ATTENTION JULY FILERS!

[chris4gretchen 1]

and for the record, no disrespect taken and no ill will meant for anyone. i truly feel bad for anyone who got their petition returned. i understand being apart from my future wife and dont want to be apart a minute longer than i have to. we are all in this immigration maze and at its mercy.

Chris

Edited September 13, 2007 by chris4gretchen

[thejoz 0]

Oh right the two year rule on having met. We definitely met that requirement, no problems there. I just wanted to make sure I hadn't missed something, heh.

[bakofoil 27]

actually the basis on this is from other topics where the received date and the signed date and the mailed date was bandied around with people trying to figure out what was the received date from the service centers to start the 6 month coutndown to knwo if you were overdue. in those discussions a number of posts were on USCIS and its method for filing dates and postmarks and signed for dates etc.

USCIS in those topics didnt pay any attention to postmarked dates, signed for dates etc. they only recognized the received date that the service center put the petition in to the system and filed it. nad htats what they put on the NOA1 and that was what was official.

of course i am NOT a lawyer but seems evident to me the same still applies here. especially when it reads clearly how i explained it. also is the fact that the petitions were RETURNED. i'd say CSC understands the statement the same way i read it.

you know what , i hope im wrong. and i think you should recommend that all these people resubmit with the old fee and a letter explaining the USCIS " mistake" that they just made. Im sure USCIS will certainly agree that postmarks should be taken into account and they hopefully will expedite all these petitions they have erroneously returned.

honestly i feel bad for everyone that got returned. i wish none did. but i think my reading of the statement matches CSC's and USCIS's intent. if it didnt, then we wouldnt even have this topic would we??? and i would be the first to agree i would love to be on shakey ground on this. you guys are puuting as much faith into otherwise filed on as meaning fedex, as i am putting it to mean filed into their system. id say we were equal.

the 2 year rule is a seperate problem in itself. i have no answer on that one. maybe they would let it slide since its days youre talking about.

Chris

I agree 'otherwise filed' is not specific. I wish there was more clarification and instruction from USCIS than there is currently. I was at a loss with this procedure before finding visajourney and being able to benefit from these kinds of discussions. Experience, in this scenario, is so valuable in any bureaucratic procedure.

I am glad we are able to tap one another for information and discuss and disagree sometimes. I know that all of us wish the best for each other and are just trying to help make sense of an overcomplicated system

[Jason-Sasha 1]

I have to side with Chris. We're talking about the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. This isn't just some company that will fold to consumer demand. I'm not saying the OP doesn't have a very legitimate argument. I would say this would be a reason to fight if we were dealing with Walmart, Delta, Pepsi, or Ned's Driving School. But Uncle Sam is very strict with his policies and deliberate in his path. Anyone who's worked for the government can tell you the same. And we all know that Uncle Sam can be elusive in his wording.

Chris is exactly correct when he describes how the wording is meant. Otherwise filed means "or else filed into their system" (by an adjudicator). Once you've dealt with this lingo for a long period of time, you start to understand it. I'm afraid the OP wouldn't stand a chance in fighting this. And everyday that passes while pondering this is another day apart. It may not be money, but those days are certainly more valuable. i would say just kick in another $285 bucks and call it a day. What's 285 when you're trying to have your SO here.....now?? Look at it like you just blew the water-pump in your Honda. Cough it up and get on. And so what if an RFE comes? You fix it. And if it can't be fixed, at least you tried. At least you didn't just stay idle and always wonder. That whole time being apart from your SO. Right?

[Jason-Sasha 1]

Oh right the two year rule on having met. We definitely met that requirement, no problems there. I just wanted to make sure I hadn't missed something, heh.

I was wondering which "two year rule" was meant by an earlier comment. The other two year rule (the one that I was thinking of originally) is the requirement of the foreign fiance to have been living in their country for two years prior to receiving a K-visa to the U.S. There's a more technical term or title to this rule....something like 212 blah...blah...bla. cant remember it off the top of my head. Someone will correct this soon, i'm sure.

Anyway, this is what I was thinking when I saw it mentioned. But it may very well be the "meeting in the past 2 years" thing.

[Bill y Bella 0]

youre splitting the statement at the wrong place.

applications postmarked on or after july 30th OR otherwise filed on.

you also are taking the otherwise filed on to mean postal delivery. thats not what they mean either. they dont even mean when they sign for it. Otherwise filed on means filed into their system.

their statement clearly reads in legal terms if your post mark is on or after july 30th OR if USCIS files your petition ON or after july 30th then the new fee increase applys. Doesnt say anywhere if your postmark is before july 30th then its good.

Chris

Clearly reads in legal terms?

Here is the original clause: Applications or petitions postmarked or otherwise filed on or after that date must include the new fee.

According to my dictionary otherwise when used as an adverb means 1. in another way; differently 2. under other circumstances 3. In other respects.

Now substitute any of those terms for otherwise:

a. Applications or petitions postmarked or in another way filed on or after that date must include the new fee.

b. Applications or petitions postmarked or differently filed on or after that date must include the new fee.

c. Applications or petitions postmarked or under other circumstances filed on or after that date must include the new fee.

d. Applications or petitions postmarked or in other respects filed on or after that date must include the new fee.

None of them is even close to your interpretation which if I understand it correctly is:

Applications or petitions postmarked or filed into the USCIS system on or after that date must include the new fee.

Sorry. I just can't agree with you. And evidence of some contract employees rejecting applications and petitions is not proof that they or USCIS is correct. I am not an attorney or an even an english major but I think I have a real good idea what the clause in question means. If USCIS wanted to say that all petitions and applications had to be received into their system before 7/30 than they should have said exactly that and never mentioned a postmark.

To anyone who knows: I had assumed there are also applications and petitions that were postmarked prior to 7/30 but received on 7/30 or after that were accepted with the old fees. Am I wrong?

[chris4gretchen 1]

yes, they are at the end of the met in 2 years requirement. if they have to refile the petition, they last met in August 2005. so it might be RFE and they could need another visit. they are in a bind with what USCIS will do if they are a month outside of the 2 years.

Chris

[kaush 0]

To anyone who knows: I had assumed there are also applications and petitions that were postmarked prior to 7/30 but received on 7/30 or after that were accepted with the old fees. Am I wrong?

According to Courtney's timeline their petition was received by VSC on July 30th. So yes.

yes, they are at the end of the met in 2 years requirement. if they have to refile the petition, they last met in August 2005. so it might be RFE and they could need another visit. they are in a bind with what USCIS will do if they are a month outside of the 2 years.

[bakofoil 27]

youre splitting the statement at the wrong place.

applications postmarked on or after july 30th OR otherwise filed on.

you also are taking the otherwise filed on to mean postal delivery. thats not what they mean either. they dont even mean when they sign for it. Otherwise filed on means filed into their system.

their statement clearly reads in legal terms if your post mark is on or after july 30th OR if USCIS files your petition ON or after july 30th then the new fee increase applys. Doesnt say anywhere if your postmark is before july 30th then its good.

Chris

Clearly reads in legal terms?

Here is the original clause: Applications or petitions postmarked or otherwise filed on or after that date must include the new fee.

According to my dictionary otherwise when used as an adverb means 1. in another way; differently 2. under other circumstances 3. In other respects.

Now substitute any of those terms for otherwise:

a. Applications or petitions postmarked or in another way filed on or after that date must include the new fee.

b. Applications or petitions postmarked or differently filed on or after that date must include the new fee.

c. Applications or petitions postmarked or under other circumstances filed on or after that date must include the new fee.

d. Applications or petitions postmarked or in other respects filed on or after that date must include the new fee.

None of them is even close to your interpretation which if I understand it correctly is:

Applications or petitions postmarked or filed into the USCIS system on or after that date must include the new fee.

Sorry. I just can't agree with you. And evidence of some contract employees rejecting applications and petitions is not proof that they or USCIS is correct. I am not an attorney or an even an english major but I think I have a real good idea what the clause in question means. If USCIS wanted to say that all petitions and applications had to be received into their system before 7/30 than they should have said exactly that and never mentioned a postmark.

To anyone who knows: I had assumed there are also applications and petitions that were postmarked prior to 7/30 but received on 7/30 or after that were accepted with the old fees. Am I wrong?

Yes, I have seen a few applicants receive NOA1's for petitions received on or after 7/30. Including some who had applications delivered as late as mine. It is merely my opinion but I don't feel there's any issue with the returns that have occurred, other than the time and hassle involved in disputing the reasoning.

Edited September 13, 2007 by babblesgirl

[chris4gretchen 1]

To anyone who knows: I had assumed there are also applications and petitions that were postmarked prior to 7/30 but received on 7/30 or after that were accepted with the old fees. Am I wrong?

clearly, since the OP of this had a postmark of july 27th and it was returned as the other topic poster that i included. he also had a july 27th postmark and his petition was returned. i think you will find that almost all of the returned petitions had a postmark of july 27th or 28th. if USCIS got it on thursday they put it in the system on thursday or friday thus beating the deadline.

but i guess now its up to USCIS to see what will become of these returned petitions. will they be allowed with the old fee or made to refile with the new. It will be interesting to see how it ends up. i would love to be wrong here and have everyone say i told you so. honestly nothing would make me happier, but i dont think its to be.

Chris

Edited September 13, 2007 by chris4gretchen

[Jason-Sasha 1]

yes, they are at the end of the met in 2 years requirement. if they have to refile the petition, they last met in August 2005. so it might be RFE and they could need another visit. they are in a bind with what USCIS will do if they are a month outside of the 2 years.

Chris

Hmmmm.....I see. Yes, that's a bind. Wonder if they would be granted if they gave this situation as an excuse. I don't know. Maybe file now with the new fee and state the reason that rule should not apply to them. If I recall, that particular question gives the petitioner the opportunity to explain.

[Bill y Bella 0]

I have to side with Chris. We're talking about the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. This isn't just some company that will fold to consumer demand. I'm not saying the OP doesn't have a very legitimate argument. I would say this would be a reason to fight if we were dealing with Walmart, Delta, Pepsi, or Ned's Driving School. But Uncle Sam is very strict with his policies and deliberate in his path. Anyone who's worked for the government can tell you the same. And we all know that Uncle Sam can be elusive in his wording.

Chris is exactly correct when he describes how the wording is meant. Otherwise filed means "or else filed into their system" (by an adjudicator). Once you've dealt with this lingo for a long period of time, you start to understand it. I'm afraid the OP wouldn't stand a chance in fighting this. And everyday that passes while pondering this is another day apart. It may not be money, but those days are certainly more valuable. i would say just kick in another $285 bucks and call it a day. What's 285 when you're trying to have your SO here.....now?? Look at it like you just blew the water-pump in your Honda. Cough it up and get on. And so what if an RFE comes? You fix it. And if it can't be fixed, at least you tried. At least you didn't just stay idle and always wonder. That whole time being apart from your SO. Right?

Read her post again. If the petition is filed again with the new fees they will not have met in person within 2 years of having filed. So they run the risk of waiting 4 months or more and having the whole thing rejected and losing their filing fee.

On the other hand if they want to eliminate that possibility they will need to plan, execute and pay for a trip to India prior to filing again. How long will that take and how much will it cost? A lot.

At this point I don't think any of us knows with 100% certainty if the original petition was rejected in error or not. Given the situation, I think the petitioner should try to get her elected representative to help obtain an official interpretation from someone at USCIS above the contract employee level. If it takes even a month to get an answer it would be worth it because they could possibly be saving a lot of time and money in the long run.

There are already other members discussing this with their elected representatives so it is quite likely that better information will available soon anyway. My first post on this topic provided a link to a member's post who is a week or so ahead of kaush in fighting this and I suggest that she put herself in contact with him.

[bakofoil 27]

It would be handy to have fields in our timelines which indicate application postmarking, receipt, date of check cashing and receipt of NOA1. Some people are not receiving NOA1's although their checks have been cashed and I believe that the date the check is cashed is basically when the NOA1 is triggered anyway.

I hadn't thought about it until now, but the spreadsheet for July filers (which is brilliant, by the way) includes some 30th and 31st July applicants. I have no idea whether these are receipt dates and therefore whether they are old fee or new fee applicants. I may have seen their dates and assumed that they submitted the old fee and had their checks cashed mid-august. This had given me hope given the status of my application.

I have, however, seen a couple of people who mailed their petitions after 26th July who have already received NOA1's but have no indication of when their packets were received.

[Bill y Bella 0]

To anyone who knows: I had assumed there are also applications and petitions that were postmarked prior to 7/30 but received on 7/30 or after that were accepted with the old fees. Am I wrong?

According to Courtney's timeline their petition was received by VSC on July 30th. So yes.

But what fee did she pay? Old or new? That is the critical question.

I am guessing she paid the old fee because the conventional wisdom on this site prior to some petitions being returned was that the petition needed to be postmarked prior to 7/30.

As soon as someone knows for sure please let us know.

[TinTin and Samby 11]

youre splitting the statement at the wrong place.

applications postmarked on or after july 30th OR otherwise filed on.

you also are taking the otherwise filed on to mean postal delivery. thats not what they mean either. they dont even mean when they sign for it. Otherwise filed on means filed into their system.

their statement clearly reads in legal terms if your post mark is on or after july 30th OR if USCIS files your petition ON or after july 30th then the new fee increase applys. Doesnt say anywhere if your postmark is before july 30th then its good.

Chris

Clearly reads in legal terms?

Here is the original clause: Applications or petitions postmarked or otherwise filed on or after that date must include the new fee.

According to my dictionary otherwise when used as an adverb means 1. in another way; differently 2. under other circumstances 3. In other respects.

Now substitute any of those terms for otherwise:

a. Applications or petitions postmarked or in another way filed on or after that date must include the new fee.

b. Applications or petitions postmarked or differently filed on or after that date must include the new fee.

c. Applications or petitions postmarked or under other circumstances filed on or after that date must include the new fee.

d. Applications or petitions postmarked or in other respects filed on or after that date must include the new fee.

None of them is even close to your interpretation which if I understand it correctly is:

Applications or petitions postmarked or filed into the USCIS system on or after that date must include the new fee.

Sorry. I just can't agree with you. And evidence of some contract employees rejecting applications and petitions is not proof that they or USCIS is correct. I am not an attorney or an even an english major but I think I have a real good idea what the clause in question means. If USCIS wanted to say that all petitions and applications had to be received into their system before 7/30 than they should have said exactly that and never mentioned a postmark.

To anyone who knows: I had assumed there are also applications and petitions that were postmarked prior to 7/30 but received on 7/30 or after that were accepted with the old fees. Am I wrong?

Well, I have to say that my reading of USCIS's statement is exactly the same as Chris'. And with the utmost respect, I have to say, Bill, that, to me, your grammatical substitution exercise does the exact opposite as you suggest: It support's Chris' interrpretation.

For me, the key is "or" and where it is located in the sentence. The 'or' provides for 2 possible ways that USCIC can utilize to accept or reject. The dlemma is that it is at the USCIS's discretion about which of those 2 options it wants to utilize. To me, I don't see any implied equality between the 2 "or'd" options - something that those that are questioning why USCIS would use the word 'postmarked' are implying.

One other aspect that comes to my mind as well, is the earlier words in the sentence: "Applications or petitions..." it doesn't stretch my thinking to imagine that USCIS has some uncommunicated and undocumented intention that it will apply either of the 2 "or'd" options on a consistant, but differing basis depending on the type of "Application of Petition" being submitted. ie, certain petitions are accepted based on postmark while others are accepted based on entering them into the USCIS's system.

The one thing we can all agree on is our desire and the need for USCIS, et al, to be much more precise in their instructions and documenation at each step in this journey. And to have a specific mechanism to be able to get a 'confirmation of understanding' or 'ruling' that customers can rely on USCIS to stand behind.