Jump to content

JD2

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    453

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Immigration Timeline & Photos

JD2's Achievements

Collaborator

Collaborator (7/14)

  • Very Popular Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Reacting Well

Recent Badges

197

Reputation

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1.    JD2 reacted to a post in a topic: PLEASE HELP!!! Fiancé is here on R B1/B2 visa-doing AOS I-864
  2. JD2
    The title of the post says B1/B2. There is one big problem with consular processing in Ghana. There is a 2+ year wait for an interview.
  3.    appleblossom reacted to a post in a topic: PLEASE HELP!!! Fiancé is here on R B1/B2 visa-doing AOS I-864
  4. JD2 started following Questions about I-130 , PLEASE HELP!!! Fiancé is here on R B1/B2 visa-doing AOS I-864 , Citizenship question and 2 others
  5. JD2
    I-864 is only the form to financially sponsor. You should fill all of these: I-130, I-130A, I-485, I-864, I-765, I-131, and G-1145 (plus forms for your payments). An alternative is to file an I-130 for your spouse then he goes back home and consular processes. He can continue to visit during that time using his visitor visa. I suggest you review the guide here:
  6. JD2
    I just don't see this. I have not been able to find any announcement or news article explaining that this is their goal for this policy. (or that they even have a goal for this policy). I was responding to the previous poster. But the key issue with your theory is it also affects some people who have already done what you say they want them to do. They could have exempted spouses of work visa holders. They didn't. My theory: they just don't like immigrants (both legal and "illegal") so they will do whatever they can get away with to make things harder for immigrants, no matter if it's good policy or not.
  7. JD2
    In your first post you talked about "family based and other immigrant petitions." Now, you're talking about TPS and "grey areas." In any event, I don't see the connection between this policy and encouraging consular processing. Some of the people this affects, such as the spouses of work visa holders, have already gone through consular processing. It also affects asylum seekers and they have no consular processing route. People on TPS have no consular processing route. Who cares if it is legal for Trump to do? It was also legal for Biden to parole in millions of people. Doesn't make it good. The question we should be asking is is it good policy? What are the benefits? I imagine renewals have very low denial rates so what is the point? And how do these unexplained benefits outweigh the costs to employers and lost tax receipts (not to mention the costs to the workers themselves).
  8. JD2
    I don't think you understand who this affects.
  9. JD2
    No one is doing that.
  10. JD2
    Page 5, Part 7, Item 1 of the paper N-400
  11.    JD2 reacted to a post in a topic: Citizenship question
  12. JD2
    I'm not sure if the website will let you enter a future date for the foreign trips in Part 8. Also, just easier for me to print out things than format PDFs. But no real reason other than habit and that's how we did the I-130 and I-751.
  13. JD2
    She'd have to fly back but I think it's highly unlikely. I've never seen a case where the I-751 had biometrics done and they were not reused for N-400.
  14. JD2
    We are thinking of paper filing my spouse's N-400 89 days early based on the 3 year rule. Two weeks before that, we have a foreign trip planned that is a 2 months long. We don't want to wait for our return to file. We're eager to get her citizenship for several reasons including filing for parent. We know our exact departure and return dates so we can fill in those dates in Part 8 of the form. But, the return date would obviously be in the future (after the date of signing the paper N-400). We expect biometrics to be reused because they were just collected less than a year ago for I-751, which was already approved. Does anyone see any issues with this?
  15. JD2
    President's don't "create new law." They can only enforce them differently. And this is a stupid way to enforce the law. I don't know why you think in the previous system EAD renewals were "approved without scrutiny." Per my understanding, the previous system simply gave an auto extension to your EAD after you filed a valid renewal application. They did that because of the huge backlogs and processing times. You can only file 6 months before expiry but often the process took longer so they gave an extension this so there's no gap between expiry and renewal decision. This person already has had an EAD approved once. There's value in avoiding that gap in employment authorization. The obvious value to the applicant, but also to the employer in not losing an employee who they've invested in training, and also to the government in the form payroll tax receipts. How is this new system better? and do you really think those benefits outweigh these costs?
  16.    JD2 reacted to a post in a topic: New Trump Policy Could Make Thousands Of Immigrants Vulnerable To Losing Their Jobs
  17.    JD2 reacted to a post in a topic: New Trump Policy Could Make Thousands Of Immigrants Vulnerable To Losing Their Jobs
  18.    JD2 reacted to a post in a topic: New Trump Policy Could Make Thousands Of Immigrants Vulnerable To Losing Their Jobs
  19.    JD2 reacted to a post in a topic: Questions about I-130
  20. JD2
    So if this person is approved, my spouse wants to go for it and apply 89 days early. The N-400 asks for 3 years of work history so she wants to put her 2 years 9 months of US work history but also the 3 months of employment in home country so if this is an issue at the interview, we can claim involuntary separation. It was exactly 3 months from CR-1 issuance to move to US and those 3 months were due to her business back home so I think we qualify for involuntary separation for those 3 months. 8 CFR 319.1(b)(2)(ii)(C) and 12 USCIS-PM G.2(D)(3) and US. V Onabanjo, 351 F.3d 1064 (11th Cir. 2003) all back us up I believe.
  21. JD2
    I would not do that. Either put the property in both your names or just leave this out. We live with my parents who own our home and it's never been an issue for us. I never put any lease or mortgage in any of our I-130 or I-751.
  22.    JD2 reacted to a post in a topic: Citizenship question
  23.    OldUser reacted to a post in a topic: Citizenship question
  24.    JD2 reacted to a post in a topic: Document Review at the London Embassy
  25.    JD2 reacted to a post in a topic: Amount you owe tax transcript 2024
  26. JD2
    You're mixing me up with the OP
  27.    Rhema1 reacted to a post in a topic: Citizenship question
  28. JD2
    But what was the misrepresentation?
×
×
  • Create New...