March 2020 AOS Filers

[David_Norway 135]

13 minutes ago, irishoxford said:

Just updating this with my information:

 

AOS Package Received at Chicago Lockbox: 24th March (original package rejected on 11th March).

 

Still no NOAs/text messages/check cashing.

 

Let’s see if they’ve rejected it!  (I didn’t put N/A or None - left blanks instead.  Saw some worries about that being a cause of rejection here, so it’s on my mind now!  Lol/urgh).

 

 

Hang in there, you should know either way pretty soon now! Have you signed up for informed delivery through USPS? If they rejected it, you should be able to see the package coming days before it actually arrives. If there is no information there, there is still hope!

Best of luck!

[irishoxford 38]

20 minutes ago, David_Norway said:

Hang in there, you should know either way pretty soon now! Have you signed up for informed delivery through USPS? If they rejected it, you should be able to see the package coming days before it actually arrives. If there is no information there, there is still hope!

Best of luck!

I do have Informed Delivery, but unfortunately the original rejected package didn’t show there before arriving!

 

USCIS still didn’t have any package in their system as of last night.

 

Let’s see what happens!  
 

Would love to know if anyone else here avoided N/As on the I-485 and had it processed successfully.  

[brainless69 251]

6 hours ago, irishoxford said:

I do have Informed Delivery, but unfortunately the original rejected package didn’t show there before arriving!

 

USCIS still didn’t have any package in their system as of last night.

 

Let’s see what happens!  
 

Would love to know if anyone else here avoided N/As on the I-485 and had it processed successfully.  

I didn't put any n/a's on any of my forms and they have been accepted... it seems to take them a week or so to send notifications... YMMV

[irishoxford 38]

5 minutes ago, brainless69 said:

I didn't put any n/a's on any of my forms and they have been accepted... it seems to take them a week or so to send notifications... YMMV

That’s reassuring!  Thank you for letting me know!  

[FreyandRyan 330]

On 4/15/2020 at 4:52 PM, David_Norway said:

Thanks! With the current shutdown, the resubmission might not have slowed down my overall processing time too much. Wish they could continue processing of EADs etc without biometrics though!

I'm curious how this may work as well. I've read that the are allowing renewals and extensions of EADs get processed without new biometrics and using previous taken ones from interviews/POE. 

 

My wife is hoping to get expedite to get her EAD at some point in the near future, and we haven't received anything abut Biometrics at all just our NOAs over a month ago at this point. Sh'e s a nurse and has to get her license still so that's a seperate process that's going to take her another month or two at least. 

Edited April 18, 2020 by FreyandRyan

[Letspaintcookies 2,310]

5 minutes ago, FreyandRyan said:

I'm curious how this may work as well. I've read that the are allowing renewals and extensions of EADs get processed without new biometrics and using previous taken ones from interviews/POE. 

 

My wife is hoping to get expedite to get her EAD at some point in the near future, and we haven't received anything abut Biometrics at all just our NOAs over a month ago at this point. Sh'e s a nurse and has to get her license still so that's a seperate process that's going to take her another month or two at least. 

They DON'T use previous ones from interviews/ POE. They only use previous ones taken by USCIS. That's why they're able to renew EADs because they have taken biometrics before. But they can't issue new ones and you can't expedite before biometrics were taken 

[FreyandRyan 330]

3 minutes ago, Letspaintcookies said:

They DON'T use previous ones from interviews/ POE. They only use previous ones taken by USCIS. That's why they're able to renew EADs because they have taken biometrics before. But they can't issue new ones and you can't expedite before biometrics were taken 

https://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/610477-ead-possible-without-biometrics/

 

There's some history of it happening. So who knows at this point with everything, it's all speculation. 

[jdavis867 3]

Hey everyone, 

 

Newbie here, however I have been going through this process by myself. 

 

I found a great resource online that anyone filing an AOS with form i-944 should look at:

 

It's a reference document for immigration lawyers, but it does clear up a lot of questions that I had and you probably have regarding form i-944. 

 

Cheers!

The USCIS Policy Manual on Public Charge Summary for Immigration Practitioners.pdf

[brainless69 251]

4 hours ago, FreyandRyan said:

https://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/610477-ead-possible-without-biometrics/

 

There's some history of it happening. So who knows at this point with everything, it's all speculation. 

this is what i'm hoping for..... seeing some people getting their greencard in 3 months is very positive too...

[Bjh 39]

On 4/10/2020 at 4:41 PM, David_Norway said:

My strategy with the I-944 was that it is better to give them all the information that you have, and not create the perception that you are "hiding" anything. Remember, the idea of I-944 is not just to ensure that you are making a sufficient amount of money right now, but that you won't become a public charge anytime in the future. They are making that determination on the totality of your situation, not just based on the fact that you make 250% over the poverty line (though that is a big plus).

Also, I read the instructions you quoted (regarding income above 125% the poverty line or five times that value in assets) as an absolute minimum. That does not mean that you do not need to provide bank statements though. In fact, the asset instructions say:

"Item Number 9. Assets. List only the assets that can be converted into cash within 12 months. Provide the value of any asset held in the United States or outside the United States, in U.S. dollars."

In the sentence above, there is no ambiguity - they want information of all your assets regardless of where they are. The assets of your household members are optional though. I provided 12 months of bank statements for my American checking account as well as my Norwegian checking and savings account. A pain, and a lot of paper, but the way I read it, that's what they want.

Also remember that even though some people have gotten away with not providing all the information listed, that doesn't mean that they can't reject you/us for not providing the same information. The officers have a lot of discretion. I think the safest bet is to provide them with all the information they ask for.

The instructions never say that evidence of assets, including bank statements, is required in all circumstances. They only say that assets can be used in lieu of household income if the assets' value is 5 times the difference between the income and 125% of the poverty guideline.

 

I-944 instructions, page 5/15:

If your household annual gross income is less than 125 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines based on your household size listed in Part 2., you may demonstrate that the total value of your household’s assets and resources is five times the difference between your household’s annual gross income and 125 percent (100 percent if you are on active duty, other than in training, in the U.S. Armed Forces) of the Federal Poverty Guideline for your household size.

 

The assets section is only a way to give applicants more options to demonstrate self-sufficiency.

[David_Norway 135]

15 minutes ago, Bjh said:

The instructions never say that evidence of assets, including bank statements, is required in all circumstances. They only say that assets can be used in lieu of household income if the assets' value is 5 times the difference between the income and 125% of the poverty guideline.

 

I-944 instructions, page 5/15:

If your household annual gross income is less than 125 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines based on your household size listed in Part 2., you may demonstrate that the total value of your household’s assets and resources is five times the difference between your household’s annual gross income and 125 percent (100 percent if you are on active duty, other than in training, in the U.S. Armed Forces) of the Federal Poverty Guideline for your household size.

 

The assets section is only a way to give applicants more options to demonstrate self-sufficiency.

I'm no immigration expert, but I disagree with your interpretation. The section that you quoted is a supplement to this sentence:

"Your household’s annual gross income should be at least 125 percent (100 percent if you are on active duty, other than in training, in the U.S. Armed Forces) of the Federal Poverty Guidelines for the most recent year as set by the U.S."

If you household income is not 125% the FPG, you should really demonstrate that your assets are worth five times the difference. It does not say that the asset section is optional though. If the asset section was truly optional like you suggest, they would have made that clear as they have done on the I-864 form. 

 

I could be wrong, and you could get away with not filling out the asset section. Regardless, the safest option would definitely be to include this information, unless there is a really good reason not to. Not wanting to print 100 pages is not a good reason not to include it though, in my opinion.

[Bjh 39]

12 minutes ago, David_Norway said:

I'm no immigration expert, but I disagree with your interpretation. The section that you quoted is a supplement to this sentence:

"Your household’s annual gross income should be at least 125 percent (100 percent if you are on active duty, other than in training, in the U.S. Armed Forces) of the Federal Poverty Guidelines for the most recent year as set by the U.S."

If you household income is not 125% the FPG, you should really demonstrate that your assets are worth five times the difference. It does not say that the asset section is optional though. If the asset section was truly optional like you suggest, they would have made that clear as they have done on the I-864 form. 

 

I could be wrong, and you could get away with not filling out the asset section. Regardless, the safest option would definitely be to include this information, unless there is a really good reason not to. Not wanting to print 100 pages is not a good reason not to include it though, in my opinion.

Yes, if someone's income were less than 125% of the FPG, then it would be required in some form. If one's income is above that requirement, then it's not required. The words used (if and may) with the condition that one's income is <125% of FPG imply that asset evidence is required only in that circumstance.

 

I'm not arguing for safety here - just for the interpretation of the instructions. It's certainly possible that the employees at USCIS are blockheads and don't know/understand their own instructions, especially with a new form, so I would understand wanting to include extra, potentially unnecessary information to avoid the delay a misunderstanding would cause.

Edited April 18, 2020 by Bjh

[David_Norway 135]

3 minutes ago, Bjh said:

Yes, if someone's income were less than 125% of the FPG, then it would be required in some form. If one's income is above that requirement, then it's not required. The words used (if and may) with the condition that one's income is <125% of FPG imply that asset evidence is required only in that circumstance.

 

I'm not arguing for safety here - just for the interpretation of the instructions. It's certainly possible that the employees at USCIS are blockheads and don't know/understand their own instructions, especially with a new form, so I would understand wanting to include extra, potentially unnecessary information to avoid the delay a misunderstanding would cause.

I understand what you are saying, but I disagree once again. Only making this point to try to help other people avoid a rejection as I know from personal experience how annoying that is. The main issue with what you are saying, is that your quoted text is for the instructions of the income section, not the asset section. My interpretation of that section of the instructions is that if your household income is not 125% od the FPG AND your assets are not five time the difference, you have a problem.

To figure out if the asset section is optional or required though, I would read the instructions for that particular section. Once again I would contrast it with the I-864 form where it is clearly optional.

I-944:
"Item Number 9. Assets. List only the assets that can be converted into cash within 12 months. Provide the value of any asset held in the United States or outside the United States, in U.S. dollars."

I-864:
"Part 7. Use of Assets to Supplement Income (Optional) Only complete Part 7. if you need to use the value of assets to meet the income requirements. If your Current Annual Household Income (indicated in Part 6., Item Number 15.) is equal to or more than needed to meet the income requirement as shown by the current Federal Poverty Guidelines (Form I-864P) for your household size (indicated in Part 5., Item Number 8.), you do not need to complete Part 7."

If you or someone else did not fill out the asset section, I hope I am wrong! I also think that different USCIS employees are stricter than others, and some might just be incompetent or have a bad day. You can rejected for not putting "n/a" on a question, or it can be no problem. Some people might accept your application and send out a RFE, others might reject it. Similarly, I think that if you left the asset section blank, you might get rejected, but it might be ok too. To anyone just filling the I-944 out though, I would recommend including the information regardless of their household income.

 

[brainless69 251]

someone posted this in a different forum, but its apparently a guideline for lawyers when filling out the 1-944

 

The USCIS Policy Manual on Public Charge Summary for Immigration Practitioners.pdf

[Bjh 39]

1 hour ago, brainless69 said:

someone posted this in a different forum, but its apparently a guideline for lawyers when filling out the 1-944

 

The USCIS Policy Manual on Public Charge Summary for Immigration Practitioners.pdf 135.55 kB · 2 downloads

This manual describes assets as a supplement for either inadequate income or lack of health insurance rather than a requirement independent from income. Hopefully, this is how the I-944s are being processed. I suppose it wouldn't hurt to include bank statements for the past 12 months even if you have more than enough income to paint as good a financial picture as possible, the instructions still do seem ambiguous however.

Edited April 19, 2020 by Bjh