Search the Community

My wife's friend has an active asylum petition with the USCIS. I do not know how she qualifies for asylum, all I know is that she applied. Apparently she qualified for a CA driver's license under another circumstance that apparently no longer exists. So in parallel with her asylum application she applied for an EAC, She was denied the EAC. So my wife wants me to contact the USCIS on my wife's friends behalf and ask the USCIS if they can provide documentation to facilitate the renewal of her driver's license. Looking at the list of documentation that the CA DMV accepts, I cannot see anything on the list that the USCIS would be able to provide. Assuming that the CA DMV list is not exhaustive, does anyone know if there is a document that the USCIS could provide her so that she can renew her driver's license. Thank you, -Squonk

ok the deal is a little diffrent than what everyone is use to , but i feel that some one on this site can give me the advise on how to help my chinese friend, please bare with me , and if you can help , everyone will be in your debt, my friends wife came here first , and later he followed, this is the type visa he came over on. 签证 Visas ASYLUM STATUS GRANTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 208 OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT VALID INDEFINITELY EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZED SEA 5005 SEP 19 2009 his wife have got a green card and now he want to get one , but i have no idea what form to tell him he need to file, if anyone , know for sure please let me know,he is a good hard working man with a wonderful family ,thank everyone ,

I guess it's about time I posted this. Leiqin has now been in America over 6 years without returning home. The good news was, she was given Asylum status, so she could stay forever. The bad news was that she could not leave the country and return. She would need her GC first. And, Asylees are put on the lowest priority. They typically may wait up to 8 years before receiving their GC. So, my first priority after marrying was to adjust her status, get her GC and send her back to China. We had our AOS interview last May. We're told the usual "Wait 6 months and if you haven't heard anything contact us." So we waited. Everyday expectantly checking the mail - nothing. November we have an INFOPASS interview. The officer tells us her biometrics has expired. Everything is on hold until she gets fingerprinted again. He could tell the look of disgust, disappointment and dispair on my face. I asked, "What do we do now?" Leaning down and putting my ear next to the opening at the bottom of the 1" thick plexiglas, I tried my best to hear what he said. I was happy to hear that he scheduled her for another fingerprinting not far from where we were in downtown LA today. I asked him what do we do after the fingerprinting and how long do we wait for her GC. He said something about scheduling another interview. I asked, "INFOPASS?" I think he said NO, schedule with another interviewing officer, but this is where I am confused. I really don't want to have to go through another year just to learn that there's something else missing. What do we do now, just wait? Any suggestions, information, advice would be appreciated. Thanks

I will be making an appointment with my Immigration Attorney to complete LeiQin's immigration paperwork, if necessary. She has now shown me these documents for her and her son: I-797C Notice of Action papers that state the Dept of Homeland Security have received their I485 Application to Adjust to Permanent Resident Status. This was received on April 18, 2005. Notice type: Section: Asylee adjustment. Questions: Are her and her son now awaiting their green cards? What is the next step in the process? Now that she is residing with me, what is the best way to notify the USCIS about her address change?

washingtonpost.com Refugee, Asylum Programs to Stop Surcharge Funding Them Eliminated By George Lardner Jr. Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, January 22, 2003; Page A04 The government's asylum and refugee resettlement programs, which draw about 120,000 applicants a year, will be halted on Friday because of a last-minute change in the homeland security law that will leave them without funding. Some officials at the Immigration and Naturalization Service and immigration advocates said they were unaware of the problem until this past week. According to an aide to Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), it could have a much wider impact at the start, resulting in the temporary suspension of work on applications for other immigration benefits, from naturalization to work permits, permanent resident status, green cards and more. "Probably tens of thousands of applications would be held up," said Esther Olavarria, Kennedy's chief immigration counsel. INS officials said they think they can overcome that difficulty quickly, but they were less certain about the prospects for the refugee and asylum programs. Under current law, applicants for other immigration benefits pay a fee that covers the cost of processing their applications. They also pay a surcharge that funds the handling of the applications of refugees overseas and of asylum seekers who are already in the United States, all of whom claim to be the victims of persecution in their countries. "We're talking about tens of millions of dollars," an INS official, who asked not to be named, said last night of the surcharge. He said he could not be more precise at that moment. Immigration advocates have long been lobbying for the elimination of the surcharge and for the government to pick up the tab. They thought they had succeeded last year when both House and Senate versions of the homeland security bill contained provisions directing the INS to end the surcharge, which averaged about $50 an applicant, and authorizing the appropriation of "such sums as may be necessary" to pick up the slack. But in the final hours of cutting and pasting that preceded the bill's passage in November, the language authorizing the appropriation was scuttled while the section ending the surcharge was retained. Some immigration experts outside the government suggested yesterday that the change might have been inadvertent. Congressional aides, both Democratic and Republican, as well as INS officials said resistance from "appropriators" led to the deletion. It was less clear if the retention of the language eliminating the surcharge -- and thus all funding for the two programs -- was also deliberate. "This action was passed by the Congress as part of the Homeland Security Act of 2002," INS spokesman Bill Strassberger said. "We recognize that this presents problems, but we will be working closely with Congress to resolve this issue as quickly as possible." Aides to Kennedy and to Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said the lawmakers are committed to making sure that the refugee and asylum programs are adequately funded. Olavarria has been working to add an amendment to the omnibus appropriations bill now on the Senate floor, perhaps by striking the provision eliminating the surcharge or by delaying its effective date. Friday, however, is the day the new law goes into effect, and Justice Department lawyers have told the INS that it must adopt a new fee schedule, effective immediately. INS officials confirmed last night that they will be required to reduce application fees by an average of $50, or by 25 percent. For example, they said, a green card application fee of $255 will be lowered to about $186, and a work permit application fee will be reduced from $120 to $88. Olavarria said she had been told that any applications with checks for the higher amounts would have to be rejected. "INS gets thousands of applications like this on a given day," she said, "so processing of them will grind to a halt." However, INS officials said they are planning to set up a system of providing refunds rather then rejecting the applications. "We are aware of that problem, and there are no plans to reject the application if they overpay the fee," one said. "We are not planning to stop the processing of asylum or refugee applications, either. We will just have to find funds from some other source." He acknowledged that a source could not be found by Friday. � 2003 The Washington Post Company