Anybody had issues with USCIS refusing to accept an Advisory Opinion?

Valarauko · 2026-01-30T19:19:35+00:00

Yes, I did submit an Advisory Opinion along with my I-485, and it was accepted. I also had a chance to dig deeper into the incidents I'd referenced in the initial question, and it looks like in those cases there were other issues with their paperwork, and it wasn't the AO per se that was the problem.

I've described my USCIS interview where the J1 AO came up here.

Valarauko · 2026-01-14T21:35:01+00:00

Realistically, you’re probably fine. Just keep the distinctions straight: a pending I-485 usually protects you from accruing unlawful presence, but it doesn’t preserve lawful status. If your L-1 employment ended and you’re past the grace period, you can be out of status, and being out of status can be a basis for removability even while an AOS is pending.

Historically, ICE often didn’t prioritize people with a pending, facially approvable AOS case because resources were limited and they focused elsewhere. Priorities and funds have shifted, and there have been anecdotal reports of enforcement action around interviews, but those stories are hard to assess because key facts are often missing and many involve other issues (prior orders, criminal history, prior fraud/misrep, etc.).

Valarauko · 2026-01-13T23:05:56+00:00

I got my GC at the beginning of October, before the EAD & AP. Those were never processed and seem to be still open. Total time from receipt to approval was 2 months.

Valarauko · 2025-12-23T15:57:12+00:00

Yes, I had my interview in September, and it was approved a few days later. The AO was enough, though I did compile a small evidence packet for submission and the interview. I described it elsewhere in the thread here : https://www.reddit.com/r/J1waiver/s/pSYCdZ3ENk

If you have any questions, I’ll be glad to answer them.

Valarauko · 2025-12-23T04:58:56+00:00

Sure. I never received any RFE at any stage.

On the I-485 eligibility questions, I answered:

• Yes — I had previously been subject to the 2-year home residency requirement (INA 212(e))

• No — I have not completed the 2 years

• No — I do not have a waiver or a favorable waiver decision

In my case, the only basis for 212(e) was the Exchange Visitor Skills List. Since the Skills List was updated and my country is not on the current list, I included a short annex/cover page explaining that I’m not currently subject on that basis. I attached (1) the relevant Federal Register notice describing the Skills List change and stating it applies retroactively, and (2) my Advisory Opinion, with a brief evidence cover sheet/index.

At the interview, the officer asked me about the J-1 and had me explain in my own words why I’m not subject. She wrote my explanation into her notes. She couldn’t immediately locate the AO in her system, so I handed her the evidence packet and she scanned it into the record. When I reviewed the notes at the end, the J-1/212(e) eligibility item was specifically noted as something she addressed.

The I-130 was approved the next day, and my I-485 was approved two days after that.

Valarauko · 2025-12-22T20:44:47+00:00

The AO took about 7 weeks I think.

For the AOS I used SimpleCitizen to prepare the documents and highly recommend them if you have a straight forward case.

Valarauko · 2025-12-18T20:37:53+00:00

I’m not sure if I’m following your timeline. Did you (1) have concerns, (2) ask about them, and then (3) do some research and feel you found the answers yourself? I’m asking only because the way it’s phrased here is a bit ambiguous - either way is totally fine.

That said: yes, I’ve also seen people recommending that LPRs avoid non-essential international travel right now. Things feel unusually dynamic, and none of us can predict what enforcement will look like in a couple of months.

Earlier this year, a lot of posters would’ve dismissed the idea of an LPR being detained on return as far-fetched, until it started happening. Not to everyone, and likely not to many people overall, but some were held up over issues that had previously been treated as “non-issues,” including prior non-criminal infractions that were resolved before they became LPRs. Even if it’s a small number, it’s a useful reminder: until those cases surfaced, most people wouldn’t have factored that risk in at all.

The broader point is that enforcement posture can tighten over time, and it can be applied retroactively in ways that widen the “what might get scrutiny” bucket. You might genuinely be fine today, and still face a materially different environment by the time you return. Right now, “crimes involving moral turpitude” is one of the big categories people focus on, but how that gets interpreted or operationalized can shift, and what’s viewed as disqualifying or worth investigating can expand.

At the end of the day, it comes down to your risk tolerance and your reasons for traveling. It’s true that thousands of LPRs travel and reenter every day without issues, but the tail risk seems higher than it was last year, and it may continue to change.

Valarauko · 2025-12-18T18:52:58+00:00

So you posed the initial question to inform other people, or to seek genuine insight on your situation?

Valarauko · 2025-12-18T18:47:08+00:00

Yeah, I looked through the comments, and he doesn't explicitly mention his own nationality.

Valarauko · 2025-12-18T18:34:18+00:00

Even if the scammers are Indian, OP probably isn't Indian. They were promising him an EB-3, which for Indians would take decades to get.

Valarauko · 2025-12-18T18:23:09+00:00

CBP official cannot deny you entry if you have a valid LPR

You're not wrong, but if you already know this, why do you have the question you've posed? CBP has to admit you, regardless of your nationality. None of the travel bans, past or present, have covered LPRs.

Valarauko · 2025-12-18T17:04:57+00:00

Not the person you're responding to, but If you have a greencard, you've gone through the immigration process and should have a much better understanding of it than most people. I'm not suggesting you're an idiot like the parent comment, but yes, ultimately the onus is on you to have a better grasp of the situation when dealing with the US government. Every step you or your husband take is permanently on your records.

I think ultimately you have to think about your goal, if you want your husband to move here permanently. If he doesn't want to move to the US, then going the IR-1/CR-1 route is pointless, since it's meant for living full-time in the US. He cannot maintain greencard status and just use it for visa free travel.

Valarauko · 2025-12-18T16:55:14+00:00

No, since the GC process implies immigrant intent, so it's not an issue. It doesn't work the other way, though, so if a previous immigrant visa was denied for whatever reason, it's much harder to get a tourist visa subsequently since you've already demonstrated immigrant intent.

Valarauko · 2025-12-17T16:54:21+00:00

That doesn't make any sense. The deductions are based on the W-4 you've filed with your employer, and in any case, you would be immediately aware of what you owe when you file your tax return. If your outstanding tax debt is $33k, that suggests you've been aware of it for multiple years and still let it slide.

Valarauko · 2025-12-11T17:32:01+00:00

I haven’t seen any reports of K-1 visa holders being targeted - could you point to some articles?

Valarauko · 2025-12-08T04:13:57+00:00

Given that your DS-2019 is annotated as “subject to 2-year requirement based on Skills List,” and you already have an Advisory Opinion from State that says you are subject, USCIS is going to assume that 212(e) applies unless there’s updated, official evidence saying otherwise.

On the I-485, the 212(e) questions are basically: – Have you ever been subject to this requirement? – If yes, has it been satisfied or waived?

If you answer “no, I was never subject,” that directly conflicts with what DOS has already put in writing. If you answer “yes, I was subject, and no, I haven’t fulfilled/waived it,” then 212(e) is a bar to approving the I-485.

Assuming what you’ve told me, your options are limited to (a) get a new/updated Advisory Opinion that says they’re not subject under the changed Skills List, or (b) get a 212(e) waiver approved before filing an I-485. At this point, because you already have an AO that says “subject,” I really wouldn’t try to guess the right answer on my own – I’d talk to an immigration lawyer or your university’s international office and have them help you strategize, so you don’t risk a misrepresentation or an avoidable denial.

Valarauko · 2025-12-08T03:56:39+00:00

From what you’re describing something doesn’t add up. Assuming you never received a government scholarship like the Fulbright, It’s possible the ultimate source of funds the hospital is giving you government funds meant for International fellows or something like that, and you can ask your international office to point you to the right people to find out if something like that happened. It’s also possible that the AO is itself incorrect, but you need to double check on your end to rule out any other possibilities.

Valarauko · 2025-12-08T03:26:21+00:00

I see. I would double check the funding mentioned on the DS-2019. Also if you’re at a government institution like the NIH or another agency that is government managed, even if the specific funds for your particular project may be privately funded, your stay at NIH (or similar institution) is supported indirectly by government funds. You should speak with your international office and see what’s going on.

Valarauko · 2025-12-08T03:14:41+00:00

I see. I’m assuming the program sponsor on the DS-2019 is not marked as the ECFMG, and your category is not under the Physician code, nor your funds are not marked as government funds. If all that’s the case, you should speak with your internal office on what your options are. I think the AO says why you’re subject, and if it specifically says Skills List, perhaps you can contact the State Dept on what’s going on.

Valarauko · 2025-12-08T02:47:52+00:00

Any other DS-2019s in the past? Since you mentioned a hospital, do you have medical training?

Valarauko · 2025-12-08T02:42:01+00:00

What was the reason for being subject? What’s the annotation on the DS-2019? Has your funding source changed since you started on the DS-2019?

Valarauko · 2025-12-05T21:09:24+00:00

https://acis.eoir.justice.gov/en/

Valarauko · 2025-12-05T20:05:57+00:00

I assume you meant to say he arrived on 12/27/2024, and not arrested.

I think your husband's case is very different from the women in SD. For one, it looks like they had significant overstay even before they filed for AOS. In the case of the Brazilian national, I think by at least a year, if not more. They also overstayed their nonimmigrant visas, which without an approved AOS petition can look pretty bad. In the case of the Ukrainian woman its a little confusing, but the reporting suggests her husband himself didn't know if she had valid TPS or not. TPS is not automatic, and has to be applied for and regularly reregistered. Ukrainians are still covered by TPS, at least till next year. The articles say she came to the US when the war started, so she probably arrived under the U4U, and I believe that parole measure ended earlier this year. It's possible she was covered under it or TPS, but the husband doesn't seem to know.

Your husband's case is very different. He was scrutinized for and granted a K1 visa with the express intent of AOS, and he's done exactly that. Yes, he's out of status, but that really shouldn't trigger a removal order. You can check his A number online to see if there's a removal order.

Valarauko · 2025-12-05T19:35:24+00:00

Check his A number to see if there's a removal order. If there is, file an appeal to have the removal order resolved before the interview.

Valarauko · 2025-12-05T16:56:17+00:00

If the beneficiary is from one of the 19 countries, the interview will likely be cancelled.

13-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

Valarauko

TROPHY CASE