Travel on expired GC
 

Hi,
I recently filed for removal of my conditional status on my GC (end of Dec). I received my I-797 NOA a few weeks later, and am still waiting to heat anything else about it. I am planning to go back to the UK for a visit in a few weeks, but am worried about coming back since my GC will be 'expired'. Am I correct in assuming that the expired GC along with the I-797 is proof enough that my status has been extended for 1 year? Has anyone had any problems getting back into the country with these two pieces of documentation? Also, I have seem some talk on here about people having to mail back in their expired GC - will I have to do that? Will they take my expired GC from me at the airport when I come back in?

Does anyone have a timeline for how long the Vermont Center (I am in MD) is taking for removal of conditions?

Thanks muchly! You guys on this forum are a godsend for worrywarts like me! :-D

Curly

Re: Travel on expired GC
 

That is what the NOA tells you. It is paper proof of the one year extension of your green card privileges. Also remember that your status has not expired and if you don't hear back after a year, go to the DO and get the I-551 stamp in your passport to tide you over until the I-751 is adjudicated.

No they will not take your green card at the POE. As for an RFE for the return of the green card, that is a possibility but unless you are about to be adjudicated you won't be asked to do that until that time.

Re: Travel on expired GC
 

On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 23:45:19 +0000, curlylocks
<member12936@british_expats.com> wrote:

    >Hi,
    >I recently filed for removal of my conditional status on my GC (end of
    >Dec). I received my I-797 NOA a few weeks later, and am still waiting to
    >heat anything else about it. I am planning to go back to the UK for a
    >visit in a few weeks, but am worried about coming back since my GC will
    >be 'expired'. Am I correct in assuming that the expired GC along with
    >the I-797 is proof enough that my status has been extended for 1 year?
    >Has anyone had any problems getting back into the country with these two
    >pieces of documentation? Also, I have seem some talk on here about
    >people having to mail back in their expired GC - will I have to do that?
    >Will they take my expired GC from me at the airport when I come back in?
    >Does anyone have a timeline for how long the Vermont Center (I am in MD)
    >is taking for removal of conditions?
    >Thanks muchly! You guys on this forum are a godsend for worrywarts
    >like me! :-D
    >Curly

Don't know about Vermont but I went back to the UK in November and
when I returned I presented my expired Green Card and my I-797 at
immigration (Chicago) and had no problems at all.

Denis

Re: Travel on expired GC
 

"curlylocks" <member12936@british_expats.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected] m...
    > Hi,
    > I recently filed for removal of my conditional status on my GC (end of
    > Dec). I received my I-797 NOA a few weeks later, and am still waiting to
    > heat anything else about it. I am planning to go back to the UK for a
    > visit in a few weeks, but am worried about coming back since my GC will
    > be 'expired'. Am I correct in assuming that the expired GC along with
    > the I-797 is proof enough that my status has been extended for 1 year?
    > Has anyone had any problems getting back into the country with these two
    > pieces of documentation? Also, I have seem some talk on here about
    > people having to mail back in their expired GC - will I have to do that?
    > Will they take my expired GC from me at the airport when I come back in?
    > Does anyone have a timeline for how long the Vermont Center (I am in MD)
    > is taking for removal of conditions?
    > Thanks muchly! You guys on this forum are a godsend for worrywarts
    > like me! :-D
    > Curly

Have you read what the I-797 says? What does it say? Doesn't it say that
your card is extended for a year?
How much simpler do you want it to be said?

If it does not say anything about extension then you don't have a valid
document to come back!

Re: Travel on expired GC
 

Hi:

Be nice. The topic of valid travel/entry documents is a confusing one even for us legal types. And in my experience, many of my clients don't quite believe that their documentation is valid to travel without problem.

Re: Travel on expired GC
 

[/QUOTE]>Have you read what the I-797 says? What does it say? Doesn't it >say that
>your card is extended for a year?
>How much simpler do you want it to be said?



>If it does not say anything about extension then you don't have a valid
>document to come back![/QUOTE]



Well you know what?.... people used to believe it was pretty safe to travel with advanced parole, and I know very few people who will travel with that nowadays. What's wrong with posting a Q on here to double check no-one had had any problems.... isn't that what this is for? If you thought it was such a stupid Q why did you respond?
Since when have people unquestionable trusted what DHS says?

I have a 1 year old daughter who will be with me, and a job to come back to.... Better safe than sorry.....

Re: Travel on expired GC
 

Hi:

As an aside, there is a BIG difference between an LPR traveling and an AOS applicant traveling with advance parole.

The two ARE similar in that an LPR's return and a parole are not considered to be "admissions" [there are exceptions to this for LPR's -- see 101(a)(13)(C) of the Immigration & Nationality Act]. However, the AP is treated as if they are outside of the US while the LPR is generally treated as if they never left.

CAVEAT: the above comment is general in nature.

Re: Travel on expired GC
 

Apologies in advance if I’m misinterpreting what you are getting at with the sentence above; but people trust what the CIS and Consulates tell them all the time. Likewise, they also trust what non-attorneys tell them on news groups whether or not that non-attorney has a clue as to what they are talking about. Groups have been around long enough for every seasoned participant to know this is a true fact.

Of course, when the subject of the danger (associated with this activity) comes up, many will chime in saying, “well, you would have to be a brain dead freaking idiot to rely on things you read on news groups” and quite often the people poo pooing this are the vary people who make it a hobby to render legal advice to strangers on news groups.

You can’t have it both ways. People rely on what they are told when they are seeking legal advice… whether that advice comes from an attorney, the CIS, or a wanna-be playing attorney on the net.

Re: Travel on expired GC
 

Hi:

Nothing wrong in questioning the advice as long as not overdone. Just had a consulation where prior attorney screwed up the case big-time and prior consulations in Texas were ill advised.

However, the case was a complicated one -- the advise should have been -- get to an experienced old geezer -- I know that YOU would have done that in the case I was just consulted on.

Re: Travel on expired GC
 

Thanks for the responses! That along with a quick browse around has made me confident of traveling with the NOA and expired GC. I was just wondering though... I see that some people go ahead and get the I551 stamp in their passport as well - is there any benefit to having this instead of the GC and NOA?
Also - what comes next? - what will I recieve in the mail if my petition is approved? do I have to get new fingerprints done etc? another interview? ... or does it all depend on the case? Do you have to make your own appt or do they send you one like they did last time?

Thanks again!
Curly

Re: Travel on expired GC
 

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 20:59:37 +0000, Matthew Udall wrote:

    > You can't have it both ways. People rely on what they are told when
    > they are seeking legal advice: whether that advice comes from an
    > attorney, the CIS, or a wanna-be playing attorney on the net.

Or someone on the net that went through a similar situation or read about
someone else that went through a similar situation, but who has no desire
or intent to play an attorney (either in real life or on TV, although if
offered enough money they might consider doing so for the boob-tube).

(In my opinion, everyone on the net has an opinion on almost every possible
topic, and are willing to share that opinion at the drop of a hat, but that
doesn't make their opinions/advice UPL. This includes me -- this declaimer
is probably valid somewhere in the world).

Re: Travel on expired GC
 

OK, I’ve read your opinion (and you are correct in that everybody has one). So then I’m curious. What are the characteristics that would turn advice given in relation to another’s immigration matter into legal advice?

Re: Travel on expired GC
 

Hi:

You are correct that everyone has an opinion. Quite often, the expression of one's opinion may be "legal advice" in one sense, but not cross the line into "unauthorized practice." The PRECISE dividing line can be fuzzy at times, but the problem of "UPL" definitely arises when acts as an "expert" of some type and gives advice that people will rely on.

Re: Travel on expired GC
 

Matthew Udall <member3997@british_expats.com> wrote:

    > > On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 20:59:37 +0000, Matthew Udall wrote:
    > >
    > > > You can't have it both ways. People rely on what they are told when
    > > > they are seeking legal advice: whether that advice comes from an
    > > > attorney, the CIS, or a wanna-be playing attorney on the net.
-snip-
    > > (In my opinion, everyone on the net has an opinion on almost every
    > > possible topic, and are willing to share that opinion at the drop
    > > of a hat, but that doesn't make their opinions/advice UPL. This
    > > includes me -- this declaimer is probably valid somewhere in the
    > > world).
    >
    > OK, I�ve read your opinion (and you are correct in that everybody has
    > one). So then I'm curious. What are the characteristics that would
    > turn advice given in relation to another's immigration matter into
    > legal advice?

I have no idea as to what the law would consider the defining
characteristics, but I'd consider doing it for money or with a claim
that it is a legal service to be big indicators. Maybe a claim that
"I can do that for you"...

Otherwise I think we ought to be considered big boys and girls, able to
recognize the fact that "it's worth what you paid" is something to keep
in mind when dealing with the net.

People rely on advice in news paper horoscopes and apply it to legal
situations. People will do stupid things, and unless there is either a
clear pattern of intentional misdirection or money is exchanged, it's
just IMO people doing stupid things.

Don't take me wrong -- I'm not saying that everyone's opinion is just
as good as the next guys, just the opposite: the reader/advice seeker
has to decide how much weight to give to each post and each poster, and
if you don't stick around or do some research before making such a
decision, you're just asking for trouble. Whether the poster says they
are a lawyer, an informed layman or someone with a cousin that is
dating a beautician whose butcher's wife says her sister-in-law went
through the exact same thing...

Sometimes you should listen to the lawyer, and sometimes to the guy
with a cousin -- I imagine the pool of lawyers is large enough to
contain every type of saint and sinner, as well as the sensible and
irresponsible. I KNOW the pool of someone with a cousin is that
large...

--
J. Moreno