Randy W

Come on, guys !! Read what you're posting! SSI is Supplemental Security Income, a monthly stipend paid to the aged. You must report all changes in income, and any time you leave the US for more than 30 days, etc., etc., etc., in addition to the immigration status. You won't be drawing benefits for a few years yet.

But my wife is already work authorized (and her card reads "Valid for employment only with DHS authorization", and NOT "Not valid for Emplyment" - her work eligibility will not change. They're not getting us in line again, for what is apparently cosmetic reasons. There are always jerks who might give you trouble over the notation - if you can have it removed easily, go for it. Here in Houston, it's a 1/2 day process. No, thanks.

Congratulations, and good luck!

stereotype much? technically you are correct, the majority are Latino but not overwhelmingly so. 81% may or may not be "overwhelming" - it's still a lot

it doesn't sound very positive about them either. but when the current immigration bill is primarily concerned with illegal immigration, most all of whom happen to be Latino, too true.

The I-693 page now contains a link to it (not fillable) - look in the upper right corner of the page.

I nominate this for inclusion on Curt's Greatest Hits.

About obtaining a replacement they say I didn't find anything about removing the "legend", as they refer to it. They're going to have to try harder than that to get us to wait in line again. Found this: I think they're simply required by law (20CFR 422.103) to put that legend there.

For the i-134, exactly. i have no idea if I am supposed to notarize the tax statements. Seems strange to do that, since they're already signed and processed a while ago. What is the notary supposed to be verifying on the tax statements? No - he's asking if they need notarization - and, no, they don't. Only the I-134 itself.

"Ta Ma Da" is a Chinese slang. When someone got angry/mad, they will say out to curse you. Ying was really surprised when she heard me use this. I found it one day studying my Chinese dictionary. Says there that it means "Damn it". But like with most Chinese, I think it is difficult, if not impossible, to translate literally. ABC Chinese-English dictionary says, "damn it! F@!k! S#%t!" - a little more explicitly

Yeah - when you first enter the country, there's a period of time before you show up in the DHS database. The SSA will not give you a number during this time. Then, when you get the number, there's a period of time before it shows up as a valid number. This can be exacerbated by someone looking in an old database. This is most likely what happened in the first link. The "restriction" means simply that it was given to someone who did not have a green card - nothing more.

Employers must fill out an I-9 to verify green card or EAD - Social Security does not authorize employment. But yes, it may be desirable to remove that notation. Considering the lines at the Houston area offices, though, we probably won't bother. In our area, employers are happy just to see that you're legal.

But that "restriction" doesn't actually restrict anything. The "restricted" card is good for everything that the unrestricted card is.

I'm going to have to speak up here, not to disagree with Feathers - I don't at all - but the overwhelming bias here on CFL is in favor of being there for the interview. There are also reasons why someone may not be there for the interview - it's a personal decision, like Ron says - and they don't need to feel like they're leaving their SO out in the lurch for it. Using your vacation time and money to it's best benefit is a consideration - if saving your vacation time for the interview leaves a large gap in between visits, that won't necessarily look good. The typical "use it or lose it" vacation policy of American companies can make this hard to juggle. Maybe someone is especially confident in their SO's ability to handle the interview, and would rather save the vacation time for after the arrival. You have to juggle the various factors and come up with what's best for you. Yes, being there for the interview is good, but not always the appropriate choice for everyone.

There are two timers here - one, the "unlawful presence" timer, the other the court calendar. The "unlawful presence" timer doesn't seem to enter the picture, since it would only bar him from the US for a period of 3 years, not nearly as long as it would take us to get an approved I-130. If we establish at the court hearing that he legally applied for AOS (the laws they quote say that he did) before his 21st birthday, then it shouldn't be a problem at all. What the NTA (Notice to Appear) says is that as of Feb 28, he has been here without authorization, that the K-2 is only a temporary visa. Basically, according to them, Feb 28 was his last legal day in the US. My first thought was that we would have to get him out of the country before the hearing, that "removal" would be a big black mark on his record. In actuality, it's an opportunity to present your case, with one possible outcome a court-ordered AOS. At the opposite end, worst case is voluntary removal. All we need is a lawyer who can argue the case for a 21 yr old K-2. They seem to be a lot fewer and farther-between than I thought they would be. Who is Mr Folinsky? I have talked with Curtis about lawyers, but am so far wanting a local (Houston) one - one I don't have to argue my case to, hopefully, but I'm not above doing that.

The policy these days seems to be to not give the stamp. The ED card will provide identification as a legal alien until the green card arrives. Congratulations!

There's a program on daily on the Phoenix North American Network called Let's Talk in English, if you get that channel.

If you need some reading material, here's the thread where the K-2 age-out situation came up.

The notice claims that he overstayed his K-2 visa as of Feb. 28. That, as of that date, he no longer has "permission" from the USCIS to stay in the country. This completely ignores the fact that the INA very explicitly and by ANYONE's interpretation allowed him to apply for AOS as a child (under 21), and that that would extend the "permission" up to the date of the interview (April 16) or denial. The hearing on the 26th is actually a Master Calendar hearing, for which we simply show up, announce that we have a lawyer, and need an interpreter. A date would then be scheduled for an actual hearing. As I understand it now, one possible outcome of that hearing might be to require the USCIS to adjudicate his case. Right now, though, it's languishing due to the lack of a lawyer who is familiar with the K-2 situation

Leave it to Jim to show up the rest of us like that. It's good to see you going all out for this one, guy!

If hired, she can work.

Be sure to find it and use it - we've heard of people being issued as many as 3 different A#'s. It will help keep your paperwork together.

http://bergoiata.org/gif/Feu4.gif Congratulations !! http://i1.tinypic.com/3ygwmdz.gif

"Free clinics" have been available since the sixties, especially in university areas. They have little to do with either insurance or the traditional medical establishment. Some of our members have reported using them for the vaccinations needed for AOS.

What you need to do is to look into free clinics and anything that you ARE eligible for - not what you're NOT eligible for. Poor people and illegal aliens have babies all the time, some using free and public clinics.