Susanna

I have been trying to call the lady in question and nothing yet?
But she told me that she had, is it 151 stamp? in her passport and that she had been told her green card would be hear within the next 6 months?
But as mentioned she will still have to get her ex-husband to attend the interview for the final green card right?

jeffreyhy

Susana,

No.

Regards, JEff

Susanna

Jeff what does she do then? I am now curious what happens ?whats the process, I will need to know myself one day fingers crossed....so you get your conditional recidency and passport stamp then what please.
I have never seen the actual process written down from A-B in respect of what to expect yes timelines I have seen but an actual account of the whole AOS process??? in detail.

Andrew DeFaria

Susanna wrote:

    >> Actually they do work - they're working the system as it were. And
    >> yes I will voice my opinion that this is wrong each and everytime
    >> regardless of what you say about it.
    > If you can't be kind, at least have the decency to be vague.

Are you suggesting that I be kind to people who are ripping off the
system?!? Sorry madam but I will not. They are ripping you and me off.
Now maybe you don't care that they are ripping you off but I sure care.
And I rarely think of being vague as virtuous.

    > I have been trying to call the lady in question and nothing yet? But
    > she told me that she had, is it 151 stamp? in her passport and that
    > she had been told her green card would be hear within the next 6
    > months? But as mentioned she will still have to get her ex-husband to
    > attend the interview for the final green card right?

I'm not sure if she needs her ex there or not. I believe she should be
able to self petition.

--
Why does your gynecologist leave the room when you get undressed?

Susanna

Have I missed something here ????
I never mentioned excepting anyone ripping anyone off.

jeffreyhy

Susana,

She submits an I-751 form in accordance with the instructions for someone who is divorced from her USC spouse. Have you and your friend read the instructions that are a part of the I-751 form?

Regards, JEff

Susanna

Well I reckon her Goose is cooked so to speak.
She called last night after I had left messages on her answer phone and I re-laid the comments.

Turns out that the ex to be husband took care of all the paperwork and god knows what he has been up too?

When I had asked her before if she had a stamp in her passport she said YES..... ummmmm yer right a entry stamp... why did I bother?
She has been her neally 3 yrs and only got as far as getting an EAD and a having fingerprints done.
I told her that I reckon Air India may have a ticket with her name on in the near future?

Cheers guys.

Leslie

Andrew DeFaria, you would argue with a stump. I think you have finally gone completely off your rocker. Do you realize that you are attacking your own quote?

"If you can't be kind, at least have the decency to be vague."

This was your tag line. (Remember the funny tag lines that you have at the end of all your posts.) This poor woman (who I'm sure has absolutely no idea what you're talking about) wasn't asking you to be kind or vague. YOU lifted that remark from YOUR own quote.

Furthermore, who is saying anything about ripping off the system? Since when is getting support from your (ex) husband considered ripping off "the system"? Spouses are not "the system" they are family members. MAYBE (if you really want to stretch it) you could say she's trying to rip off a family member. She's not ripping off you or the freaking system. Spousal support, if you ask me, falls under the category of none of your damn business. As far as I can tell, it won't cost ADF a stinking penny. So what exactly is it that you have you gotten your panties all wadded up for?

While we're on the subject.......... What exactly is wrong with holding the spouse accountable to their obligation. He's the one that petitioned for her. He's the one that signed the I-864. Which BTW is a rather official looking document that HE submitted to a rather official looking government employee. What exactly is your argument here? Just because he signed it and submitted it to the United States government doesn't mean he should actually have to honor it? WTF?

Please don't flame me for that last remark. I swear I have nothing against gynecologists.

Susanna

Leslie66 you are a DIAMOND you always put into words what I want to say but can never get the right terminations lol.
Thankyou for your reply I found it very entertaining good on yer

Leslie

Hi Susanna,

You're welcome.

I really was trying to stay out of it, but this thread kept getting kookier and kookier.

FWIW. It was obvious to me (and I'm sure to most other sane people) that you were just trying to lend a helping hand. There was no reason to accuse you of being in cahoots with somebody that is trying to scam the system. Your simple attempt to gather information for another human being should never have been met with such venom.

Leslie

Susanna

Once again Thankyou Leslie you hit the nail on the head lol
Pity others were not so quick of the draw
Your statement was spot on 100%..theres always someone on here who wants to make a 3 course meal out of a starter lol.
I respect your views and opinions on here.
Susanna

Andrew DeFaria

Susanna wrote:

    > Originally posted by Andrew DeFaria
    >> Susanna wrote:
    >>> Actually they do work - they're working the system as it were.
    > And
    >>>> yes I will voice my opinion that this is wrong each
    > and everytime
    >>>> regardless of what you say about it.
    >> If you can't be kind, at least have the decency to be vague.
    >> Are you suggesting that I be kind to people who are ripping off
    > the
    >> system?!? Sorry madam but I will not. They are ripping you and me
    > off.
    >> Now maybe you don't care that they are ripping you off but I
    > sure care.
    >> And I rarely think of being vague as virtuous.
    > I have been trying to call the lady in question and nothing yet? But
    >>> she told me that she had, is it 151 stamp? in her passport
    > and that
    >>> she had been told her green card would be hear
    > within the next 6
    >>> months? But as mentioned she will still
    > have to get her ex-husband to
    >>> attend the interview for the
    > final green card right?
    >> I'm not sure if she needs her ex there
    > or not. I believe she should be
    >> able to self petition.
    >> --
    >> Why
    > does your gynecologist leave the room when you get undressed?
    > Have I missed something here ????
    > I never mentioned excepting anyone
    > ripping anyone off.

Apparently you have missed something. When I say "they are working the
system" I mean they are working the system in a bad way - IOW ripping
people off - people like you and me.
--
Artificial Intelligence usually beats real stupidity.

Andrew DeFaria

Leslie66 wrote:

    > Originally posted by Andrew DeFaria
    >> Susanna wrote:
    >>> Actually they do work - they're working the system as it were.
    > And
    >>>> yes I will voice my opinion that this is wrong each
    > and everytime
    >>>> regardless of what you say about it.
    >> If you can't be kind, at least have the decency to be vague.
    >> Are you suggesting that I be kind to people who are ripping off
    > the
    >> system?!? Sorry madam but I will not. They are ripping you and me
    > off.
    >> Now maybe you don't care that they are ripping you off but I
    > sure care.
    >> And I rarely think of being vague as virtuous.
    > Andrew DeFaria, you would argue with a stump.

Nah - no challenge! :-)

    > I think you have finally gone completely off your rocker. Do you
    > realize that you are attacking your own quote?
    > "If you can't be kind, at least have the decency to be vague."
    > This was your tag line. (Remember the funny tag lines that you have at
    > the end of all your posts.) This poor woman (who I'm sure has
    > absolutely no idea what you're talking about) wasn't asking you to be
    > kind or vague. YOU lifted that remark from YOUR own quote.

No I didn't realize it was my own quote. I have so many of them I don't
pay attention to them as they fly by. Still, and in my defense, the
crazy screwed up quoting that it seems BE has implemented has made it
near impossible for me to tell who said what anymore. I used to be nice
and clean up things - things like removing signature (which some
software does for you as it should - now I don't bother. Can you see the
crud and crazy quoting above.

    > Furthermore, who is saying anything about ripping off the system?

Well, err, I was...

    > Since when is getting support from your (ex) husband considered
    > ripping off "the system"? Spouses are not "the system" they are family
    > members.MAYBE (if you really want to stretch it) you could say she's
    > trying to rip off a family member. She's not ripping off you or the
    > freaking system.

If the marriage was a sham (and it was said that it was but later
corrected to be just an arranged marriage I think) then she should not
be afforded the rights of immigration nor should a USC be on the hook
for supporting somebody who is fraudulently using the system (IMHO). I
cannot tell right now if I posted that before it was discussed that the
marriage was not a sham rather just arranged. I'm in the process of
moving and am living out of hotels and in two cities right now so I
don't have the time to check.

    > Spousal support, if you ask me, falls under the category of none of
    > your damn business. As far as I can tell, it won't cost ADF a stinking
    > penny. So what exactly is it that you have you gotten your panties all
    > wadded up for?

Ah... I don't wear panties! :-[

    > While we're on the subject.......... What exactly is wrong with
    > holding the spouse accountable to their obligation. He's the one that
    > petitioned for her. He's the one that signed the I-864. Which BTW is a
    > rather official looking document that HE submitted to a rather
    > official looking government employee. What exactly is your argument
    > here? Just because he signed it and submitted it to the United States
    > government doesn't mean he should actually have to honor it? WTF?

See above. If it was a sham and he was swindled then do you still think
he should be required to provide support. (Also see above where I admit
that I believe it has been since discussed that it wasn't a sham in the
true sense of that word).

    >> > I have been trying to call the
    > lady in question and nothing yet? But
    >>> she told me that she
    > had, is it 151 stamp? in her passport and that
    >>> she had
    > been told her green card would be hear within the next 6
    > months? But as mentioned she will still have to get her ex-husband to
    >>> attend the interview for the final green card right?
    >> I'm not sure if she needs her ex there or not. I believe she
    > should be
    >> able to self petition.
    >> --
    >> Why does your
    > gynecologist leave the room when you get undressed?
    > Please don't flame me for that last remark. I swear I have nothing
    > against gynecologists.

OK.
--
Why do people point to their wrist when asking for the time, but not to
their crotch when they ask where the toilet is?