returned I-485
Jun 4th 2003, 6:39 am
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
returned I-485
My wife's adjustment of status (I-485) has been returned as incomplete
due to:
x, translation of her birth certificate cannot be done by applicant or
applicant's spouse
x, no proof of legal entry into US (copy of I-94)
This is very aggravating because I don't recall reading either of those
in the instructions.
But, it is easy enough to resubmit with the I-94...my question is in
regards to her birth certificate...
Does the translator have to be certified through BCIS or can it be a
third-party acquaintence?
Thanks for any answer.
Matthew
due to:
x, translation of her birth certificate cannot be done by applicant or
applicant's spouse
x, no proof of legal entry into US (copy of I-94)
This is very aggravating because I don't recall reading either of those
in the instructions.
But, it is easy enough to resubmit with the I-94...my question is in
regards to her birth certificate...
Does the translator have to be certified through BCIS or can it be a
third-party acquaintence?
Thanks for any answer.
Matthew
Jun 4th 2003, 1:23 pm
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: returned I-485
On Wed, 04 Jun 2003 14:39:36 -0400, Matthew Jones wrote:
> My wife's adjustment of status (I-485) has been returned as incomplete
> due to:
>
> x, translation of her birth certificate cannot be done by applicant or
> applicant's spouse
>
> x, no proof of legal entry into US (copy of I-94)
>
> This is very aggravating because I don't recall reading either of those
> in the instructions.
>
> But, it is easy enough to resubmit with the I-94...my question is in
> regards to her birth certificate...
>
> Does the translator have to be certified through BCIS or can it be a
> third-party acquaintence?
That surprises me, too; such translations used to be acceptable. I think
at this point it is safer to pay for a professional translator.
--
Remember, I am strictly a layperson without any legal training. I encourage
everybody to seek competent legal counsel rather than relying on usenet
newsgroups.
Please visit my new FAQ at http://www.kkeane.com (still under construction)
My email address in usenet posts is now invalid for spam protection. See
my Web site for information on how to contact me.
Please feel free to enjoy some of my photographs at my new Web site
http://www.ingopakleppa.com ! Comments are welcome.
> My wife's adjustment of status (I-485) has been returned as incomplete
> due to:
>
> x, translation of her birth certificate cannot be done by applicant or
> applicant's spouse
>
> x, no proof of legal entry into US (copy of I-94)
>
> This is very aggravating because I don't recall reading either of those
> in the instructions.
>
> But, it is easy enough to resubmit with the I-94...my question is in
> regards to her birth certificate...
>
> Does the translator have to be certified through BCIS or can it be a
> third-party acquaintence?
That surprises me, too; such translations used to be acceptable. I think
at this point it is safer to pay for a professional translator.
--
Remember, I am strictly a layperson without any legal training. I encourage
everybody to seek competent legal counsel rather than relying on usenet
newsgroups.
Please visit my new FAQ at http://www.kkeane.com (still under construction)
My email address in usenet posts is now invalid for spam protection. See
my Web site for information on how to contact me.
Please feel free to enjoy some of my photographs at my new Web site
http://www.ingopakleppa.com ! Comments are welcome.
Jun 4th 2003, 5:53 pm
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: returned I-485
In article , "Ingo Pakleppa"
wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jun 2003 14:39:36 -0400, Matthew Jones wrote:
>
> > My wife's adjustment of status (I-485) has been returned as incomplete
> > due to:
> >
> > x, translation of her birth certificate cannot be done by applicant or
> > applicant's spouse
> >
> > x, no proof of legal entry into US (copy of I-94)
> >
> > This is very aggravating because I don't recall reading either of those
> > in the instructions.
> >
> > But, it is easy enough to resubmit with the I-94...my question is in
> > regards to her birth certificate...
> >
> > Does the translator have to be certified through BCIS or can it be a
> > third-party acquaintence?
>
> That surprises me, too; such translations used to be acceptable. I think
> at this point it is safer to pay for a professional translator.
>
At a very minimum, follow the BCIS guideline for having the translation
marked with a statement of proficiency of the translator in both the
language being translated and in English. A signature and/or printed name
is also recommended. Following Ingo's advice is the best way, but be sure
there is such a statement attached, stamped on the document or the like.
Bob
wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jun 2003 14:39:36 -0400, Matthew Jones wrote:
>
> > My wife's adjustment of status (I-485) has been returned as incomplete
> > due to:
> >
> > x, translation of her birth certificate cannot be done by applicant or
> > applicant's spouse
> >
> > x, no proof of legal entry into US (copy of I-94)
> >
> > This is very aggravating because I don't recall reading either of those
> > in the instructions.
> >
> > But, it is easy enough to resubmit with the I-94...my question is in
> > regards to her birth certificate...
> >
> > Does the translator have to be certified through BCIS or can it be a
> > third-party acquaintence?
>
> That surprises me, too; such translations used to be acceptable. I think
> at this point it is safer to pay for a professional translator.
>
At a very minimum, follow the BCIS guideline for having the translation
marked with a statement of proficiency of the translator in both the
language being translated and in English. A signature and/or printed name
is also recommended. Following Ingo's advice is the best way, but be sure
there is such a statement attached, stamped on the document or the like.
Bob
Jun 7th 2003, 4:00 pm
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: returned I-485
[email protected] wrote:
> In article , "Ingo Pakleppa"
> wrote:
>
>
>>On Wed, 04 Jun 2003 14:39:36 -0400, Matthew Jones wrote:
>>>My wife's adjustment of status (I-485) has been returned as incomplete
>>>due to:
>>>x, translation of her birth certificate cannot be done by applicant or
>>>applicant's spouse
>>>x, no proof of legal entry into US (copy of I-94)
>>>This is very aggravating because I don't recall reading either of those
>>>in the instructions.
>>>But, it is easy enough to resubmit with the I-94...my question is in
>>>regards to her birth certificate...
>>>Does the translator have to be certified through BCIS or can it be a
>>>third-party acquaintence?
>>That surprises me, too; such translations used to be acceptable. I think
>>at this point it is safer to pay for a professional translator.
>
> At a very minimum, follow the BCIS guideline for having the translation
> marked with a statement of proficiency of the translator in both the
> language being translated and in English. A signature and/or printed name
> is also recommended. Following Ingo's advice is the best way, but be sure
> there is such a statement attached, stamped on the document or the like.
>
> Bob
It's perfectly fine to have a third party acquaintance do it. You just
can't do it yourself because you are an interested party.
The third party should put the following language on the translated
document:
"I declare that I am competent to translate from [language] to English
and that the foregoing translation is true, complete and accurate."
Then the translator should sign, date, and print his/her name. That's it.
No notarial acknowledgment or jurat needed, and the translation need not
be under penalty of perjury.
The instructions are quite clear that an I-94 or other proof of status
must be submitted. I agree that they don't literally say "you can't
translate the documents yourself". That seems an obvious point to me,
but I agree that the instructions could have been more explicit about it.
--
Above intended as general commentary, not legal advice.
Your mileage may vary.
================================================== =============
Jonathan McNeil Wong Voice: 510-451-0544
Donahue Gallagher Woods LLP Facsimile: 510-832-1486
P.O. Box 12979 URL: http://www.donahue.com
Oakland, CA 94604-2979 E-mail: [email protected]
================================================== =============
> In article , "Ingo Pakleppa"
> wrote:
>
>
>>On Wed, 04 Jun 2003 14:39:36 -0400, Matthew Jones wrote:
>>>My wife's adjustment of status (I-485) has been returned as incomplete
>>>due to:
>>>x, translation of her birth certificate cannot be done by applicant or
>>>applicant's spouse
>>>x, no proof of legal entry into US (copy of I-94)
>>>This is very aggravating because I don't recall reading either of those
>>>in the instructions.
>>>But, it is easy enough to resubmit with the I-94...my question is in
>>>regards to her birth certificate...
>>>Does the translator have to be certified through BCIS or can it be a
>>>third-party acquaintence?
>>That surprises me, too; such translations used to be acceptable. I think
>>at this point it is safer to pay for a professional translator.
>
> At a very minimum, follow the BCIS guideline for having the translation
> marked with a statement of proficiency of the translator in both the
> language being translated and in English. A signature and/or printed name
> is also recommended. Following Ingo's advice is the best way, but be sure
> there is such a statement attached, stamped on the document or the like.
>
> Bob
It's perfectly fine to have a third party acquaintance do it. You just
can't do it yourself because you are an interested party.
The third party should put the following language on the translated
document:
"I declare that I am competent to translate from [language] to English
and that the foregoing translation is true, complete and accurate."
Then the translator should sign, date, and print his/her name. That's it.
No notarial acknowledgment or jurat needed, and the translation need not
be under penalty of perjury.
The instructions are quite clear that an I-94 or other proof of status
must be submitted. I agree that they don't literally say "you can't
translate the documents yourself". That seems an obvious point to me,
but I agree that the instructions could have been more explicit about it.
--
Above intended as general commentary, not legal advice.
Your mileage may vary.
================================================== =============
Jonathan McNeil Wong Voice: 510-451-0544
Donahue Gallagher Woods LLP Facsimile: 510-832-1486
P.O. Box 12979 URL: http://www.donahue.com
Oakland, CA 94604-2979 E-mail: [email protected]
================================================== =============
Jun 7th 2003, 6:59 pm
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: returned I-485
On Sat, 07 Jun 2003 21:00:31 -0700, Jonathan McNeil Wong wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>> In article , "Ingo
>> Pakleppa" wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 04 Jun 2003 14:39:36 -0400, Matthew Jones wrote:
>>>>My wife's adjustment of status (I-485) has been returned as incomplete
>>>>due to:
>>>>x, translation of her birth certificate cannot be done by applicant or
>>>>applicant's spouse
>>>>x, no proof of legal entry into US (copy of I-94)
>>>>This is very aggravating because I don't recall reading either of
>>>>those in the instructions.
>>>>But, it is easy enough to resubmit with the I-94...my question is in
>>>>regards to her birth certificate...
>>>>Does the translator have to be certified through BCIS or can it be a
>>>>third-party acquaintence?
>>>That surprises me, too; such translations used to be acceptable. I
>>>think at this point it is safer to pay for a professional translator.
>> At a very minimum, follow the BCIS guideline for having the translation
>> marked with a statement of proficiency of the translator in both the
>> language being translated and in English. A signature and/or printed
>> name is also recommended. Following Ingo's advice is the best way, but
>> be sure there is such a statement attached, stamped on the document or
>> the like.
>>
>> Bob
>
> It's perfectly fine to have a third party acquaintance do it. You just
> can't do it yourself because you are an interested party.
>
> The third party should put the following language on the translated
> document:
>
> "I declare that I am competent to translate from [language] to English
> and that the foregoing translation is true, complete and accurate."
>
> Then the translator should sign, date, and print his/her name. That's
> it.
>
> No notarial acknowledgment or jurat needed, and the translation need not
> be under penalty of perjury.
>
> The instructions are quite clear that an I-94 or other proof of status
> must be submitted. I agree that they don't literally say "you can't
> translate the documents yourself". That seems an obvious point to me,
> but I agree that the instructions could have been more explicit about
> it.
When I did my own H-1B - which admittedly was both a different legal
situation and ten years ago - I actually did not only the translations,
but even the credential evaluation myself. Back then, this was acceptable.
Of course, I certainly wouldn't recommend doing that again today; I was
just quite naive...
So I don't really see it as all that obvious.
In the contrary, doing the translation yourself and then signing the
statement about it being a true translation should be perfectly acceptable
because doing this intentionally incorrectly would in this case amount to
immigration fraud. If a third party incorrectly translates the documents,
it would be much more difficult to bring a case of fraud.
Of course, all that is really a moot question - BCIS decided that they
didn't like the translation. Whether that was based on law, a good reason
or just a whim really has little practical relevance for you.
--
Remember, I am strictly a layperson without any legal training. I encourage
everybody to seek competent legal counsel rather than relying on usenet
newsgroups.
Please visit my new FAQ at http://www.kkeane.com (still under construction)
My email address in usenet posts is now invalid for spam protection. See
my Web site for information on how to contact me.
Please feel free to enjoy some of my photographs at my new Web site
http://www.ingopakleppa.com ! Comments are welcome.
> [email protected] wrote:
>> In article , "Ingo
>> Pakleppa" wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 04 Jun 2003 14:39:36 -0400, Matthew Jones wrote:
>>>>My wife's adjustment of status (I-485) has been returned as incomplete
>>>>due to:
>>>>x, translation of her birth certificate cannot be done by applicant or
>>>>applicant's spouse
>>>>x, no proof of legal entry into US (copy of I-94)
>>>>This is very aggravating because I don't recall reading either of
>>>>those in the instructions.
>>>>But, it is easy enough to resubmit with the I-94...my question is in
>>>>regards to her birth certificate...
>>>>Does the translator have to be certified through BCIS or can it be a
>>>>third-party acquaintence?
>>>That surprises me, too; such translations used to be acceptable. I
>>>think at this point it is safer to pay for a professional translator.
>> At a very minimum, follow the BCIS guideline for having the translation
>> marked with a statement of proficiency of the translator in both the
>> language being translated and in English. A signature and/or printed
>> name is also recommended. Following Ingo's advice is the best way, but
>> be sure there is such a statement attached, stamped on the document or
>> the like.
>>
>> Bob
>
> It's perfectly fine to have a third party acquaintance do it. You just
> can't do it yourself because you are an interested party.
>
> The third party should put the following language on the translated
> document:
>
> "I declare that I am competent to translate from [language] to English
> and that the foregoing translation is true, complete and accurate."
>
> Then the translator should sign, date, and print his/her name. That's
> it.
>
> No notarial acknowledgment or jurat needed, and the translation need not
> be under penalty of perjury.
>
> The instructions are quite clear that an I-94 or other proof of status
> must be submitted. I agree that they don't literally say "you can't
> translate the documents yourself". That seems an obvious point to me,
> but I agree that the instructions could have been more explicit about
> it.
When I did my own H-1B - which admittedly was both a different legal
situation and ten years ago - I actually did not only the translations,
but even the credential evaluation myself. Back then, this was acceptable.
Of course, I certainly wouldn't recommend doing that again today; I was
just quite naive...
So I don't really see it as all that obvious.
In the contrary, doing the translation yourself and then signing the
statement about it being a true translation should be perfectly acceptable
because doing this intentionally incorrectly would in this case amount to
immigration fraud. If a third party incorrectly translates the documents,
it would be much more difficult to bring a case of fraud.
Of course, all that is really a moot question - BCIS decided that they
didn't like the translation. Whether that was based on law, a good reason
or just a whim really has little practical relevance for you.
--
Remember, I am strictly a layperson without any legal training. I encourage
everybody to seek competent legal counsel rather than relying on usenet
newsgroups.
Please visit my new FAQ at http://www.kkeane.com (still under construction)
My email address in usenet posts is now invalid for spam protection. See
my Web site for information on how to contact me.
Please feel free to enjoy some of my photographs at my new Web site
http://www.ingopakleppa.com ! Comments are welcome.
Jun 8th 2003, 6:59 pm
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: returned I-485
Ingo Pakleppa wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Jun 2003 21:00:31 -0700, Jonathan McNeil Wong wrote:
>
>
>
> When I did my own H-1B - which admittedly was both a different legal
> situation and ten years ago - I actually did not only the translations,
> but even the credential evaluation myself. Back then, this was acceptable.
> Of course, I certainly wouldn't recommend doing that again today; I was
> just quite naive...
>
> So I don't really see it as all that obvious.
>
> In the contrary, doing the translation yourself and then signing the
> statement about it being a true translation should be perfectly acceptable
> because doing this intentionally incorrectly would in this case amount to
> immigration fraud. If a third party incorrectly translates the documents,
> it would be much more difficult to bring a case of fraud.
>
> Of course, all that is really a moot question - BCIS decided that they
> didn't like the translation. Whether that was based on law, a good reason
> or just a whim really has little practical relevance for you.
>
Wow, I'm really surprised that you were allowed to do your own
credential evaluation -- even years ago, the regs were pretty specific
on evaluations (at one point, the Service even had a list of "approved"
evaluators, which eventually was abandoned).
Now I am going to have to look at the regs on translations and refresh
myself on what they say. Your reasoning, Ingo, is quite logical but the
regs aren't always so logical.
Actually I think the reason it seemed obvious to me was that such a
translation is on its face self-interested, and since it is not done
under penalty of perjury it would be a tougher fraud case to prove.
--
Above intended as general commentary, not legal advice.
Your mileage may vary.
================================================== =============
Jonathan McNeil Wong Voice: 510-451-0544
Donahue Gallagher Woods LLP Facsimile: 510-832-1486
P.O. Box 12979 URL: http://www.donahue.com
Oakland, CA 94604-2979 E-mail: [email protected]
================================================== =============
> On Sat, 07 Jun 2003 21:00:31 -0700, Jonathan McNeil Wong wrote:
>
>
>
> When I did my own H-1B - which admittedly was both a different legal
> situation and ten years ago - I actually did not only the translations,
> but even the credential evaluation myself. Back then, this was acceptable.
> Of course, I certainly wouldn't recommend doing that again today; I was
> just quite naive...
>
> So I don't really see it as all that obvious.
>
> In the contrary, doing the translation yourself and then signing the
> statement about it being a true translation should be perfectly acceptable
> because doing this intentionally incorrectly would in this case amount to
> immigration fraud. If a third party incorrectly translates the documents,
> it would be much more difficult to bring a case of fraud.
>
> Of course, all that is really a moot question - BCIS decided that they
> didn't like the translation. Whether that was based on law, a good reason
> or just a whim really has little practical relevance for you.
>
Wow, I'm really surprised that you were allowed to do your own
credential evaluation -- even years ago, the regs were pretty specific
on evaluations (at one point, the Service even had a list of "approved"
evaluators, which eventually was abandoned).
Now I am going to have to look at the regs on translations and refresh
myself on what they say. Your reasoning, Ingo, is quite logical but the
regs aren't always so logical.
Actually I think the reason it seemed obvious to me was that such a
translation is on its face self-interested, and since it is not done
under penalty of perjury it would be a tougher fraud case to prove.
--
Above intended as general commentary, not legal advice.
Your mileage may vary.
================================================== =============
Jonathan McNeil Wong Voice: 510-451-0544
Donahue Gallagher Woods LLP Facsimile: 510-832-1486
P.O. Box 12979 URL: http://www.donahue.com
Oakland, CA 94604-2979 E-mail: [email protected]
================================================== =============
Jun 9th 2003, 12:41 am
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: returned I-485
On Sun, 08 Jun 2003 23:59:26 -0700, Jonathan McNeil Wong wrote:
> Ingo Pakleppa wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Jun 2003 21:00:31 -0700, Jonathan McNeil Wong wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> When I did my own H-1B - which admittedly was both a different legal
>> situation and ten years ago - I actually did not only the translations,
>> but even the credential evaluation myself. Back then, this was acceptable.
>> Of course, I certainly wouldn't recommend doing that again today; I was
>> just quite naive...
>>
>> So I don't really see it as all that obvious.
>>
>> In the contrary, doing the translation yourself and then signing the
>> statement about it being a true translation should be perfectly acceptable
>> because doing this intentionally incorrectly would in this case amount to
>> immigration fraud. If a third party incorrectly translates the documents,
>> it would be much more difficult to bring a case of fraud.
>>
>> Of course, all that is really a moot question - BCIS decided that they
>> didn't like the translation. Whether that was based on law, a good reason
>> or just a whim really has little practical relevance for you.
>
> Wow, I'm really surprised that you were allowed to do your own
> credential evaluation -- even years ago, the regs were pretty specific
> on evaluations (at one point, the Service even had a list of "approved"
> evaluators, which eventually was abandoned).
>
> Now I am going to have to look at the regs on translations and refresh
> myself on what they say. Your reasoning, Ingo, is quite logical but the
> regs aren't always so logical.
>
> Actually I think the reason it seemed obvious to me was that such a
> translation is on its face self-interested, and since it is not done
> under penalty of perjury it would be a tougher fraud case to prove.
Well, in all honesty, I screwed up the first two H-1Bs, and only the third
time was a charm. I don't think the denials were based on the evaluations,
though. It entirely could have been a fluke and a careless or generous
adjudicator, though. Later, I was validated of course because for my GC
application, I used a "real" evaluation.
Back then, I relied on the Siegel/Canter book for most of my information;
at the time pretty much the only accessible source of immigration
information.
Of course, all this is just for academic interest. I certainly wouldn't
recommend anybody else do evaluations himself! Very, very bad idea even
back then. More so in today's climate.
--
Remember, I am strictly a layperson without any legal training. I encourage
everybody to seek competent legal counsel rather than relying on usenet
newsgroups.
Please visit my new FAQ at http://www.kkeane.com (still under construction)
My email address in usenet posts is now invalid for spam protection. See
my Web site for information on how to contact me.
Please feel free to enjoy some of my photographs at my new Web site
http://www.ingopakleppa.com ! Comments are welcome.
> Ingo Pakleppa wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Jun 2003 21:00:31 -0700, Jonathan McNeil Wong wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> When I did my own H-1B - which admittedly was both a different legal
>> situation and ten years ago - I actually did not only the translations,
>> but even the credential evaluation myself. Back then, this was acceptable.
>> Of course, I certainly wouldn't recommend doing that again today; I was
>> just quite naive...
>>
>> So I don't really see it as all that obvious.
>>
>> In the contrary, doing the translation yourself and then signing the
>> statement about it being a true translation should be perfectly acceptable
>> because doing this intentionally incorrectly would in this case amount to
>> immigration fraud. If a third party incorrectly translates the documents,
>> it would be much more difficult to bring a case of fraud.
>>
>> Of course, all that is really a moot question - BCIS decided that they
>> didn't like the translation. Whether that was based on law, a good reason
>> or just a whim really has little practical relevance for you.
>
> Wow, I'm really surprised that you were allowed to do your own
> credential evaluation -- even years ago, the regs were pretty specific
> on evaluations (at one point, the Service even had a list of "approved"
> evaluators, which eventually was abandoned).
>
> Now I am going to have to look at the regs on translations and refresh
> myself on what they say. Your reasoning, Ingo, is quite logical but the
> regs aren't always so logical.
>
> Actually I think the reason it seemed obvious to me was that such a
> translation is on its face self-interested, and since it is not done
> under penalty of perjury it would be a tougher fraud case to prove.
Well, in all honesty, I screwed up the first two H-1Bs, and only the third
time was a charm. I don't think the denials were based on the evaluations,
though. It entirely could have been a fluke and a careless or generous
adjudicator, though. Later, I was validated of course because for my GC
application, I used a "real" evaluation.
Back then, I relied on the Siegel/Canter book for most of my information;
at the time pretty much the only accessible source of immigration
information.
Of course, all this is just for academic interest. I certainly wouldn't
recommend anybody else do evaluations himself! Very, very bad idea even
back then. More so in today's climate.
--
Remember, I am strictly a layperson without any legal training. I encourage
everybody to seek competent legal counsel rather than relying on usenet
newsgroups.
Please visit my new FAQ at http://www.kkeane.com (still under construction)
My email address in usenet posts is now invalid for spam protection. See
my Web site for information on how to contact me.
Please feel free to enjoy some of my photographs at my new Web site
http://www.ingopakleppa.com ! Comments are welcome.
