August 2020 - AOS Filers

[lstm 12]

6 minutes ago, KarenSeed said:

What do you mean by "first come first serve basis"? Do you mean the priority date listed on NOAs?

This is a great question. For Family based should be NOAs but there are cases that need more screening or RFEs. Hence, order is First Come First Serve but with some exceptions. 

 

Regarding Employment based it might be First Come First Serve based on NOAs but also with priority date! Especially, this applies to heavily backlogged countries which can retrogress easily after you file for I-485. 

 

Again it is a very complicated order and who actually knows what USCIS is really doing. 

[HRQX 4,145]

27 minutes ago, partyintheUSA said:

The petitioner/beneficiary cannot translate their own documents.

That is incorrect. It's allowed. "Translator" in 8 CFR § 103.2(b)(3) also includes petitioner or beneficiary.

[HRQX 4,145]

1 hour ago, Maria002 said:

The statements are several pages and they want it to be translated to english 😥.   How  are you guys doing about it?

You can translate documents if you are "competent to translate from the foreign language into English" and include a statement of certification.

[Cilllah 487]

Looks like I can easily download my bank statements online from my Australian bank so that is one less worry. When I have finished my two I-944 I would love someone to see if I am missing something glaringly obvious! Feels like I am but I have anxiety lol.

[Bigtuna 34]

So, in order to be prepared for the I944 RFIE, as far as I know and doing AOS from J1, I should have ready to print the following supporting documents:
 

• Beneficiary’s most recent tax return documents and W2s
• Beneficiary’s credit report
• Beneficiary’s debts and liability (if applicable - in the USA or in your country I guess)
• Beneficiary’s proof of assets (bank statatements - in the USA or in your country I guess)
• Household’s proof of assets & resources:
  ○ Property deeds
  ○ Bank statements
  ○ 401k, IRA, Roth and other retirement account documents
  ○ Security statements (stocks & bonds)

• Other household members’ assets & resources
• Beneficiary’s education diplomas (from high school to the highest level you have - TRANSLATED)
• Beneficiary’s proof of English (if any)
• Beneficiary’s health insurance policy and/or other proofs
• Beneficiary’s all public benefits (if applicable)
• Other supporting documents:
  ○ Beneficiary’s Employment letter/Job offer letter
  ○ Beneficiary’s language certificates
  ○ Proof of relationship to the petitioner (ex: marriage license)
  ○ Other explanation notes of unavailable supporting documents

 

Unfortunately I dont have any proof of English but Im fluent, so not sure if writing a letter to explain that Im fluent and I won´t need an interpreter in the future interview would help)

 

EDIT: Also, do we need to pay some company to show the equivalences of our foreing dimplomas/degree´s?

 

EDIT 2 to respond to my EDIT: Apparently YES. This is what instructions says:

 

Quote

Foreign education should include an evaluation of equivalency to education or degrees acquired at accredited colleges, universities, or educational institutions in the United States. For a list of organizations that provide equivalency evaluation, see the National Association of Credential Evaluation Services (NACES), at http://www.naces.org/members.htm

 

Edited October 7, 2020 by Bigtuna

[lgb2015 51]

2 hours ago, mogiftney said:

My wife has a bank account in the UK, she has some money sitting in it but for some reason she can’t get monthly statements. How do we provide this info to USCIS for the past 12 months for the I-944? She banks with nationwide. 

 I'm from the UK and bank with Nationwide. Does your wife have online banking? I was able to download 12 months of statements for my checking account, and manually put the dates in to pull transactions from last 12 months for my savings account. You should also be able to request them on the phone and they will post them for a fee. 

[partyintheUSA 86]

1 hour ago, HRQX said:

That is incorrect. It's allowed. "Translator" in 8 CFR § 103.2(b)(3) also includes petitioner or beneficiary.

 

Show me the language in the code that states the petitioner or beneficiary can translate their own documents?

 

If your argument is that because there's nothing saying they can't, that means they can, that's generally not a good argument, especially when it comes to the USCIS. Following the law is only 1/2 of getting your forms accepted. Enforcement is what really matters (plenty of people get things rejected even when they are following the rules). And the recent trend is for greater scrutiny when it comes to translation enforcement.

 

This was the text of a recent (2020) rejection notice based on inadequate translation:

 

Quote

"The petitioner did not submit certified translations in accordance with 8 C.F.R. Section 103.2(b)(3) which states that any document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS shall be accompanied by a full English translation which the translator has certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate from the foreign language into English. The certificate signed by [Signer's Name] does not identify the names of the individuals who translated the beneficiary's [Document Names]. The petitioner failed to provide certifications from translators, stating that the English translations are complete and accurate, and that the translators are competent to translate from the foreign language into English."

 

Nothing in there sounds like petitioners and beneficiaries should be translating their own documents. They specifically request that petitioner provide certifications from translators who are named individuals.

 

Given all that, I think it's safe to say most USCIS IOs (who are the ones reading these documents) are going to be expecting to see translators translating the documents, not petitioners and beneficiaries. I'm sure people have translated their own documents, and I'm sure the USCIS has accepted them, in the past, but I don't think that's the policy and I really don't think this is a great time or place to test a USCIS employee's willingness to liberally interpret the code. They're rejecting packets left and right these days. Why give them another potential reason?

[HRQX 4,145]

8 minutes ago, partyintheUSA said:

Given all that, I think it's safe to say most USCIS IOs (who are the ones reading these documents) are going to be expecting to see translators translating the documents, not petitioners and beneficiaries.

I still strongly disagree. Petitioners or beneficiaries can be the "translator."

8 minutes ago, partyintheUSA said:

This was the text of a recent (2020) rejection notice based on inadequate translation:

 

The statement of certification must be clear on who translated the document. All translators must follow that.

Edited October 7, 2020 by HRQX

[Ayrton 965]

33 minutes ago, partyintheUSA said:

 

Show me the language in the code that states the petitioner or beneficiary can translate their own documents?

 

If your argument is that because there's nothing saying they can't, that means they can, that's generally not a good argument, especially when it comes to the USCIS. Following the law is only 1/2 of getting your forms accepted. Enforcement is what really matters (plenty of people get things rejected even when they are following the rules). And the recent trend is for greater scrutiny when it comes to translation enforcement.

 

This was the text of a recent (2020) rejection notice based on inadequate translation:

 

 

Nothing in there sounds like petitioners and beneficiaries should be translating their own documents. They specifically request that petitioner provide certifications from translators who are named individuals.

 

Given all that, I think it's safe to say most USCIS IOs (who are the ones reading these documents) are going to be expecting to see translators translating the documents, not petitioners and beneficiaries. I'm sure people have translated their own documents, and I'm sure the USCIS has accepted them, in the past, but I don't think that's the policy and I really don't think this is a great time or place to test a USCIS employee's willingness to liberally interpret the code. They're rejecting packets left and right these days. Why give them another potential reason?

I translated my own birth certificate. I created a word document with the same template as our new "certidão de nascimento", translated everything and at the end I copied and pasted the certification of translation exactly like it's on USCIS website.

 

The rejection you posted clearly says that the translation they submitted didn't have the name of the person that translated it, therefore, it wasn't considered valid.

 

USCIS website doesn't say that the translation needs to be done by a Certified Translator. It says that the translation needs to be certified by the person that translated it. There's a big difference between the two.

 

[partyintheUSA 86]

45 minutes ago, Ayrton said:

I translated my own birth certificate.

As I said before I'm sure people who self translated documents in the past had them accepted, but it's not a stated policy anywhere. We have no idea if the reason it worked in the past was because it was okay, or just because no one bothered or cared about enforcing it for birth certificates, etc.

 

There's nothing in the code or anywhere from the USCIS that you can point to and say "USCIS said petitioners and beneficiaries can do this", while everything else suggests they are looking for a separate party. Would be very easy for them to say P&B can do this, and if they wanted it, they definitely would have.

 

But let's put aside the can/cannot technicality, because at the end of the day it all comes down to one thing: making the USCIS officer reviewing your file as happy and excited to approve your file as possible.

 

For the 944, a lot of people will be submitting translations for financial documents, and those are several levels more complicated to understand than something like a birth certificate. Most officers can probably figure out the general sense of most birth certificates in the world without the translation. Unless they speak the language, figuring out a foreign mortgage agreement or tax form is a different story. And it's being offered as proof, so they're going to be looking at these things a lot more closely. And they were already rejecting the 944 like crazy when it first came out.

 

Basically, the ONLY benefit I can come up with to self translating is that it saves the P&B money. But there's no benefit from the USCIS side, it's neutral at best, and possibly harmful if you get an IO who disagrees with your interpretation of the policy, thinks that you weren't following directions, or is suspicious of your file, etc.

 

Why give them a potential reason, even if you "can"? Unless it's absolutely necessary, I can't recommend it.

[OhWow 83]

For my F1, H1B and now my AOS I used an official translator from Brazil. It was fairly inexpensive (I believe I spent total less than $50 at the time) and just the peace of mind it brought to me was priceless (plus one less thing to work on). I agree it's a grey area, but in that case, I would err in the side of caution. It's - let's say - $100 you save but that COULD delay your entire process several months. But this is just my 2 cents.

[HRQX 4,145]

28 minutes ago, partyintheUSA said:

We have no idea if the reason it worked in the past was because it was okay

The regulations are clear for all documents and haven't changed. You are the one that is misinterpreting.

28 minutes ago, partyintheUSA said:

it's neutral at best, and possibly harmful if you get an IO who disagrees with your interpretation of the policy,

You are needlessly being paranoid. Petitioners or beneficiaries can also be "translators."

Edited October 8, 2020 by HRQX

[Jacobo 122]

I don’t know guys, but in my case, while collecting the supporting documents for the I-944, my lawyer recommended us to submit bank certificates from my two savings bank accounts in Colombia, which would state the balance or amount of money to date, along with the translations and conversion to USD. Also we included a document signed by a Colombian public accountant listing my current assets, with a translation and conversion to USD as well. My lawyer said that that would be enough, and much better than submitting 24 bank statements with 24 translations (one for each). My AOS package was received on Aug 3rd 2020, and I haven’t received any RFIE or RFE so far 🙏🏻

Edited October 8, 2020 by Jacobo

[Ayrton 965]

25 minutes ago, partyintheUSA said:

As I said before I'm sure people who self translated documents in the past had them accepted, but it's not a stated policy anywhere. We have no idea if the reason it worked in the past was because it was okay, or just because no one bothered or cared about enforcing it for birth certificates, etc.

 

There's nothing in the code or anywhere from the USCIS that you can point to and say "USCIS said petitioners and beneficiaries can do this", while everything else suggests they are looking for a separate party. Would be very easy for them to say P&B can do this, and if they wanted it, they definitely would have.

 

But let's put aside the can/cannot technicality, because at the end of the day it all comes down to one thing: making the USCIS officer reviewing your file as happy and excited to approve your file as possible.

 

For the 944, a lot of people will be submitting translations for financial documents, and those are several levels more complicated to understand than something like a birth certificate. Most officers can probably figure out the general sense of most birth certificates in the world without the translation. Unless they speak the language, figuring out a foreign mortgage agreement or tax form is a different story. And it's being offered as proof, so they're going to be looking at these things a lot more closely. And they were already rejecting the 944 like crazy when it first came out.

 

Basically, the ONLY benefit I can come up with to self translating is that it saves the P&B money. But there's no benefit from the USCIS side, it's neutral at best, and possibly harmful if you get an IO who disagrees with your interpretation of the policy, thinks that you weren't following directions, or is suspicious of your file, etc.

 

Why give them a potential reason, even if you "can"? Unless it's absolutely necessary, I can't recommend it.

99% of the issues people have with USCIS is because they overthink when filling out the forms and reading the instructions. That's exactly what you're doing. I've seen people sending 2 joint sponsors forms, when their main sponsor makes well above the poverty line, because they were afraid the officer would rejected them. As a result they receive a RFE to clarify the bunch of documents they sent when they weren't necessary.

 

If the instructions doesn't specify that the Translator must be a certified translator (someone registered to do so, that is a translator for work), then ANYBODY can be a translator. Period. There's no "they don't mention petitioner or beneficiary as translator".

 

One example is when they give you a list of the members of the National Association of Credential Evaluation Services to get your degree evaluated, which means if you choose a organization that is not a member you will most likely get a RFE for that (or maybe not).

 

 

[partyintheUSA 86]

2 minutes ago, Ayrton said:

99% of the issues people have with USCIS is because they overthink when filling out the forms and reading the instructions. That's exactly what you're doing.

 

24 minutes ago, HRQX said:

You are needlessly being paranoid. Petitioners or beneficiaries can also be "translators."

I fail to see how using a translator to translate documents like USCIS literally requests is "overthinking"  or "misinterpreting" ???

 

At the end of the day, I'm going to continue to make the decisions that I feel give my application the least room for rejection. I'm genuinely sorry if that upsets you, and please feel free to continue to call me whatever you want, keep repeating your beliefs, and submit your respective 944s with personally translated documents if it makes you feel better. Our applications, our choices!