Approved B1/B2 Extension (I-539) during COVID - No Biometrics

[DIVx 0]

1 hour ago, kswheezy said:

No, we did not notify them. I was waiting for the official notice from them regarding the biometrics appointment. The case changed on it's own from "Biometrics Appointment Was Scheduled" on September 18, 2020, to "Case was Approved" on September 24, 2020 with no intervention on our part.

That’s weird they didn’t see your fiancé was out of the country when they scheduled the bio. What made them finally realized he had left the country? You didn’t show up at bio or case approved before bio date? Sorry for a lot of questions- we’re in the same boat - my mother has appointment on Oct 7th but has left the country already

[SusieQQQ 11,586]

1 hour ago, kswheezy said:

Looking at that notice, there was not any information about being able to reschedule the appointment if out of the country.

This is because the case is considered abandoned once the person leaves the country before adjudication. And hence why your initial story is actually very interesting!
 

 

[SusieQQQ 11,586]

43 minutes ago, Jorgedig said:

I have never heard of this happening for a cancelled B visa.  What makes you think they will do that?

 

There is no appeal process for a B revocation.   The expectation would be to apply again, since the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate their eligibility for the visa, rather than the burden being on the DOS to demonstrate the applicant's ineligibility.

Except OP says her fiancé  was told by the embassy:

 

On 9/25/2020 at 6:49 AM, kswheezy said:

He got an email within a week of getting home that his visa was revoked and if he thought it was an error to write to them.

Certainly, if i was in this situation I would also contact the embassy with the updated information that he did not in fact overstay as his extension was approved.

[kswheezy 117]

2 minutes ago, DIVx said:

That’s weird they didn’t see your fiancé was out of the country when they scheduled the bio. What made them finally realized he had left the country? You didn’t show up at bio or case approved before bio date? Sorry for a lot of questions- we’re in the same boat - my mother has appointment on Oct 7th but has left the country already

No, we did nothing. The bio appointment was set for 10/09/2020, the case was approved before the appointment. You are totally fine, I understand! 

[kswheezy 117]

@DIVx I feel like I need to clarify: With the initial extension application we did attach a lot of information regarding the cancelation of his flights as well as the official Honduran government and Honduran US embassy statements on the closure of the Honduran borders by air, land, and sea. My fiancé also attached a written and signed statement that explained the situation, why we asked for an additional month (in case the borders continued to be closed past a week), and that he would leave as soon as he was able to secure travel back to Honduras.

Edited September 26, 2020 by kswheezy
typo

[Boiler 45,525]

It is quite normal for someone to have left before the application is processed, in the years I have been following this seems always to have taken getting on for 6 months.

[OpenRate001 0]

After 7 months my I-539 was just approved although the I-94 date on the approval notice is 10/3/2020 which we initially asked for and now past this date. Since there is no leave date indicated, I'm assuming she is now in I-94 "expired status" or she has x days to leave the USA?

 

March 13, 2020, applied I-539

March 14, 2020 - Biometrics completed

September 18, 2020 - Second Biometrics requested

October 15, 2020 - RFE

October 26, 2020 - Approval (I-95 date 10/3/2020)

 

 

 

[Boiler 45,525]

- x days to be precise, she wanted to stay until the 3rd and it is now the 28th.

 

Not that it matters if you have filed to adjust.

[SusieQQQ 11,586]

31 minutes ago, OpenRate001 said:

After 7 months my I-539 was just approved although the I-94 date on the approval notice is 10/3/2020 which we initially asked for and now past this date. Since there is no leave date indicated, I'm assuming she is now in I-94 "expired status" or she has x days to leave the USA?

 

March 13, 2020, applied I-539

March 14, 2020 - Biometrics completed

September 18, 2020 - Second Biometrics requested

October 15, 2020 - RFE

October 26, 2020 - Approval (I-95 date 10/3/2020)

 

 

 

There is no “x” days past. She should have left by the date she requested the extension for. Yes, she has been in overstay since 10/3/20. Her existing visa has thus been automatically voided. 

 

[OpenRate001 0]

Odd. Why did they request and RFE after 10/3/2020 and approve the I-539 yesterday? Wouldn't this qualify for denial?  They mentioned to file another

I-539 now.

[SusieQQQ 11,586]

34 minutes ago, OpenRate001 said:

Odd. Why did they request and RFE after 10/3/2020 and approve the I-539 yesterday? Wouldn't this qualify for denial?  They mentioned to file another

I-539 now.

Because there was a big backlog after the Covid closed and they didn’t get to it before then? The i539 was approved until the date asked for, not the date of the approval being issued. That was to make her retroactively in status for the period she requested the i539 for.  This is why we have always been suggesting here that people leave before the date they requested (I’m sorry I cannot remember if you have posted on this before, there have been a lot of queries on this subject.)

You can’t file another i539 now, should have done that before 3 October (or left before 3 October). She is out of status. You cannot get an extension of status if you are not in a valid status. 

[OpenRate001 0]

6 minutes ago, SusieQQQ said:

Because there was a big backlog after the Covid closed and they didn’t get to it before then? The i539 was approved until the date asked for, not the date of the approval being issued. That was to make her retroactively in status for the period she requested the i539 for.  This is why we have always been suggesting here that people leave before the date they requested (I’m sorry I cannot remember if you have posted on this before, there have been a lot of queries on this subject.)

You can’t file another i539 now, should have done that before 3 October (or left before 3 October). She is out of status. You cannot get an extension of status if you are not in a valid status. 

Yes, this is what I asked them now she is not valid. Is it assumed that if a case is not closed beyond I-94 dates then approval or denial is defunct, hence, "approval" does not pertain to her validity and only the case dates itself? Also, wondering why the case manager wouldn't pinpoint this discrepancy during case evaluation while requesting new biometrics and more documents. Seems like a moot point considering anything if she is past her stay.     

[Boiler 45,525]

5 minutes ago, OpenRate001 said:

Yes, this is what I asked them now she is not valid. Is it assumed that if a case is not closed beyond I-94 dates then approval or denial is defunct, hence, "approval" does not pertain to her validity and only the case dates itself? Also, wondering why the case manager wouldn't pinpoint this discrepancy during case evaluation while requesting new biometrics and more documents. Seems like a moot point considering anything if she is past her stay.     

You paid to extend your status until the 3rd October, it certainly can be relevant if approved or not, and the assumption is that you would leave before your applied for date.

[SusieQQQ 11,586]

1 hour ago, OpenRate001 said:

Yes, this is what I asked them now she is not valid. Is it assumed that if a case is not closed beyond I-94 dates then approval or denial is defunct, hence, "approval" does not pertain to her validity and only the case dates itself? Also, wondering why the case manager wouldn't pinpoint this discrepancy during case evaluation while requesting new biometrics and more documents. Seems like a moot point considering anything if she is past her stay.     

Both the information sheet and instructions for the i539 instruct that it has to be filed before expiration of i94, barring extraordinary circumstances (which do not seem to apply, you gave no indication of any extreme occurrences preventing filing). We have seen reports of requests of biometrics after people have left the US too when it is clearly irrelevant, I do not think the admin staff that process these have time to examine every detail of the case, they simply look at what is required on the face of it.  I am assuming the intent was simply to put her in status for the period she had applied for. 
If someone is out of status there is no status to extend. This is different than a retroactive approval to put someone back in status for the period they properly filed and requested for. Note the following from the information sheet:

Your lawful nonimmigrant status ends, and you are out of status, when your Form I-94 expires, even if you have timely applied to extend your nonimmigrant status. .... If your application for an extension of stay is approved, the approval will relate back to the date your Form I-94 expired, and your status while your application is pending will then be considered to have been lawful.

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/guides/C1en.pdf

 

 

Edited October 28, 2020 by SusieQQQ

[OpenRate001 0]

28 minutes ago, SusieQQQ said:

I do not think the admin staff that process these have time to examine every detail of the case, they simply look at what is required on the face of it.  I am assuming the intent was simply to put her in status for the period she had applied for. 

Thanks for supplying this detail. If the case officer is assigned to assess the terms throughout the case duration and the proposed leave date has expired, it's presumed a moot point to approve or deny it, or simply deny based on I-94 expiration. I get the case officer has other cases to tend to, although what constitutes not having to examine these details? Regardless, it's purely evident that she has expired and there has been no motion or communication to extend the end date during the case assessment, hence, approving does not benefit the applicant in any way.  If the approval relates back to the proposed expiration date this is moot based on the length of time the case takes to conclude.