Edward and Jaycel

Without a doubt. I'm hoping the pool of analysis deepens as we get a bit farther away from the publish date of the PM.

I will defend this part because I have heard reports of some consular officers requesting a CENOMAR from the US Petitioner recently to be sure that they have never been married in the Philippines before

I have been scouring the AILA boards and members postings to see what I can find regarding Immigration Attorney's thoughts on this and I found a post from Mike Watkins, Immigration Attorney and Former Supervisory Immigration Services Officer with USCIS, now founder of Watkins Immigration Law. He said this today: A Nuanced View of the AOS PM from a former USCIS Supervisor that Worked AOS After spending most of the day Friday and some this weekend talking through the new AOS policy memo with my clients, I wanted to post what I hope is a short, honest assessment of what this memo does and does not do based on what I know now, and through the lens of my time working both family and employment based AOS as a USCIS officer and supervisor. This is not legal advice and you should (especially now) consult with a licensed and experienced immigration attorney if considering applying for AOS. Please do not DM any questions but post them in the forum for others. First, as with most policy memos USCIS issues, a lot will come down to how it is implemented and operationalized at the officer level. My understanding is that front line staff were not given a heads-up on this and have not been given any concrete adjudication guidance, which is very common. What happens next will largely depend on how officers are told to implement this policy, and how they actually do this. In my view, this new memo is mostly a scare tactic. It is more of the same public messaging this administration has done since day one: try to get more immigrants not to apply for benefits they are eligible and legally entitled to receive and increase the population they can get to deport (self deport or through proceedings). They have tried this before in trump 1.0 with the public charge rule and this feels very similar in that regards. It is also, by and large, laughably wrong on almost all significant aspects of the history of AOS. The policy manual still contains this section on its 245(a) section for example: “In 1952, Congress made the pre-examination process unnecessary by creating INA 245, which allowed eligible aliens to obtain LPR status through adjustment of status without leaving the United States. Congress indicated that adjustment should be used for purposes of family unity or otherwise be in the public interest.” It’s not a “loophole” or meant to be used only for “extraordinary” cases; that defies clear congressional intent and the Agency’s own guidance. Beyond the primary purpose, this new guidance could lead to a more difficult adjudication environment for AOS for most applicants. I don’t think this means AOS is dead for most people, and I also don’t think everything will continue like it did before, after this memo. I do think USCIS will start to look more closely at all kinds of factors and in some cases, make a discretionary analysis that could lead to denials, the type that it hasn’t routinely done in the past. This could and likely will lead to far more paperwork needed to submit, more legal analysis by attorneys, and longer adjudication time as officers must now conduct a more thorough analysis. For my own cases, I am already strongly looking at how to frame my applicants to fit within the recognized congressional intent explicitly mentioned above: family unity and public interest. Where this heads entirely depends on how far the Agency wants to take it. If it tries to treat this guidance as it portrays it for public consumption (only granting “extraordinary” cases), it will be buried in lawsuits and losses. But, if it starts performing a more nuanced and careful analysis balancing positive and negative factors, it will likely result in slightly more denials, but much, much more time and effort needed for both applicants and the Agency.

Won't cause problems... Jaycel and I took shifts and basically checked every hour, 24/7 from here in the US and there in the Philippines with no trouble and I agree with @appleblossom above.... Fire your "consultant" that just cost you weeks of wasted time with her scheduling screw-up

I hadn't been there with Jaycel for 11 months at the time of her interview and all they asked was, "When was the last time you spoke to your fiancé?" And she said, "We had a video call this morning right before I walked over here to the embassy." and that was it, she was verbally approved on the spot.

While I can understand it's upsetting, Saying people want to pull the ladder up behind them after climbing it is a terrible thing to accuse people of holding in their hearts because they may believe something different than you do. And not to worry Mods... this is the last post I will engage with this member on

That's a big assumption to make of people's motivations and beliefs

Yes this affects marriage based AOS applications and I was following a former USCIS Officer / now Immigration Attorney's AMA post on Reddit earlier and she said that the way the Policy Memo is worded, she suspects that the policy will be in place for any pending and all new applications. Not my words.... and she said she "suspects" so she's not sure either

Yes that schedule of doing it the week before is no problem because for a K-1 visa exam, they hand you the sealed medical results at the end of the 2nd day to hand carry to the embassy anyway. Jaycel completed her medical on a Thursday, got the envelope and had her interview at the embassy the following Tuesday

I get the skepticism however a Policy Memo cannot rewrite the law and Section 214(d)(1) of the INA [8 U.S.C. 1184(d)(1)] explicitly mandates Adjustment of Status (AOS) as the intended and legally required route to a Green Card for a K-1 visa holder who fulfills the marriage requirement.

I would have to say not since the K-1 is a nonimmigrant visa that is specifically codified in the INA as an "Immigrant Intent" visa

Agreed.... this is the classic and enduring societal, political, policy truth of "The Pendulum". For decades "The Pendulum" has swung in the direction of very permissive immigration policies and nature, physics, reality (whatever you want to call it) will always dictate a swing back in the other direction at some point. It can only swing so far in the "Openly Permissive" realm because the farther it goes, the more loopholes, grift, abuse, fraud, etc. forces it to swing back.

Agree.... there will still be denials for "immigrant intent" because people will stay here without status making that a de-facto immigration (legal or not)

It seems that unless you can prove "Extraordinary Circumstances" that merits favorable discretion and administrative grace, the intending immigrant will need to return to their home country and gain their LPR through consular processing..... This is a seismic shift in policy.

The relevant "Guidance" section of the memo: Guidance Where consular processing is available to an alien based on the immigrant category in which he or she seeks adjustment of status, in determining whether the alien warrants a favorable exercise of discretion officers are to consider the consistent understanding of the courts and the BIA that adjustment of status is an extraordinary discretionary relief to the regular immigrant visa process and is an act of administrative grace. Where adjustment of status is in the discretion of USCIS, officers are reminded that they are to consider all relevant factors and information in the totality of the circumstances in exercising that discretion. For example, existing guidance19 directs officers to consider violations of our immigration laws or the conditions of any immigration status held, current or previous instances of fraud or false testimony in dealings with USCIS or any government agency, whether an alien’s application for admission or parole violated the laws, regulations, and policies in place at the time, and any conduct of the alien after admission as a nonimmigrant or parolee inconsistent with the purpose of that nonimmigrant status or parole or with representations made to consular or DHS officers when applying for a visa, admission, or parole. An alien’s failure to comply with the conditions of their nonimmigrant admission or parole and an alien’s failure to depart as expected are highly relevant to this analysis. This is particularly true when the failure is connected to the alien’s intention to reside permanently in the United States and the alien could have achieved that goal through the normal immigrant visa process. USCIS reminds its officers that applying for adjustment of status is not inconsistent with simultaneously maintaining nonimmigrant status in a category with dual intent.20 Given the significant privileges granted to lawful permanent residents, USCIS reminds its officers that they must consider and weigh all the relevant evidence in the record, taking into account the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the alien is suitable for permanent residence and if approval of the alien’s adjustment of status application is in the best interest of the United States.21 Adjudicators must weigh all positive and negative factors, including family ties, immigration status and history, the applicant’s moral character, and any other relevant factor that bears on determining whether the alien warrants a favorable exercise of discretion.22 USCIS reminds officers that when they deny a benefit request, they must issue a denial notice explaining in writing the specific reasons for denial.23 When the denial is based on an unfavorable exercise of discretion, 24 the denial notice must include an analysis containing the positive and negative factors considered, along with an explanation of why the negative factors outweigh the positive factors in the decision. USCIS will carefully review the various pathways to discretionary adjustment of status as well as discrete populations of aliens applying for adjustment of status in the context of the consistent and longstanding finding that adjustment of status is an extraordinary matter of discretion and administrative grace not designed to supersede the regular consular processing of immigrant visas. USCIS may provide policy guidance specific to certain adjustment of status categories or discrete populations of aliens to aid officers in identifying those applications that may or may not warrant this act of grace and exception to the regular consular process.