slavaskii

Edit: Misunderstood problem, see @Crazy Cat's answer

To clarify, this is not a requirement of the I-485 and does not clearly contribute to interviews being waved. The 'waiving interviews' was a COVID backlog clearing measure which seems to be winding down in certain field offices. Submitting extra is personal preference (and really a question of whether you want to delay sending off your AOS packet or not).

I mean again, I reemphasize that an officer told someone in exactly this position that the I-130 likely delayed their timeline. Moreover, it sounds like the lawyer charged extra for the form, which provided no material benefit. This isn’t like people who file I-130 and then I-129F thinking that’ll speed things up, this is OP submitting (and paying for) a whole extra form that reveals the attorney’s incompetence. My problem here is with the assertion “I know how this works.” Unless the lawyer meant he knows how this technicality works (that being, a I-130 theoretically applying), he’s clearly lying and this should be a massive red flag for OP.

There was someone on either here or Reddit that recently reported they erroneously filed an I-130 but were ultimately called to an interview all the same. That being said, the officer told them point-blank the I-130 almost certainly delayed their overall timeline. Your lawyer made a mistake and is either incompetent at best or scamming you at worst. The fact he's double-downed makes me believe this is a case of the latter. It's your call, but he shouldn't be representing you anymore if he's also unwilling to admit (and correct w/o charge) what is an obvious mistake.

Hi all - sorry for another question. A bit of a weird one here, but does each family member attending the interview require their own UID / TravelDocs account? Basically, when I scheduled the appointment for my wife's family, I made them each a TravelDocs account before scheduling them for a family appointment on one of those accounts (the "leader"). The problem, however, was that because they are citizens of Belarus and not Poland (where the TravelDocs accounts were made, as Belarus directs to Poland and they are Polish permanent residents anyway), the system thought they were Polish citizens. I called TravelDocs and they noted that somehow these family members had their accounts "duplicated" (unsure how this happened), and deleted the ones that erroneously listed citizenship as Poland. Out of curiosity, I just attempted to log into those family member's accounts today as their UIDs are still listed on the appointment confirmation under the leader's - but both of their accounts are deleted. Provided (a) all applicable DS-160s were properly submitted and (b) the leader's TravelDocs account is accessible and has all the correct / updated information, is the fact the family members' accounts are deleted a problem? Or are they considered 'derivatives' or something like that for the appointment and never needed a separate account to begin with? TIA.

My wife's family has their tourist visa interviews coming up, I had helped prepare their application but am questioning a choice I made on the (submitted) DS-160s ... while they are coming just to visit us, I selected "B1/B2" as when my wife applied herself to visit me under a B2, they issued her a B1/B2. Since then, I've always assumed this was the proper designation, but now I am not entirely sure. My wife's family is obviously not coming for business, but will this be a problem? Should I tell them to expect a question about it, or is this pretty normal given what's ultimately issued? There was only one analogous post on VJ, some users implied it was best to redo the DS-160 whereas others said it was completely fine. TIA. EDIT: I just reviewed their TravelDocs page and it says the interview is for a B-1/B-2, so I guess in this particular case, what I put on the DS-160 was correct. I don't recall if TravelDocs actually made a distinction between the B-1/B-2 and B-2 when scheduling the appointment. In any event, these DS-160s seem to be proper per what was already scheduled at the Embassy.

Yes, I've seen some movement for April / June, though unfortunately I've heard that certain field offices have gotten quite backed up so I'm not sure if the 11-13 months I was thinking for our particular FO is still accurate. On Reddit there were some posts of people getting EADs after day 300 or so and then the AOS approved shortly after, which seems to be the general trend. In regard to Title 42, the officers being sent to the border are specifically for asylum; I don't believe they work on any other case, so the family / employment adjudications should proceed as before. After all, USCIS routinely sends asylum officers worldwide, which is an interesting factoid. And in any event, it seems like the influx was far less than what was anticipated, so I don't think AOS should be affected much / if at all. Thanks for checking back in

Any August updates? Still radio silence on everything here.

Presently, neither the I-765 nor the I-131 cost anything if concurrently filed alongside the I-485. This is going to change, though, with the proposed fee increases, which could be published at any point given the comment period ended in March. If your fiancee's K-1 interview is on Thursday (according to your timeline), it's unknown whether she'll be able to get here, marry, and file for AoS before the fees increase. Again, that timeline's just not something we know. You're right that the AP is a gamble to get before AoS, but because it's a "free" gamble, it explains why everyone that was eligible to take it took it. Hence why there needs to be the fee increases to either (a) discourage people from filing it and / or (b) delegate enough resources to be able to clear the backlogs on various petitions. I think my take on the situation is that 9-10 months for AP sounds extremely unlikely, given the tens of thousands currently waiting to be approved, but if you happen to have a fast field office, she might just get the green card and obviate the need for AP altogether.

Now that the AP is decoupled from the EAD, it seems very unlikely that the AP will be expediently approved. See here for the AP approvals (Form I-131), in comparison to here for the EAD approvals (Form I-765). As a general trend, we're seeing 2023 filers receive EADs far quicker than those who filed in 2022. My understanding is that these are not combo cards, though I've heard some people are still getting them. In any event, it's highly probable that you'd get the AoS around the same time as the AP, which could be upwards of a year (though this is highly field office dependent). I don't see how your congressman can help this, so I would think of a backup plan just in case. From looking at timelines and what others have posted, many people never hear anything on the AP before AoS is completed. @ROK2USA the notice-and-comment period for the proposed increase ended March 13th, so now USCIS still has issue a response and promulgate it; my understanding is they haven't yet, apparently there were over 5,000 received (though ofc they don't have to respond to the vast majority). It's doubtful they'll renege on the increase, nor should they IMHO, so that'll probably be here within the next few months. Edit: Sorry I tagged you first by accident, Boiler

Thank you so much for all the information, @EatBulaga! Your write-ups are consistently helpful and it's been a pleasure watching you on the GC journey. I'm only commenting on your hypothesis with how the I-485s are processed; if anything, I've seen some consistency with how FOs process, and it seems to be relatively more predictable than the I-129Fs (and most certainly the I-765s, which are now being approved at rates for January 2023 onwards which exponentially surpass anything before). For instance, the I-485 approvals I've heard from the DC field office are currently all from March or April, and at least for you in Atlanta, everyone that filed roughly the same time in July got that courtesy letter at the same time. I have not done so, but others on Reddit have actively asked the 'Ask Emma' agents for if / when their case was transferred to the FO, and it seems like they are always done so well before the approval. So even with the IOE case numbers, the local FO seems to be doing most (if not all) the lifting. One thing of interest from Reddit that may support your theory, however: there was a K-1 adjuster who had accidentally filed an I-130 along with their packet after marrying. During the GC interview, the officer reviewed all the material and, if I'm remembering correctly, implied they would've been approved far faster if they hadn't mistakenly sent the I-130 (I believe it took them a year). Given that a year was standard for the DC field office anyway, it suggests that, without the I-130, it may have been handled somewhere else. Here's hoping the wait is nearly over! Have to admit, it's disheartening seeing everyone else move on, certainly harkens back to the I-129F days.

Congratulations to both @MnY and @EatBulaga (I saw he updated his timeline )! So that's pretty strong support for the FO waiting on the I-693's completion despite what the courtesy letter says. This, of course, begs the question - did anyone not go forward with the I-693, and if so, did you also get approved?

Yes, she has a SSN and driver's license (DC); the K-1 AOS guide was really helpful, just waiting on the EAD / AP / GC now. If I may, looks like another question has arisen - DC has a renter property tax credit, which looks like will issue a check. Given my wife is on both the lease and the return, the check would presumably be issued in both of our names. However, are we even allowed to accept this given she isn't allowed to earn income w/o the EAD or GC? I guess it's not really 'income,' and I would be the one to deposit it, but would this be allowed given her name would be on it? Just want to make abundantly sure; TIA and sorry for the constant questions on this. Thought it was done

No, as I'm 24; and I should clarify, though I have no employment, I do technically have limited income in terms of interest / capital gains. I've filed a return myself for a while now, however, as I was able to meet the requirements of the I-134 myself and wanted to have the accompanying tax returns so I wouldn't need a joint sponsor (ultimately USCIS requested one for the I-864, but I digress). Certainly not the most financially wise decision, but my rationale was that I always wanted to have things in my name when it came time to submit documents on my wife (then fiancee's) behalf. Thank you though for the suggestion!

Wonderful! Thank you so incredibly much, we'll get that filed right away. And in reference to that 'letter,' I think I was misreading an earlier post; basically, I thought the IRS question was asking whether you were at one point a nonresident alien for taxation purposes who subsequently became a resident for taxation purposes in 2022. B/c the IRS' substantial presence test was satisfied after her arrival, I was thinking I'd have to put "yes" and also explain it somehow (I realize now my mistake). And if I may bother with one more thing, there shouldn't be any danger with using H&R Block to fill this out, right? I guess I'm just a little paranoid that when it starts auto-populating things, it may screw something up that could cause an immigration headache down the line. Again, I appreciate your help so much, thank you. EDIT: Thank you, I reviewed that thread. Take care!

Thank you! So you would still recommend MFJ and answering "no" to whether she was a dual-status alien? From doing some searching on the forums, it looks like this implicates me writing some sort of note saying I'd like her to be considered a resident alien for tax purposes ... ? Again, I apologize for my ignorance on this, as a student for so long my returns have never been this complicated (lol). And as well - am I correct in my understanding that this would count towards the 3 year tax return requirement for the N-400? In my mind, that's the principal reason why we'd MFJ.

Thank you for your prompt reply! Nope, no foreign income at all - she graduated university before the war started and then moved countries while waiting on the K-1 to finish.

Hi all! Have a question that seems a bit specific for my circumstances, so wanted to ask here. We're in the process of finalizing our tax return; I'm the USC, currently a student and have no income for the taxable year. My wife came to the US in June on a K-1 and is still waiting on EAD / GC, so she also has no income. As such, we have no tax liability. I see posts here saying you should almost always MFJ, but in our circumstance, that wouldn't have any effect. Nonetheless, I would think it would be a good idea to MFJ as for the N-400, you apparently need to show 3 years of tax returns. My intuition would be that it would, therefore, be good to start with having a return now, despite her technically not even needing to file. But I'm confused as to some of the subsequent questions if we do elect MFJ. For example, would she would be considered a 'dual status alien' for IRS purposes? She was here from mid June 2022, so she satisfied the substantial presence test after arrival; but what is this referring to, residence for taxation purposes or immigration purposes? If the latter, then no as we're still waiting on AOS. Moreover, as we're using a software, is there anything we should particularly look out for / be cautious of when filing these? As an example, are there certain questions on the tax form that could have negative immigration consequences (I'm imagining like on a driver's license application, how it asks if you're a citizen)? I'm terrible with these forms, so any guidance would be much appreciated. TIA.

Thank you for directing me to this! Did the physician overseas mark the DS-3025 as "voluntarily completed all requirements"? It seems like you probably did save the headache of the RFE, if a vaccine was absent. Though if everyone got the courtesy letter, it seems unlikely that everyone would've been missing something; if that was the case, USCIS and DOS need to communicate to the physicians what's going on so people aren't repeating medical in the US. Plus, that would also imply that everyone on IR-1 / CR-1 had their medicals wrongly approved... I agree fully that USCIS has the right to overrule the DS-3025, but I also think this has to be done via the RFE and not the courtesy notice. The Policy Manual reads pretty clearly to me that the K applicant "[is] not required" (provided satisfaction of the two provisions) unless otherwise "required." The Manual doesn't say what indicates an I-693 being "required," but I presume it has to be a formal RFE as indicated in the USCIS portal. Again, I've never actually seen this courtesy notice (I'm simply interested in what others are going through), but if it does mention K-1s can disregard and the portal does not imply work has stopped on the case, I would think the I-693 has not been "required" of the applicant. It seems Atlanta might've just sent the notice to all AOS filers w/o an I-693 on file as a way to let people know of the 'general' requirement, but also of the exception(s). Looking forward to the read of your update!

Hey! I was actually just going to PM you on this - sorry this is coming through a second after your comment, lol. I followed up with my Atlanta friend, his wife actually hadn't done the medical yet if I'm understanding correctly. Theirs updated same as yours (active review w/ updated date), so it seems like it was automatic for everyone, as you suggested. I lurked around older threads for a while, and apparently the courtesy form has somewhere on it that K-1s can disregard it. There was also another poster on here, forget his name offhand, who was pretty adamant it was just mass-emailed to all AOS adjusters and if something was truly needed you'd get the RFE. Apparently, the medical form changed mid-last year to account for the COVID vaccine? Perhaps those who had the outdated form got formal RFEs for it, but I digress. Now that you've gone ahead and submitted it, it will be interesting to compare approval times. We have a whole sample here of people at the same field office with same PDs, should be a pet science project, of sorts Edit: and to clear up a mistake I said earlier, it looks like K-1s are exempt from doing medical in the US if they submitted the AOS w/in 1 year of having the overseas exam, not if the medical was done w/in 1 year of AOS approval. That's a consequential distinction, my mistake.

Interesting; this is the same experience I've heard from another Atlanta filer, I didn't think they actually went through with the Civil Surgeon but I guess they did. Theirs also says "Case is Being Actively Reviewed" with a more 'updated' date. One theory I had in mind - apparently, the overseas medicals are good for only 1 year. If the FO thinks the case will take far longer than that (for example, Atlanta is heavily backlogged per the USCIS site), they may just be issuing those medical deficiencies now. I've also heard that some people say "USCIS would've approved your application at the time of the medical deficiency notice but for the lack of medical," but that can't be right, as otherwise a slew of July 2022 Atlanta filers would've gotten approved in the last few weeks. That didn't happen; instead, only the K-1 adjustors got deficiency notice. What might've happened is that the notice was a sincere mistake, but it triggered a 'hold' on everyone's case. Visiting the civil surgeon let USCIS know the medical was completed, and that automatically triggered the update to active review as the medical was no longer deficient. That, or someone realized the mistake and waived it. But if that was the case, everyone would've gotten a notice of RFE recession or something to that effect ... very weird all around. You need to do the social security process fairly quickly after arrival, that's all listed on the K-1 AOS page. After 2 weeks you can apply for SSN, then you can update it to married name after marriage. If you don't do get a SSN before sending in the AOS package and especially before the 90 days are up, lots can be complicated. And SSN is really only tied to things like the driver's license, health insurance, etc. It has no bearing on whether you can work / travel, as that's controlled by the I-765 and I-131 forms. I also don't really understand why it takes so long to get the I-485 approved when adjusting from K-1. Unless I'm not seeing things right, the whole IR-1/CR-1 process takes <2 years, which will include the green card. But adjusting status in the US (say, from any other visa that's not a K-1) that requires a I-130 takes roughly the same...? I don't understand why filing a single I-485 from a K-1 visa that's already been approved and executed takes roughly a year or more, with work permits sometimes / maybe / never being issued (and travel documents just not being done anymore). Anyway, the TLDR is that you're not seeing anything wrong here, the adjustment process is just really unfortunate due to how random it is. And as you can see from above, the fact people are getting issued deficiency notices from the FO when they are exempt also shows that this is just a really perplexing process.

Were you adjusting from a K-1?

Maybe some hopeful news here - looks like today was a fantastic processing day, perhaps not for August filers but most certainly for those pre-2023. The 09-148 group had almost 600 approvals, which I've absolutely never seen before. Of course, this was dwarfed by the 09-19x groups having well over 1,000, but at least USCIS is turning back to the earlier filers. Best wishes to everyone here; it can be frustrating to feel left behind, but if it's any consolation, the approvals here are largely selection bias as those who I've talked to off the forums haven't gotten anything at all, either.

Hi! You can absolutely phone Warsaw, my guess is they'll say you're still within their 'processing window,' but they could also tell you when you're eligible to submit an inquiry (I think it's done through the TravelDocs portal). I'd caution with what you say, however, as there was an instance of a filer here who managed to make an appointment pre-Packet 3 and then called Warsaw - the rep was apparently really mad, and the appointment was subsequently canceled. That account's buried somewhere on the R/U/B subforum. I should just make sure - you got your WRW number from NVC, right, when they said they were shipping your materials to Warsaw? My recollection is that it took roughly a week for the Embassy to have physically received the documents; there used to be a 'DHL hack' of tracking your file, but everyone's always took about the same time anyway. My personal take is that 18 days following the last NVC email isn't much to worry about. I'd assume you'd get something by April 1, and if not, that would seem to be a good time to call. Best of luck!

Has anyone from this group seen any movement on anything in the last 20 days? I'm honestly disheartened looking at the online tracker and seeing the groups associated with August having almost no movement whatsoever. Reminiscent of the I-129F debacle for us March 2021 filers. It looks like there's a far greater chance to get the I-485 approved first, the way things are going. I saw on Reddit a comment that USCIS is prioritizing more recent family-based applications. Is this an official statement? Because it's now awfully quiet for those pre-December 2022.