The Rules for the Conditional Permanent Residency Tick Me Off
Jan 9th 2004, 11:21 pm
#1
Just Joined
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Brawley, CA (yeah, where?)
Posts: 9
The Rules for the Conditional Permanent Residency Tick Me Off
I married my US wife June 1 2002, filed August 2002 and had our interview yesterday at the Calexico INS office (sub office of San Diego near where we live). It went great, took about 10 minutes and despite having mounds of paperwork with me the only thing the officer wanted (apart from a new Affadavit of Support) was a copy of my wife's birth certificate - which must have been the one thing I didn't have! But she copied the one she already had and we were approved.
Of course we got stuck with the conditional status which we knew about. But I had misunderstood the two year wait requirement: I thought it was two years from the date of marriage, not two years from the date of approval.
It makes no sense to me why someone who has been unlucky enough to wait two years for their AOS interview is deemed to have proved their marriage is bona fide, whilst we now have to be married for almost 3.5 years to prove we're not trying to fiddle the system. All because our office may have been more efficient.
In the end it makes no difference, we are just so pleased to get to this point and feel somewhat free for a while. But can anyone explain what the thinking is in this rule?
Paul
Of course we got stuck with the conditional status which we knew about. But I had misunderstood the two year wait requirement: I thought it was two years from the date of marriage, not two years from the date of approval.
It makes no sense to me why someone who has been unlucky enough to wait two years for their AOS interview is deemed to have proved their marriage is bona fide, whilst we now have to be married for almost 3.5 years to prove we're not trying to fiddle the system. All because our office may have been more efficient.
In the end it makes no difference, we are just so pleased to get to this point and feel somewhat free for a while. But can anyone explain what the thinking is in this rule?
Paul
Jan 10th 2004, 12:50 am
#2
Concierge
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 46,391
Re: The Rules for the Conditional Permanent Residency Tick Me Off
Because them are the rules? It helps to weed out fraud at least it did at the time of the institution of the regulation. Those were the days, I believe, when AOS based on marriage to a USC took only a few months to accomplish. Like in '98 if you lived in the Boston, Philly or Pittsburg areas you filed and were adjusted within 3 to 6 months from application. If you were a K-1 and used Detroit, Dallas or Sault Ste. Marie, you adjusted the same day you applied. Hell we adjusted 23 months after our marriage, applied for removal. From start to finish with removal taking 18 months, we had just celebrated our 5th wedding anniversary.
Times have changed and processing now takes years to accomplish but the rule still exists on the books and for now, you must adhere to it.
Rete
Times have changed and processing now takes years to accomplish but the rule still exists on the books and for now, you must adhere to it.
Rete
Originally posted by tangodancer
I married my US wife June 1 2002, filed August 2002 and had our interview yesterday at the Calexico INS office (sub office of San Diego near where we live). It went great, took about 10 minutes and despite having mounds of paperwork with me the only thing the officer wanted (apart from a new Affadavit of Support) was a copy of my wife's birth certificate - which must have been the one thing I didn't have! But she copied the one she already had and we were approved.
Of course we got stuck with the conditional status which we knew about. But I had misunderstood the two year wait requirement: I thought it was two years from the date of marriage, not two years from the date of approval.
It makes no sense to me why someone who has been unlucky enough to wait two years for their AOS interview is deemed to have proved their marriage is bona fide, whilst we now have to be married for almost 3.5 years to prove we're not trying to fiddle the system. All because our office may have been more efficient.
In the end it makes no difference, we are just so pleased to get to this point and feel somewhat free for a while. But can anyone explain what the thinking is in this rule?
Paul
I married my US wife June 1 2002, filed August 2002 and had our interview yesterday at the Calexico INS office (sub office of San Diego near where we live). It went great, took about 10 minutes and despite having mounds of paperwork with me the only thing the officer wanted (apart from a new Affadavit of Support) was a copy of my wife's birth certificate - which must have been the one thing I didn't have! But she copied the one she already had and we were approved.
Of course we got stuck with the conditional status which we knew about. But I had misunderstood the two year wait requirement: I thought it was two years from the date of marriage, not two years from the date of approval.
It makes no sense to me why someone who has been unlucky enough to wait two years for their AOS interview is deemed to have proved their marriage is bona fide, whilst we now have to be married for almost 3.5 years to prove we're not trying to fiddle the system. All because our office may have been more efficient.
In the end it makes no difference, we are just so pleased to get to this point and feel somewhat free for a while. But can anyone explain what the thinking is in this rule?
Paul
Jan 10th 2004, 1:17 am
#3
Forum Regular
Joined: Jul 2002
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Posts: 146
Re: The Rules for the Conditional Permanent Residency Tick Me Off
Originally posted by tangodancer
I married my US wife June 1 2002, filed August 2002 and had our interview yesterday at the Calexico INS office (sub office of San Diego near where we live). It went great, took about 10 minutes and despite having mounds of paperwork with me the only thing the officer wanted (apart from a new Affadavit of Support) was a copy of my wife's birth certificate - which must have been the one thing I didn't have! But she copied the one she already had and we were approved.
Of course we got stuck with the conditional status which we knew about. But I had misunderstood the two year wait requirement: I thought it was two years from the date of marriage, not two years from the date of approval.
It makes no sense to me why someone who has been unlucky enough to wait two years for their AOS interview is deemed to have proved their marriage is bona fide, whilst we now have to be married for almost 3.5 years to prove we're not trying to fiddle the system. All because our office may have been more efficient.
In the end it makes no difference, we are just so pleased to get to this point and feel somewhat free for a while. But can anyone explain what the thinking is in this rule?
Paul
I married my US wife June 1 2002, filed August 2002 and had our interview yesterday at the Calexico INS office (sub office of San Diego near where we live). It went great, took about 10 minutes and despite having mounds of paperwork with me the only thing the officer wanted (apart from a new Affadavit of Support) was a copy of my wife's birth certificate - which must have been the one thing I didn't have! But she copied the one she already had and we were approved.
Of course we got stuck with the conditional status which we knew about. But I had misunderstood the two year wait requirement: I thought it was two years from the date of marriage, not two years from the date of approval.
It makes no sense to me why someone who has been unlucky enough to wait two years for their AOS interview is deemed to have proved their marriage is bona fide, whilst we now have to be married for almost 3.5 years to prove we're not trying to fiddle the system. All because our office may have been more efficient.
In the end it makes no difference, we are just so pleased to get to this point and feel somewhat free for a while. But can anyone explain what the thinking is in this rule?
Paul
Steve
Jan 10th 2004, 2:07 am
#4
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,430
Re: The Rules for the Conditional Permanent Residency Tick Me Off
Originally posted by tangodancer
I thought it was two years from the date of marriage, not two years from the date of approval.
I thought it was two years from the date of marriage, not two years from the date of approval.
All because our office may have been more efficient.
Jan 10th 2004, 2:16 am
#5
Account Closed
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,266
Re: The Rules for the Conditional Permanent Residency Tick Me Off
Originally posted by tangodancer
I married my US wife June 1 2002, filed August 2002 and had our interview yesterday at the Calexico INS office (sub office of San Diego near where we live). It went great, took about 10 minutes and despite having mounds of paperwork with me the only thing the officer wanted (apart from a new Affadavit of Support) was a copy of my wife's birth certificate - which must have been the one thing I didn't have! But she copied the one she already had and we were approved.
Of course we got stuck with the conditional status which we knew about. But I had misunderstood the two year wait requirement: I thought it was two years from the date of marriage, not two years from the date of approval.
It makes no sense to me why someone who has been unlucky enough to wait two years for their AOS interview is deemed to have proved their marriage is bona fide, whilst we now have to be married for almost 3.5 years to prove we're not trying to fiddle the system. All because our office may have been more efficient.
In the end it makes no difference, we are just so pleased to get to this point and feel somewhat free for a while. But can anyone explain what the thinking is in this rule?
Paul
I married my US wife June 1 2002, filed August 2002 and had our interview yesterday at the Calexico INS office (sub office of San Diego near where we live). It went great, took about 10 minutes and despite having mounds of paperwork with me the only thing the officer wanted (apart from a new Affadavit of Support) was a copy of my wife's birth certificate - which must have been the one thing I didn't have! But she copied the one she already had and we were approved.
Of course we got stuck with the conditional status which we knew about. But I had misunderstood the two year wait requirement: I thought it was two years from the date of marriage, not two years from the date of approval.
It makes no sense to me why someone who has been unlucky enough to wait two years for their AOS interview is deemed to have proved their marriage is bona fide, whilst we now have to be married for almost 3.5 years to prove we're not trying to fiddle the system. All because our office may have been more efficient.
In the end it makes no difference, we are just so pleased to get to this point and feel somewhat free for a while. But can anyone explain what the thinking is in this rule?
Paul
A majority of the House of Representatives voted for it. A majority of the Senate voted for it. It happened on the last day of the legislative session when the bill surfaced with no debate or prior committee hearings and there was a voice vote on "are you opposed to immigration marriage fraud?" Ronadl Reagan signed the thing.
What more do you need?
"The answer is easy if you take it logically." Paul Simon
Jan 10th 2004, 2:22 am
#6
Forum Regular
Joined: Jul 2002
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Posts: 146
Re: The Rules for the Conditional Permanent Residency Tick Me Off
Originally posted by sphyrapicus
I have also reported that there is a rumor that Sen Chuck Schumer of NY wants to make it so conditions can't be removed until the couple has been married for 10 years.
I have also reported that there is a rumor that Sen Chuck Schumer of NY wants to make it so conditions can't be removed until the couple has been married for 10 years.
Steve
Jan 10th 2004, 3:07 am
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The Rules for the Conditional Permanent Residency Tick Me Off
Folinskyinla wrote:
> A majority of the House of Representatives voted for it. A majority of
> the Senate voted for it. It happened on the last day of the
> legislative session when the bill surfaced with no debate or prior
> committee hearings and there was a voice vote on "are you opposed to
> immigration marriage fraud?" Ronadl Reagan signed the thing.
> What more do you need?
A more responsible government! ;-)
--
I wasn't born a bitch. Men like you made me this way.
> A majority of the House of Representatives voted for it. A majority of
> the Senate voted for it. It happened on the last day of the
> legislative session when the bill surfaced with no debate or prior
> committee hearings and there was a voice vote on "are you opposed to
> immigration marriage fraud?" Ronadl Reagan signed the thing.
> What more do you need?
A more responsible government! ;-)
--
I wasn't born a bitch. Men like you made me this way.
Jan 10th 2004, 11:45 am
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The Rules for the Conditional Permanent Residency Tick Me Off
> It makes no sense to me why someone who has been unlucky enough to wait
> two years for their AOS interview is deemed to have proved their
> marriage is bona fide, whilst we now have to be married for almost 3.5
> years to prove we're not trying to fiddle the system. All because our
> office may have been more efficient.
It is annoying; in my case I was approved four weeks before our second
anniversary. The interviewer so wanted to give me unconditional status - you
could see her mind working about the possible ways - but there's no leeway.
On the other hand I knew I could have pushed the interview date back to go
over the second anniversary but didn't want to risk it. Getting the
permanent residency was the big thing and, if it came with conditions, so be
it.
The other thing that you didn't mention but is just as ridiculous is that
the naturalization time starts from when you get permanent residency not
from when you apply. That would be fine if the permanent residency
processing times were shorter and a lot more consistent, but it's annoying
when people who got married around the same time I did are already eligible
for citizenship but I have to wait another year to apply just because my
office was slower processing the paperwork!
Oh well, I don't usually moan about this so that will be my gripe for the
year!
Andy
--
I'm not really here, it's just your warped imagination
> two years for their AOS interview is deemed to have proved their
> marriage is bona fide, whilst we now have to be married for almost 3.5
> years to prove we're not trying to fiddle the system. All because our
> office may have been more efficient.
It is annoying; in my case I was approved four weeks before our second
anniversary. The interviewer so wanted to give me unconditional status - you
could see her mind working about the possible ways - but there's no leeway.
On the other hand I knew I could have pushed the interview date back to go
over the second anniversary but didn't want to risk it. Getting the
permanent residency was the big thing and, if it came with conditions, so be
it.
The other thing that you didn't mention but is just as ridiculous is that
the naturalization time starts from when you get permanent residency not
from when you apply. That would be fine if the permanent residency
processing times were shorter and a lot more consistent, but it's annoying
when people who got married around the same time I did are already eligible
for citizenship but I have to wait another year to apply just because my
office was slower processing the paperwork!
Oh well, I don't usually moan about this so that will be my gripe for the
year!
Andy
--
I'm not really here, it's just your warped imagination
Jan 10th 2004, 12:07 pm
#9
Concierge
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 46,391
Re: The Rules for the Conditional Permanent Residency Tick Me Off
We had the same gripe, Andy. Deb and John married four months before us and Deb became a citizen at the time we applied to remove conditions. Same state, different processing timelines.
Rete
Rete
Jan 10th 2004, 6:44 pm
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The Rules for the Conditional Permanent Residency Tick Me Off
Rete wrote:
> We had the same gripe, Andy. Deb and John married four months before us
> and Deb became a citizen at the time we applied to remove conditions.
> Same state, different processing timelines.
>
Just to avoid confusion, due to the subject line, it should be pointed
out that Conditional Permanent Resident status does NOT have anything to
do with the time it takes to file N-400 for citizenship. CPR status
counts for the time as a permanent resident.
> We had the same gripe, Andy. Deb and John married four months before us
> and Deb became a citizen at the time we applied to remove conditions.
> Same state, different processing timelines.
>
Just to avoid confusion, due to the subject line, it should be pointed
out that Conditional Permanent Resident status does NOT have anything to
do with the time it takes to file N-400 for citizenship. CPR status
counts for the time as a permanent resident.
Jan 10th 2004, 7:14 pm
#11
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 709
Re: The Rules for the Conditional Permanent Residency Tick Me Off
I don't get it.
You SWORE a little while ago, to be with someone til death does you apart.
And now you're worried someone is telling you sto stay married a couple more years?
Besdies, very very few people get denied their GC's on their next interview. Even if they get divorced. Relax.
-= nav =-
You SWORE a little while ago, to be with someone til death does you apart.
And now you're worried someone is telling you sto stay married a couple more years?
Besdies, very very few people get denied their GC's on their next interview. Even if they get divorced. Relax.
-= nav =-
Jan 11th 2004, 12:12 am
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The Rules for the Conditional Permanent Residency Tick Me Off
"supernav" <member16283@british_expats.com> wrote:
> And now you're worried someone is telling you sto stay married a couple
> more years?
I don't read that anywhere. In fact the original poster said, "In the end it
makes no difference, we are just so pleased to get to this point and feel
somewhat free for a while. But can anyone explain what the thinking is in
this rule?"
Additionally, as I mentioned, the rules for naturalization mean that you
can't apply as early as someone who happened to be using a faster office for
processing the original I-485.
Andy.
--
I'm not really here, it's just your warped imagination
> And now you're worried someone is telling you sto stay married a couple
> more years?
I don't read that anywhere. In fact the original poster said, "In the end it
makes no difference, we are just so pleased to get to this point and feel
somewhat free for a while. But can anyone explain what the thinking is in
this rule?"
Additionally, as I mentioned, the rules for naturalization mean that you
can't apply as early as someone who happened to be using a faster office for
processing the original I-485.
Andy.
--
I'm not really here, it's just your warped imagination
Jan 11th 2004, 5:23 pm
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The Rules for the Conditional Permanent Residency Tick Me Off
sphyrapicus wrote:
>
> Originally posted by tangodancer
>
> > I thought it was two years from the date of marriage, not two years
> > from the date of approval.
>
> I have argued before that I think the law should be amended such that
> one can petition to remove conditions when the marriage has made it to
> the 2-year point. Given the current delays, I think the spirit and
> intent of the original law has been lost because most couples are not
> getting conditions removed until they have been married 3-4 years (or
> more). I have also reported that there is a rumor that Sen Chuck Schumer
> of NY wants to make it so conditions can't be removed until the couple
> has been married for 10 years.
My guess is that the requirment is written this way because BCIS knows
when a person has become a conditional PR but does not record the
couple's wedding date so they would have to ask for (and potentially
verify) proof of the wedding date (such as a marriage certificate) in
addition to the proof required to remove the conditions.
>
> Originally posted by tangodancer
>
> > I thought it was two years from the date of marriage, not two years
> > from the date of approval.
>
> I have argued before that I think the law should be amended such that
> one can petition to remove conditions when the marriage has made it to
> the 2-year point. Given the current delays, I think the spirit and
> intent of the original law has been lost because most couples are not
> getting conditions removed until they have been married 3-4 years (or
> more). I have also reported that there is a rumor that Sen Chuck Schumer
> of NY wants to make it so conditions can't be removed until the couple
> has been married for 10 years.
My guess is that the requirment is written this way because BCIS knows
when a person has become a conditional PR but does not record the
couple's wedding date so they would have to ask for (and potentially
verify) proof of the wedding date (such as a marriage certificate) in
addition to the proof required to remove the conditions.
