New change to the aos policy?

[Dandan2018]

https://qz.com/1323136/a-uscis-immigration-policy-change-threatens-non-citizens-with-deportation-if-they-lose-status/

[longee94]

https://qz.com/1323136/a-uscis-immig...y-lose-status/

My interpretation is that the change in policy isn't a huge one. It doesn't seem to increase the liklyhood of a denial, just the aftermath of one.

[Shae]

This is scary, how will this effect those in our situation..... legally married to a USC

[Tezza]

This is scary, how will this effect those in our situation..... legally married to a USC

If you are denied when doing AOS, then you're likely to be put into deportation proceedings, especially if (as a lot of people are considering how long it can take for the whole process) you're out of status at that time.

[Plz]

We need to pray for Democrats to take the house and senate in November. This is getting really scary especially for people who already have family established.

[longee94]

We need to pray for Democrats to take the house and senate in November. This is getting really scary especially for people who already have family established.

I doubt that will do much given USCIS policy is set by the Executive Branch. Additionally, even if the Democrats recapture the White House, and there is a political desire to, it will take a long time for them to undo the policys of the Trump administration.

[cali2018]

Every single case in there was the law before and the law now. Simply that was not the focus before it now is, you can blame it on trump but this is a long 16 year trend to reach here. All the current democratic leaders support keeping ICE around and no drastic changes.

You need to look at Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, if you want drastic changes. A socialist who says throw out the rule book. Sadly then you supporting a much more left view than current democrats.

[azblk]

Every single case in there was the law before and the law now. Simply that was not the focus before it now is, you can blame it on trump but this is a long 16 year trend to reach here. All the current democratic leaders support keeping ICE around and no drastic changes.

You need to look at Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, if you want drastic changes. A socialist who says throw out the rule book. Sadly then you supporting a much more left view than current democrats.

There is no change in the law but this is a huge change in policy. Before USCIS had the desecration on whom to issue an NOA but now basically everyone whose AOS is denied. USCIS routinely denies AOS for mundane reasons but because they did not place everyone denied in removal it gaves the applicants time to cure the issue and reapply. Now when everyone denied is placed in removal it means they cant AOS without going through a court meaning more money, time and issues.
Also to AOS in court the ICE prosecutors have to drop/close your deportation case - The justice department has instructed them not to.

So while this may look like a small change the repercussions of it are very serious and far reaching - some one could end up in removal for lost mail or delayed RFE.

[UScitizenFilingforspouse]

https://qz.com/1323136/a-uscis-immig...y-lose-status/

Always go straight to the horse's mouth for information. Here's the horse's mouth. https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/...nce-of-NTA.pdf

Whoever wrote the blog entry clearly either skimmed through the Policy memorandum or read a paragraph or two, and then proceeded to extrapolate from his lack of understanding of the policy. Not a whole lot is changing. What I read on the memo is not what I read on that blog entry.

Bottom line is that people who obtain green cards should strive to be productive members of society. There are all these people who get involved in shady behavior and affairs, and then wonder why their N-400s are denied or delayed.

The memo mostly refers to cases that do not involve discretion.

[longee94]

Always go straight to the horse's mouth for information. Here's the horse's mouth. https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/...nce-of-NTA.pdf

Whoever wrote the blog entry clearly either skimmed through the Policy memorandum or read a paragraph or two, and then proceeded to extrapolate from his lack of understanding of the policy. Not a whole lot is changing. What I read on the memo is not what I read on that blog entry.

Bottom line is that people who obtain green cards should strive to be productive members of society. There are all these people who get involved in shady behavior and affairs, and then wonder why their N-400s are denied or delayed.

The memo mostly refers to cases that do not involve discretion.

That was pretty much my interpretation of the blog post. Seemed to overemphasize and misrepresent the policy memorandum. I also think its important to put any changes in policy in the context of actual AOS denials. If you breakdown USCIS statistics (Q1 2018) for family based AOS, they show that the vast majority of cases, 63,872, were approved. This compared to the 7,797 that were denied. That gives an approval rate of approximatly 88%. Recognizing this, everyone should be resonably confident that despite policy changes and an administration that seems to be cracking down on immigration, both legal and illegal, the stastics favour a sucessful outcome.

[newacct]

Always go straight to the horse's mouth for information. Here's the horse's mouth. https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/...nce-of-NTA.pdf

Whoever wrote the blog entry clearly either skimmed through the Policy memorandum or read a paragraph or two, and then proceeded to extrapolate from his lack of understanding of the policy. Not a whole lot is changing. What I read on the memo is not what I read on that blog entry.

Bottom line is that people who obtain green cards should strive to be productive members of society. There are all these people who get involved in shady behavior and affairs, and then wonder why their N-400s are denied or delayed.

The memo mostly refers to cases that do not involve discretion.

Which part of the blog post do you claim to be inaccurate?

[UScitizenFilingforspouse]

Which part of the blog post do you claim to be inaccurate?

LOL, no, thank you. You'll probably find some case in which the complainant filed a lawsuit with the wrong agency and his case was dismissed, in order to make your point. Like ... here https://www.immihelp.com/forum/showt...egal+employers

[josger]

LOL, no, thank you. You'll probably find some case in which the complainant filed a lawsuit with the wrong agency and his case was dismissed, in order to make your point. Like ... here https://www.immihelp.com/forum/showt...egal+employers

Im lost. Did you reply to the wrong post by accident?

[cali2018]

The blog post is massively biased. Totally picking information to make their point. The author is saying if you elected "hilary" and "pelosi", nothing would happen. Again two politicians who for eons, supported allowing ICE to grow as an agency and gain more power.

So yes if the author's goal is, vote for the other party because if you miss an RFE your spouse is at risk to be deported within 24 hours. Versus actually analyzing the true issues at the heart of the converstation sure.

[newacct]

LOL, no, thank you. You'll probably find some case in which the complainant filed a lawsuit with the wrong agency and his case was dismissed, in order to make your point. Like ... here https://www.immihelp.com/forum/showt...egal+employers

Are you using your own misreading of a case I posted in another thread to attack me in a completely unrelated thread?

For your information, if you are talking about the first case I cited, 12 OCAHO no. 1287, the case contained exactly what I said it would; you just missed it and read the wrong part. The person in that case filed 2 claims. One, based on national origin discrimination, was filed with the wrong agency, but I never talked about national origin discrimination. The other claim, based on citizenship status discrimination, was dismissed because as an EAD holder he was not a "protected individual" for citizenship status discrimination, and was therefore ineligible to file such a discrimination claim, which was exactly what I said in describing the case.