No announcement yet.

Change of Status with No AOS/EOS/COS in I-94

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Change of Status with No AOS/EOS/COS in I-94

    Hi! My I-94 has been marked by the immigration officer with NO AOS/EOS/COS. What if a hospital will petition me as a registered nurse before the expiration date that is allowed for me to stay here in US... Do i have the chance to change my status even though i have a mark in my I-94, because somebody petitioned me? Thanks.

  • #2
    Hi! My I-94 has been marked by the immigration officer with NO AOS/EOS/COS. What if a hospital will petition me as a registered nurse before the expiration date that is allowed for me to stay here in US... Do i have the chance to change my status even though i have a mark in my I-94, because somebody petitioned me? Thanks.


    • #3
      The CBP officer at the port of entry, as a condition of your admittance to the United States, decided the following:

      No Adjustment of Status will be allowed;
      No Extension of Status will be allowed;
      No Change of Status will be allowed.

      You accepted these conditions of entry, and are bound by them.

      If you are subsequently sponsored for an immigration benefit as a registered nurse, you will have to return to your country of origin for processing.


      • #4
        Oh.. ok, thanks! =)


        • #5
          Under INA and Federal Statute NO LAW EXISTS that would allow ANYONE under ANY circumstances to change/extend or adjust status in US !!!

          Furthermore, I propose Congress to enact a LAW that would impose a DEATH SENTENCE for ANYONE who ever applies to change/extend or adjust status while in US !!!

          Long live WWW.FAIRUS.ORG !!!


          • #6
            The notation of NO AOS/EOS/COS was suppose to reflect the representations that you made during your application for the nonimmigrant visa and during the inspection at the port of entry. While the notation does not definitively limit your ability (the jurisdiction to grant AOS/EOS/COS lies with the USCIS and not the CBP), it is given great weight when your application for AOS/ EOS/COS is considered.
            As your attempt to AOS/ EOS or COS in light of the I-94 notation may raise the issue of misrepresentation, you should consult a lawyer. If, during the AOS/ EOS/ COS process, the USCIS find that your have preconceived immigrant intent, it will deny your application and order you to depart or face removal proceedings.


            • #7
              This matter has long ago been settled in courts.

              Presumption that one had certain intention, in absence of proof, amounts to prejudice.

              So, the Courts ruled that GENERALLY, if one applied for change , extension or adjustment of status within 30 (or 60) days of arrival to US - then such person may justifiably be denied benefits because of preconcieved intent (F.e. someone comes to US as a tourist, then a week later marries USC , as planned before, and applies for AOS and etc.)

              Although having a discretion in adjustment of any application for benefit, the USCIS is not authorised by Congress to arbitrarily and capriciously deny meritorious applications.

              And the fact that EOS/AOS applications exist, and tens of thousands every year filed and approved speaks volumes about true state of affairs.

              COnsult with Immigration Attorney for further assistance.




              • #8
                If you look at the adjudicator's field manual it states that "any kind of admission or parole" is enough to satisfy the requirements under Sec. 245 of the Act unless disqualified by Sec. 245(c).
                The "NO AOS/COS/EOS", as IE noted, is not a ban to the adjustment per se but a quick indication that some sort of doubt is present regarding the nonimmigrant intent of the applicant.
                If you have that notation in your I-94 or passport, you may still apply for adjustment under section 245, it is NOT a bar to the process however, issues related to preconceived intent or misrepresentation will be brought up IF the application for adjustment is sent quickly after entry.
                Generally, representations as to future events are not actionable and false representations must be of past or existing facts. Meyer, 1997 SD 21 at 11, 559 NW2d at 255 (citing Ashcoff v. Mobil Oil Corp., 261 NW2d 120, 124 (SD 1977)).
                Again, the DAO may raise the issue of misrepresentation or immigrant intent when confronted with the annotations on the I-94, but it's important to repeat it is NOT a ban to adjustment of status. Matter of Batista reads "In any case, as counsel for the respondent notes, a preconceived intent is only one factor to be considered in exercising discretion on an adjustment application, so the immigration judge erred in finding the respondent ineligible to adjust on that basis alone." It's clear that the standards established by Cavazos and Ibrahim and confirmed by Batista, supra, are binding to all adjudicators and immigration courts, they cannot be overridden by the inspector at the port of entry.
                IE is correct when he mentions that a presumption without evidence amounts to prejudice only. However, the courts have not ruled on the 30 days presumption. This is the famous 30/60 rule in FAM again being perpetuated into a myth over the internet.
                The USCIS is an agent of the Attorney General, not DOS. FAM provisions DO NOT apply to USCIS or the BIA for that matter.


                • #9
                  However, the courts have not ruled on the 30 days presumption. This is the famous 30/60 rule in FAM again being perpetuated into a myth over the internet.
                  There was a case brought up in Immigration Court by an applicant whose AOS application was denied by INS on the grounds of "preconceived intent to immigrate."

                  The Immigration Judge ruled in favor of immigrant, making a "30-60 day" reference in his ruling.

                  This is not a myth but a binding ruling of the Court.


                  • #10
                    No judge can rule based on the 30/60 rule. A judge can enter a ruling based on his or her own ideas, evidence and particulars of the case but a ruling sustained by the 30/60 rule of FAM would be easily appealed based on jurisdictional issues.
                    Further, judgments are sustained by the letter of the law. The 30/60 rule is NOT a substantive rule of law, only an INTERNAL guideline for DOS officials on requesting a second opinion ONLY related to possible VISA fraud. If 30/60 was in fact rule of law, it'd create a loophole or would be seen as a planning tool for illegal activity, but it is not, it's simply an internal guideline of DOS. Note that DOS presumptions resulting from 30/60 can be rebutted.


                    • #11

                      as wordly as you sound, and with all due respect, your reasoning is not even remotely resembling that of the JUDGES - who , BTW, are the only ones in absolute charge of interpreting LAWS and REGULATIONS.

                      Now, as far as the ruling I recall - I will find a link and post it here (with the text of the ruling) - so you can see it with your own eyes.

                      30/60 regulation is not a "loophole" to plan illegal activity, but a guideline to use of discretion in absence of any other evidence/proof.


                      • #12
                        The issue is not one that I brought up, but one that has been target to much speculation and misunderstanding. A judge can rule based on suspicions and evidence contained in the record. That is the judge's prerogative. However, a judgment sustained by the applicability of a FAM regulation is not appropriate because immigration courts are not under DOS but under DOJ and they are not subject to any DOS regulations.
                        While it may be clear that an alien filing for AOS a week after entry has immigrant intent that determination is not a direct product of the application of the 30/60 rule. The 30/60 rule is an internal guideline for DOS employees on when to seek another opinion on possible visa fraud, it is NOT a substantive rule of law, not a loophole in the INA, not a directive to USCIS.
                        In the present case, the "NO AOS/COS/EOS" notation as you well mentioned is not a ban to AOS per-se but might trigger some questioning related to possible misrepresentation. The same applies to 30/60 in the context of consular processing, it's just another tool used by DOS to aid detection of fraud and misrepresentation.


                        • #13
                          You can write all you want, Houston, but your view is in fact narrow and reflects one particular dimension of "suspicion of fraud".

                          I reflect on broader issue of EOS/COS/AOS in the context of INA and binding Court rulings.

                          As noted before, I will post a link to one of such rulings whereby you can read and get a better insight into resonings of the Judges in such cases.




                          • #14
                            Hello folks
                            I need help with a similar situation.

                            My parents arrived on visitor visa one week back and their I 94's got marked with no AOS/EOS.

                            I was planning to file their AOS along with my petition for parents (I'm a US citizen).

                            They are 76 and 71 yrs old and the travel across seas of 24 hrs is really very strenous for them to undertake again.

                            The web site at USCIS says nothing about waiting for 30/60 days before filing for AOS.

                            I've already got their medical exams done and have the applications ready to drop off at local USCIS office by next week.

                            That will be exactly ten days after their arrival in US.

                            I erally need advise on whether I should wait for 30 days (but I've already got medical exams and done dated within a week of their arrival) OR should I just go ahead and submit the papers.

                            What can happen if they refuse to do AOS here? Will my parents have to go back immediately OR can they stay tilll their I 94 date?

                            Will they have to file for consulra processing before attempting any furhter travel to US?

                            Will they be able to come again on their visitor visa (10 yrs) or they wil be harrased at the port of entry?

                            This time around whne they came in the SFO oficials told them they were coming here to frequently and shouldnt do so. That is why they marked my parents passports with no AOS/EOS.

                            Please help!!!


                            Sorry, you are not authorized to view this page

                            Home Page

                            Immigration Daily


                            Processing times

                            Immigration forms

                            Discussion board



                            Twitter feed

                            Immigrant Nation


                            CLE Workshops

                            Immigration books

                            Advertise on ILW



                            About ILW.COM

                            Connect to us



                            Immigration Daily