from the United States, Bassey sued to invalidate the cancellation and to compel the Service to issue new evidence of his residence status.
Resolving certain jurisdictional issues in Bassey’s favor, the district court posed the central question as follows: Had the INS by its actions granted Mr. Bassey permanent residence? Or, as the INS claimed, had it simply misadvised him that it had done so, having never stamped “approved” on the forms I-130, I-485, and I-181 (an internal record of adjustment approval)? The district court found those stamps essential to approval of the adjustment application, citing Nelson v. Reno, 204 F. Supp. 2d 1355 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 29, 2002), aff’d without opinion, (11th Cir. Jan. 28, 2003), and quoting it as follows:
The I-551 stamp placed in the applicant’s passport then serves as the applicant’s proof to employers and even the INS, in some cases, that he or she is a lawful permanent resident of the United States. While the stamp typically serves as a record – in fact, the applicant’s only record – of an approval, it is not an approval. Id. at 1359-60.
Bassey, slip op. at 4. The Nelson opinion continues: “Thus, it follows that an erroneously placed I-551 stamp does not create an approval where no such approval was actually granted.”
Nelson’s situation was indeed similar to Bassey’s. Interviewed with his wife, Nelson was told by the examiner that everything was okay and that they didn’t need to return for a further interview. But because of a problem in processing Nelson’s fingerprints there was a delay in stamping his passport. When the fingerprints later cleared, the examiner did place the I-551 stamp in Nelson’s passport and told him that he was a permanent resident of the United States with the right to work and travel. However, as it turned out, the examiner failed to stamp or otherwise note the “action” blocks in the I-130 and I-485. Nor did the Form I-181 in Nelson’s file bear any mark signifying approval.
The reasoning in Bassey and Nelson seems to sidestep the central question – whether an authorized examiner made a deliberate decision to approve the adjustment application and thereby grant the applicant permanent residence. If he did, it shouldn’t matter, in the posture of these cases, whether he failed to complete certain paperwork. Nor should it matter if the examiner failed to approve the visa petition first. In cases like Bassey and Nelson, where the applicant is interviewed with his or her spouse, the decision to approve the visa petition is made in considering the adjustment application. An examiner may commit error in granting adjustment, either procedurally or because the applicant is ineligible for lack of a visa number or inadmissible, say, for conviction of a drug offense. But should his decision be treated as a nullity any more than a judge’s misguided decision that is subject to appeal or formal rescission? Rescission is precisely the remedy under the immigration statute where the applicant was ineligible for adjustment when it was granted. See INA § 246, 8 U.S.C. § 1256.
This analysis assumes of course that the approval stamp is not a counterfeit or affixed by simple oversight. But there is no suggestion in these cases that the I-551 stamp was secured by fraud or through INS inadvertence. In Bassey, the Service explicitly notified the applicant twice that his application was approved, even before placing the stamp in his passport. In Nelson, the INS examiner acted with equal deliberation: he was only awaiting clearance of the fingerprints to approve the application and told the applicant when he stamped his passport that he was now a lawful permanent resident.
The harder question is, What is an effective decision? The INS regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 245.2(a)(5) state that “[t]he applicant shall be notified of the decision,” but they do not prescribe the form of the decision or the procedure to follow in making the decision. Nowhere, for example, do the regulations, or even INS internal manuals, require the endorsement of any forms before the decision can be effective.
It would seem therefore that any formal action reflecting that an authorized INS examiner has considered and deliberately approved an application should amount to an official approval. For example, an INS inspector reflects her decision to admit a new immigrant as a lawful resident by stamping the temporary I-551 in his or her passport at the airport before any other records are created. See INS Field Inspectors Manual § 14.4(a)(3). And the Form I-181, entitled “Memorandum of Creation of Record of Lawful Permanent Residence,” has been held prima facie evidence that the INS granted the applicant residence even though he wasn’t given notice of the approval. See Berahmand v. INS, 549 F.2d 1343 (9th Cir. 1977).
INS regulations also specify that the I-551, as well as “passports . . . endorsed by the Service to show admission for permanent residence,” are deemed “official records” for purposes of verifying lawful admission to permanent residence. Moreover, “in the absence of countervailing evidence, such official records shall be regarded as establishing lawful admission for permanent residence.” 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(17).
An indication of fraud or simple inadvertence might be strong countervailing evidence. But while ineligibility could be relevant to whether the examiner made a conscious decision, it shouldn’t be conclusive. Examiners, like judges, sometimes err after the most careful consideration. And in Bassey and Nelson it is clear from the manner in which the decisions were conveyed that they were reached deliberately.
Stamping the passport with the I-551 legend as an official record of lawful residence is an INS practice that goes back at least to the 1970s and is reflected in INS regulations. See, e.g., Reid v. INS, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4479 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 7, 1994) (discussing inter alia INS testimony on early government memoranda); 8 C.F.R. §§ 274a.2(b)(1)(v)(A) (listing as an acceptable document for work authorization an “unexpired foreign passport that contains a temporary I-551 stamp), 320.3 (listing as evidence in support of an application for certificate of citizenship an “I-551 stamp in a valid foreign passport”).
Both Bassey and Nelson concede that both adjustment applicants and the Service rely on the I-551 stamp as evidence of lawful residence. See Bassey, supra at 4, quoting Nelson, at 1359-60, with approval. At least until these decisions, those who had that stamp could travel abroad knowing that the INS would admit them as lawful permanent residents. Moreover, other agencies give the stamp similar recognition. With it, noncitizens can obtain a social security card and therefore a driver’s license, and qualify for various state and federal benefits.
Good Luck
Last edited by a moderator:
MydreamUSA.
Registered Users (C)
I-485 approval date is the date. I think it is a bit different when you got thru interview in which PP date may equal your approval date. Again, approval date prevails.
curiousGeorge
Registered Users (C)
If you want to get REALLY TECHNICAL about it, it really comes down to when did the officer stamp "Approved" on the internal Form I-181, entitled “Memorandum of Creation of Record of Lawful Permanent Residence” .
For a case that was not transferred for an interview, this is the approval date. For a case that was transferred for an interview, the officer stamps this form, and your passport a couple of minutes apart.
For a case that was not transferred for an interview, this is the approval date. For a case that was transferred for an interview, the officer stamps this form, and your passport a couple of minutes apart.
ND-July2002
Registered Users (C)
Thanks george
That is what I wanted to know.
In both of our cases the officer(different ones) took our papers, stamped our pp and said we are done. They did not stamp or write anything on I-181.
The officer who stamped my wife's pp did not even ask her to fill up an I-89.
When I got my pp stamped the officer asked me to fill up an I-89. I did and then told her that the other officer did not ask my wife to fill up this form. At first she said that she could not do anything about it. The other officer had left by that time. Then she gave me the form and asked me to fill it up for my wife and she would look for my wife's papers and attach it.
Neither of them did anything to I-181 (the form on which our signature, fingerprinting was done. The person outside had aslo put our A# on this form.)
Our stamping was done on 1/19/05 and still there has been no status update.
I checked NCSC phone service. It says that if you have been "granted permanent resident status" and 30 days prior and have not recd. a welcome notice then I can call. If you have recd. welcome notice 30 days prior and not recd. your physical card then call.
Now I am confused as to when were we "granted permanent resident status."
Was it the date when the application was approved (01/03/2005) or the date my passport was stamped(01/19/2005 . This is the date on the passport as well.).
Unless this is clear I cannot make the call.
Best I can do now is wait till 02/19/2005 and make the call.
Any advise.
That is what I wanted to know.
In both of our cases the officer(different ones) took our papers, stamped our pp and said we are done. They did not stamp or write anything on I-181.
The officer who stamped my wife's pp did not even ask her to fill up an I-89.
When I got my pp stamped the officer asked me to fill up an I-89. I did and then told her that the other officer did not ask my wife to fill up this form. At first she said that she could not do anything about it. The other officer had left by that time. Then she gave me the form and asked me to fill it up for my wife and she would look for my wife's papers and attach it.
Neither of them did anything to I-181 (the form on which our signature, fingerprinting was done. The person outside had aslo put our A# on this form.)
Our stamping was done on 1/19/05 and still there has been no status update.
I checked NCSC phone service. It says that if you have been "granted permanent resident status" and 30 days prior and have not recd. a welcome notice then I can call. If you have recd. welcome notice 30 days prior and not recd. your physical card then call.
Now I am confused as to when were we "granted permanent resident status."
Was it the date when the application was approved (01/03/2005) or the date my passport was stamped(01/19/2005 . This is the date on the passport as well.).
Unless this is clear I cannot make the call.
Best I can do now is wait till 02/19/2005 and make the call.
Any advise.
curiousGeorge
Registered Users (C)
ND-July2002 said:Unless this is clear I cannot make the call.
Or you can just make the call, and they will tell you if you called to early.
Thier message is not very clear, because you're over analyzing it. They assume that most people don't know about the I-181, or the I-89, or what the internal procedure of USCIS is, or even when thier approval date is. They assume that all most people know when their passport got stamped, and that's about it, and that people don't pay attention to anything else.
I'd bet this message is intended for you to call 30 days after you got your passport stamped, since that is what triggers your card to get ordered, and if the card is late, its because something went wrong at the stamping, and an order did not successfully go out for a card to get manufactured.
But there is no harm in calling earlier and asking them to explain their message. Worst case, they'll just tell you to call back in 30 days.
ND-July2002 said:The officer who stamped my wife's pp did not even ask her to fill up an I-89.
Usually officer him fills up I-89. It is unusual to ask you to fill up.
ND-July2002
Registered Users (C)
There is confusion about this all over
I called USCIS
One IO said that the "grant" is actually the date the application was approved.
Another said the actual grant is done the day the passport is stamped and I-89 is filled up, though the commencement of lawful permamnent residence of an individual starts retro from the date the application was approved.
I am going ahead with CuriousGeorge's explanation which makes most sense.
At the time of approval of 485 (no interview), the adjudicating officer stamps an internal form, I-181, as approved. This form is placed in the physical file and the system is updated to generate approval letters. The applicant takes the approval letter to the local district center based on which his/her passport is stamped and an I-89 is filled. This I-89 is sent back to the service center for further processing of physical green card.
When a case is transfered for an interview to a local district office the entire physical file of an applicant is transfered as well. After interview if the officer finds the application approvable s/he stamps the I-181 as approved, stamps the passport, fills up the I-89, updates the system and the entire file is returned to the service center for further processing of physical green card.
Tammy: you are correct. I messed up the form names. Actually I was talking about I-89. We never get to see I-181. Its an internal document.
I have a question. I have spoken to so many approved GC applicants about their pp stamping experience. They said that the IO filled up the I-89 in front of them based on a "white" form they were given to fill up. This white form had the entries like Father's first name, mother's firts name, DOB etc. In our cases the IO just collected the papers from us and stamped the passports. They did not touch the I-89 at all. Our fingerprints and signature were already taken on the form. Is this normal?
I called USCIS
One IO said that the "grant" is actually the date the application was approved.
Another said the actual grant is done the day the passport is stamped and I-89 is filled up, though the commencement of lawful permamnent residence of an individual starts retro from the date the application was approved.
I am going ahead with CuriousGeorge's explanation which makes most sense.
At the time of approval of 485 (no interview), the adjudicating officer stamps an internal form, I-181, as approved. This form is placed in the physical file and the system is updated to generate approval letters. The applicant takes the approval letter to the local district center based on which his/her passport is stamped and an I-89 is filled. This I-89 is sent back to the service center for further processing of physical green card.
When a case is transfered for an interview to a local district office the entire physical file of an applicant is transfered as well. After interview if the officer finds the application approvable s/he stamps the I-181 as approved, stamps the passport, fills up the I-89, updates the system and the entire file is returned to the service center for further processing of physical green card.
Tammy: you are correct. I messed up the form names. Actually I was talking about I-89. We never get to see I-181. Its an internal document.
I have a question. I have spoken to so many approved GC applicants about their pp stamping experience. They said that the IO filled up the I-89 in front of them based on a "white" form they were given to fill up. This white form had the entries like Father's first name, mother's firts name, DOB etc. In our cases the IO just collected the papers from us and stamped the passports. They did not touch the I-89 at all. Our fingerprints and signature were already taken on the form. Is this normal?
lastminute
Registered Users (C)
ND-July2002 said:I have a question. I have spoken to so many approved GC applicants about their pp stamping experience. They said that the IO filled up the I-89 in front of them based on a "white" form they were given to fill up. This white form had the entries like Father's first name, mother's firts name, DOB etc. In our cases the IO just collected the papers from us and stamped the passports. They did not touch the I-89 at all. Our fingerprints and signature were already taken on the form. Is this normal?
Officer did the same thing to me, that is he did not touch the I-89 at all collected fingerprints and signature.
curiousGeorge
Registered Users (C)
ND-July2002 said:I am going ahead with CuriousGeorge's explanation which makes most sense.
At the time of approval of 485 (no interview), the adjudicating officer stamps an internal form, I-181, as approved. This form is placed in the physical file and the system is updated to generate approval letters. The applicant takes the approval letter to the local district center based on which his/her passport is stamped and an I-89 is filled. This I-89 is sent back to the service center for further processing of physical green card.
When a case is transfered for an interview to a local district office the entire physical file of an applicant is transfered as well. After interview if the officer finds the application approvable s/he stamps the I-181 as approved, stamps the passport, fills up the I-89, updates the system and the entire file is returned to the service center for further processing of physical green card.
To build on that further....if you lose your PP stamp, and your card, the only way that USCIS can know that you are a permanent resident is if they pull up the I-181 from their files verify that it has an approved stamp.