mindthegap

It does indeed (I've had 12 of them)....although with just the stamp you will have a visit to secondary every time to verify your status. With the expired card + letter combo it is usually taken care of at the booth.

Yes, assuming your extension letter is still within its validity period, your extension letter in conjunction with your expired card will remain valid for travel purposes, if for some reason your new card has not arrived. A stamp will also work just fine should you manage to navigate the muppetshow of actually getting an appointment. In the grand scheme of things its a nice non-problem to have really. Don't worry about it.

😂 Much like 'no offence, but....' I get you. Of course I-290Bs can work... but in this case IMHO it was a waste of time, as the application of it is so (and very intentionally) narrow, and it costs the same as filing a new I-751 in the first place.... I tried that once too with my second refile. The N-400 interview appointment letter stated it would be a joint interview for any other outstanding pending cases. They then simply denied the I-751 (without interview, or RFE) about a week before the N-400 interview, and then conducted the N-400 interview as scheduled, and a few weeks later wrote to me denying the N-400 on the basis of 'not being a permanent resident'.

Nope An I-290B was the wrong thing to file. It has a very narrow applicability, either for evidence not submitted that would have made a difference to adjudication, or incorrect application of the law or policy (that you have to cite to them). To the letter of the law, you did not show for your scheduled interview, therefore they were entirely correct in their denial. They don't care that you didn't receive it. As far as they are concerned, they scheduled it, and mailed you a notice of that appointment (even if they didn't). Which is why filing an I-290B was pointless. Dude, I have had three denials, as far back as 2017, and no NTA. I've also been on the receiving end of massive (and proveable) breaches of their own damn policy and federal law regarding adjudication. What is *supposed* to happen does not always happen. So now, you can either sit tight, wait for an NTA that may *eventually* come, and then wait some more, go to court, and ultimately have a judge who may instruct USCIS to re-open it because it wasn't received, which is possible, or a judge who will advise you to file a new I-751....either way it means court. So you can cut out a whole heap of hassle, file a new I-751 now, get back in line, and stop worrying about it for a few years. If you do this, you may avoid having to go to court at all. btw, did you get your stamp?

There are a variety of holds for different things This one was taken from my own FOIA response, after I 'missed' an interview (when no mail notice was received...much like you) As you can see it says 30 days.... There are others too (also taken from my FOIA): It could also still be on hold because you filed an I-290B, or it could be because they think you will ultimately refile, and it is a lower priority as an I-751 with the backlogs they have. Or, they are just totally inept.

Would make sense... it's 'denied' but you remain a LPR until it has gone through immigration court, then BIA appeal, and supreme court. Only then is it 'official' I guess, as that is when your permanent residence is legally terminated. Whereas the N-400 is just approved/denied, with no ambiguity.. Different sectors of immigration. I still find it hilarious that the oldest (original joint) one says 'last status change' well over 3000 days ago (in 2015)...despite the denial for it being received 6.5 years ago, in 2017. Anyway, trying not to derail the thread - my point stands, that your case status doesn't necessarily reflect the current status of your case.

It doesn't for an I-751 denial (as above, that case status does not change even after denied). But it does for an N-400 denial (and case status does too). Go figure.

Sure, but you will be wasting your time. Best solution is to download a case tracker app and refresh it periodically, and to have informed delivery. Also, be aware that case status only updates when it is approved, or if something like an RFE is issued (and a couple of other things). If it is denied it doesn't update, ever - it remains as showing pending.

It would be in one of the pdf parts if you requested your entire A# file. If you specified you wanted just the records of entries you would receive just that (un-redacted too, since you are the subject).

If you think that is bad, you should see the collection of CBP photos taken of you at every entry.... they are all stored, and you can see them all if you do an FOIA request.

Thanks. I'm happy with what they have to show now - the burden of proof is on them, fair and square. Matter of P. Singh, 27 I&N Dec. 598 (BIA 2019), the Board stated that evidence of marriage fraud must be “substantial and probative,” meaning that the determination must involve consideration of all relevant evidence in its totality, and establish that it is “more than probably true that the marriage is fraudulent." “Evidence of a fraudulent marriage “must be documented in the alien’s file and must be substantial and probative.” and “[T]he degree of proof required for a finding of marriage fraud sufficient to support the denial of a visa petition under section 204(c) of the Act [is] higher than a preponderance of the evidence and closer to clear and convincing evidence.” and “The application of the ‘substantial and probative evidence’ standard requires the examination of all of the relevant evidence and a determination as to whether such evidence, when viewed in its totality, establishes, with sufficient probability, that the marriage is fraudulent.” Case law is fun! So right now it is a mixture of zen, anger and furious typing. I am currently disecting lots of pagse of my prior FOIA A# response file for any useful things I may have overlooked or warrant a second look... and looking at lots of other stuff. I must confess, finding a scan of a five page formal legal document with four separate ink signatures on - all of which are completely different - sort of made my morning today, especially as the original is in a box somewhere, safe and sound. I have a lot of other examples now too - very handy when someone is multi nationality and you have copies of all their prior and (at the time) current passports, all with differing signatures..... I will soon be putting in another FOIA request for the newer bits of the A# file since the last one (which covers the last filing), plus another request for a couple of documents from & around specific dates, regarding details of the allegations made, as they must be in there somewhere, and I have still not ever been confronted with or shown them, or given an opportunity to rebut. This is directly contrary to 8 CFR 103.2(b)(16)(i) & also contrary to the clarification in the July 2018 Policy Memorandum PM-602-0163 “Issuance of Certain RFEs and NOIDs; revision to Adjudicators Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 10.5(a), Chapter 10.5(b). “Under 8 CFR 103.2(b)(16)(i) if a decision adverse to the applicant, petitioner, or requestor is based on derogatory information, and the applicant, petitioner, or requestor is unaware that the information is being considered, generally the officer must advise the applicant, petitioner or requestor, as applicable, of this information and offer an opportunity for rebuttal before the decision is rendered. Any explanation, rebuttal, or information presented by or on behalf of the applicant, petitioner, or requestor must be included in the record of proceeding. There is an exception for classified materials.” Also, the regulations at 8 C.F.R Section 216.4(c)(4) state: “If derogatory information is determined regarding any of these issues, the Director shall offer the petitioners the opportunity to rebut such information”. This is also referenced on page 4 of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman document of February 8th 2013, titled “Improving the Process for Removal Of Conditions on Residence for Spouses and Children”. I'm expecting a negative and fully redacted response of course. Nothing but the finest service from USCIS. They have to show it to me eventually in/before court if nowhere else, I'd just prefer to see it now.

😂

Thanks. I love finding new bits of 'matter of' case law containing nuggets of gold.... "The BIA’s decision limits the ability of practitioners to seek 237(a)(1)(H) waivers for conditional resident clients in removal proceedings. Arguably, the decision does not eliminate the possibility that some conditional residents can continue to seek 237(a)(1)(H) waivers. However, it limits the class of conditional residents who may be eligible for these waivers. Specifically, the BIA focused on the fact that the noncitizen’s conditional resident status was terminated for failure to file a joint petition. In Bador, a joint petition was initially filed, but the U.S. citizen ultimately withdrew her support for the petition, which under the law is treated as a failure to file.   " That actually raises a VERY interesting point that I had completely overlooked in my case for all this time..... They went to USCIS and claimed they did not know of, consent to, or sign an I-751, so why was their support not withdrawn, either at their request (which you would think would be pretty much automatic if you are claiming that you didn't know about it), or at the instruction of USCIS? Why did it persist as a joint filing for over two years until I had an opportunity to switch to a divorce waiver at interview. It absolutely was still being treated as a joint petition, as I was instructed to tick the 'divorce waiver' box at the interview (the one that I have a recording of too!) Had it just been withdrawn and then NTA/notice issued of failure to file..that would be very different to the present scenario. That has now been added to my notes for future use as that is a very interesting angle. Maybe one day there will be 'matter of mindthegap' being cited....although I really don't want that😅

Yep.... that is a HUGE reason for not giving up. Huge. HUGE. BIGLY. Hypothetical question for you. If someone in this situation was to be married to a US citizen (not the one that caused such a scenario, obviously), would they have to still overcome this to adjust via that? I know the procedure was changed and changed in 2019, for example, ref: matter of stockwell (and we had actually both commented on that before on here, such as my post HERE , containing lots of links, and you also commented a fair amount on that thread...which is now spookily like the situation I now find myself in)... allowing one to adjust after receiving a denial but before a final order of removal...instead of having to wait for the final order. In my situation, my denials all cite INA 216(c)(3) only. The mentions of fraud are only in the text, and of course no NTAs issued for any denial to date.

Understood. As long as I continue to be here legally, work (both of which I know I can) and to leave and return as I see fit, then that is fine. Not being able to leave and return would be a deal breaker, for various reasons, including health, and elderly family. I am still considering my options and waiting to see if Sandra replies to me. I also note that the snaky *person* who wrote this decision did it on the very last working day before xmas. Classy, eh.

I am. Have sent a message. Thanks for the hook up and words. Means a lot.

Apologies. I'm sure you can appreciate the frustration in my posts. I thought the words were sufficiently censored and obscured. Hey, I even looked for & found the correct gif without the f word 😂

If you read all of that and understood it, then get yourself a cup of tea and a biscuit (and maybe a therapist and a glass of scotch) Oh, and if USCIS is reading this (and I know some of them do):

Thank you . I decided to write a separate reply post for you and for this, as it really helped when I read it. Your contributions have been invaluable and I hope are still. Thank you so much. You are, of course, completely correct. I have so many times told people to stick with it, relax, stay calm, that the wheels of immigration turn slowly. As for whether I will win? Well, it kind of shakes your confidence after so long (9 years) and three denials. Monumental gaslighting that makes me think I am going mad. You mean my third filing, like this 😂? That is over 30lb of paperwork before boxing, 40 separate sections, spanning somewhere around 5000+ pages (lots were double sided printing) of evidence. It cost me hundreds to fedex, wore out two printers, and cost a fortune in ink (quick, buy Brother shares now!) And did they read all of it? No. Did they list most of it? No. Did they focus on their sole point of contention, seemingly at the expense of everything else? Absolutely. It is RIDICULOUS. Well, that is useful, as first was for 'improper filing' (more on that in a moment). The second was because I included not much evidence (because it was in the first filing), and had 'not overcome the basis for the first denial (and they also said all the credit card statements and documents were easily editable and forgeable, which made me really mad). The third they have outright called it a fraudulent or sham marriage (using those exact words). Except, elsewhere in the same denial they state that it was clear at the time of filing that 'the marital relationship had begun to deteriorate and termination of the marriage was imminent'. Erm...it can't be both 😅 can it? It's a sham marriage that had begun to deteriorate? What planet are these clowns on? The crux of the fraud claim is this (and I'm no longer going to hide it, because (removed) them): my ex spouse, shortly after we separated and had stopped speaking for ever except via lawyers, went to USCIS, and claimed that they had no knowledge of, did not consent to, and did not signed the I-751, and that I f orged their signature on the joint I-751. Thats it. That is the whole reason for this mess. Hell hath no fury like a sociopathic malignant-narcissist scorned (and discovered cheating and still using narcotics, again) That is categorically and provably false (two people who witnessed the signing the I-751 have written statements to that effect), not to mention sending copies of emails that were echanged between me, them, and family members, after the fact proving the knowledge of the existence of it, even a couple of emails with a full page scan of the I-751 extension letter attached (and visible). Not to mention the fact that we we entered the US at the CBP booth together a few months after filing, using that very I-751 extension letter ('oh what's that big piece of paper honey? Haven't seen that before...'). And, the biggest point of all, the monumentally stupid underlying fact that escapes these pea brained imbeciles, is that an I-751 can be filed without the spouses signature in the first place, which renders that whole argument null. Why the hell would someone be STUPID enough to forge a signature that isn't even required in the first place, with a form that can be filed at any time solo? It's utterly nonsensical. I have an exceptionally high IQ, but even if I had an IQ of under 75 I wouldn't be THAT stupid. BUT WAIT...there's more. They claim the fraud detection unit have reviewed 'multiple documents' and have thus determined a clearly forged signature. I submitted multiple examples of official documents - multiple country passports, multiple countries drivers licences, and other official and unofficial documents, demonstrating that their signature changed almost on a weekly basis and was different on every single one. IGNORED. Doesn't matter that I refiled from scratch with a waiver, instead of amending it. They still keep circling back to that same false allegation, undermining everything. There are massive errors in the adjudication, they have ignore vast folders of documents. They claim that this allegation was discussed in my single I-751 interview for the first filing (as it is supposed to be, as per policy)....well, dear reader (nod to you swifties there) I can tell you they did not. They asked if it was my spouse's signature, and I said it was, because it was. It was not discussed beyond that single question........and I can prove it. You know how I can prove it? Because (and you will love this) I audio recorded that entire interview, and the mp3 has been safe and sound stored in multiple places and backed up in my dropbox for 7 years now. it is a joke. And I am stuck in the middle of it. So I sincerely hope that they have to prove it, rather than me disproving it. Do you have any links to the legalese of that? Interesting, because the first denial was in 2017. No NTA to date. The second was in 2021. No NTA to date. All three filings were filed with and adjudicated by USCIS, and my file is still within USCIS (the eeyore automated case system shows no case, and I check it very regularly, including making it a ritual that it is the very last thing I do before I board a flight out of the US for peace of mind). I can only think that because I have refiled so very fast each time, that it is within the 'hold' period that gets checked by them (see here from my FOIA response): and consequently it stays within USCIS. That would make sense...non? So, I find myself at a crossroads right now as to what to do. Refile? Wait? Do nothing? Either way it is going to be a long, messy, mess, Anyway...I'm ranting a tad. Time for a hot chocolate and a scone.

You would think so....but no. All they have done in the past is forward my enquiry form on to them, via fax (which I can see in my FOIA responses, so they were definitely sent). Thats it. Which did not speed up anything whatsoever. No amount of follow up, pleases for assistance, or anything else did anything. So, effectively useless. I mean, call me cynical, but I don't have high hopes for the words 'fair hearing' in any capacity regarding USCIS. The backlog for everything is ridiculous, so regardless of whether it is another filing, or waiting for court, I remain in limbo. If I could sue, believe me I would. Unfortunately there is a massive difference between what you know and what you can prove.. It was seriously being considered... there are so many abysmal lawyers out there, fleecing people for information freely available with a little research, or worse still, telling them incorrect or downright adverse information. I have accumulated a ridiculous amount of knowledge of this journey, to the extent I can quote chunks of INA and field manuals verbatim from memory, and by helping people going through the same, it is my way of giving something back. 'Don't let the (removed) grind you down' is the traditional english phrase for that, and you are completely right. It's the mental strain more than anything. The perpetual limbo I live in, more of those bloody stamps at least once a year, worrying if the mail is going to contain another denial, or an NTA...worrying about a denial or something happening when out of the country, and worrying coming back into the country, and having to visit secondary every single time. It is exhausting. I try to put it out of my mind as much as possible, but it is *always* there. For a while it significantly affected my health, both mentally and physically. If that is a serious offer, then I'm in. Please DM me. I'm not going down without a fight. Quite. The issue is the negative decision, and the fact that they are completely disgregarding their own procedures, policies, and protocol, ignoring vast chunks of my case, and are fixated on one aspect of my case, seemingly at the expense of everything else. Thank you. Unfortunately, I can't wait weeks... USCIS and the process is glacially slow at the best of times, but this is one of those situations where I can't be slow. And you are quite correct, that a fight here is worth it, if nothing else for the principal of it. Thank you. I am (despite some of my at times angry posts giving the impression to the contrary), far too quiet, humble, and modest to set up such a thing or ask people for money. Do you have a source or any figures for that? Obviously removals for overstay/ failed asylum claims etc are very different to this, and I've never looked at any figures for this specifically. Thank you. If I may ask if you could DM me some details of what you did, it would be appreciated. I would be very interested in hearing about this. Gives me a modicum of hope. Other than insane costs, ridiculous shark lawyer fees, bankruptcy, (another) mental/nervous breakdown, and of course the possibility of it being entirely futile and not winning, sure, there are absolutely no downsides A refile, yes. Endless lawyers fees? No. It tastes like feet dipped in sour milk. I'm a choc-a-holic, and a family sized bar of English Cadbury's dairy milk is snack sized to me (seriously, I'll inhale it)...but the US stuff? YUK. I won't touch it. Probably a good thing, so I can enjoy my semi-regular shipments of the good stuff.

Thank you all of you, and also thanks to those that DM'd me. Really, thank you all so much, as you possibly kept me from pirouetting off the Brooklyn Bridge which is how I felt on Friday evening when I opened the mailbox... I'm truly, totally and utterly exhausted and sick of this, I'm sick of USCIS, I'm sick of having certain parts of life effectively on hold and in perpetual limbo... However.... So........ No. Way. It is the principal of it. So buckle up buttercups, this is gonna get messy....

Another denial. I’m done. I haven’t the mental or physical strength to continue with this journey.

Well it technically hasn't been rejected yet, as you haven't got it back! Yes, you know it has been from the declined charge, but just let it play out. They have a procedure for this, they stamp everything and send it back to you, and you just edit what needs editing, and resend it. Again, the card is proof of status, and not the status itself. It will not be considered late, it will not be refused, you won't be deported.

I would wait until it gets returned to you, which should be soon. Every page will be stamped, and there should be a slip with it. Just keep it as it, simply add a new credit card card page or cheque on top, plus an extra cover letter (stating that it was sent and returned for denied payment) and all will be well. Relax. It will not be considered late. 1- Your proof of status (ie, your card) may expire on January 18th, your status will not. 2 - Read 1 again. 3 - Repeat.

Yes. You need the receipt number to schedule a call back to make the appointment, and at the appointment itself, but not the receipt.