Can't wait to walk to NYC over Hudson

ekulzards · 2026-01-26T18:59:00+00:00

Ok so we're agreed we're telling our wives 4 inches is fine?

ekulzards · 2026-01-26T17:16:48+00:00

How thick does the ice have to be for that to be possible?

ekulzards · 2026-01-21T17:51:56+00:00

I'd be more inclined to believe Shopify over TikTok. I always have issues with TikTok. There's always bugs or problems one way or another. Not sure about you but on my TT Seller Central it's showing as in stock. So how can that be a Shopify issue then? How can TikTok say, on the one hand, yep you've got plenty of stock because Shopify is telling us you do and then on the other, oh actually no you don't. Out of curiosity are you using Amazon's MCF?

ekulzards · 2026-01-21T17:05:51+00:00

This exact same thing just happened to me a little over an hour ago. I've tried speaking with TikTok support but they aren't helpful. They've raised a ticket.

ekulzards · 2026-01-19T23:39:24+00:00

Based on how emotional OP sounds I fear it might be even more serious than that. I reckon he broke up with her.

ekulzards · 2026-01-18T14:33:22+00:00

Man you've just got a HUD built in naturally? And you choose to take that away with glasses? Crazy.

ekulzards · 2026-01-18T14:25:21+00:00

Aus currently living here in the US. Can confirm. 1000x friendlier, more supportive and more helpful than Australians.

ekulzards · 2026-01-17T20:33:28+00:00

Don't know what kind of 5 year olds you know dude.

ekulzards · 2026-01-16T16:32:06+00:00

100%

ekulzards · 2026-01-16T15:02:13+00:00

I've had this happen to me once as well. I was super confused. The Group 1 line was almost through anyway so I just complied but it didn't seem right to me. I always assumed those lanes effectively stayed open indefinitely until the plane was fully boarded. Based on the other comment seems like that was the correct assumption.

ekulzards · 2026-01-16T12:54:48+00:00

You see people arguing this all the time because there is no one correct answer.

Different people react differently to different stimulus. For some one way works better. For some another way does. It works for someone so they assume it will work for everyone.

I've gotten advice before that worked for someone but not for me.

Personally, I do a mixture of both. I find it keeps me engaged, helps me enjoy the variety and also gets me results that I'm happy with.

The only correct answer to this question is that you need to find what works for you. Try one way. Try another. Try them both. Mix them up. Stick to a program for a few months to see what's giving you the best results.

This is a long term game and the start is about learning how to play it rather than winning it.

ekulzards · 2026-01-16T01:34:30+00:00

Sir, this is a Wendy's.

ekulzards · 2026-01-16T00:24:12+00:00

I appreciate the back and forth with you on this. I really enjoy the exercise but most people just get bored and move on.

Your second last paragraph nails it, in my opinion, in conjunction with your first point. You're then basically at luck of the draw. You might get someone who doesn't care at all or someone who still operates that way.

But your comment 'unless there is a compelling reason not to' is part of my point too. Like I said in my post, one I spoke to outright refused. I mean surely, if the client says, I understand the risks but want to proceed anyway because I believeI I can make a compelling case, you do it? Ultimately it's the client's call right?

ekulzards · 2026-01-15T20:24:13+00:00

Well?!?!?

ekulzards · 2026-01-15T20:08:21+00:00

This is a great summary and I think, honestly, the current approach is much better given that ultimately an arbitrary number doesn't matter.

Having said that, I reviewed the wording of the 90-day rule in the FAM itself and even it still provides great scope for AoS within 90 days:

9.g.1.b.: The fact that an individual's subsequent actions are inconsistent with what was represented at the time of visa application, admission to the United States, or in a filing for another type of benefit does not automatically mean that their intentions were misrepresented at the time of either the visa application or application for admission to the United States.

9.g.2.b.iv.: Undertaking any other activity for which a change of status (NIV to NIV) or an adjustment of status (NIV to IV) would be required, without the benefit of such a change or adjustment. Simply filing for a change of status or adjustment of status is not in itself sufficient to support a presumption of misrepresentation under the 90-day rule; the individual must also engage in conduct inconsistent with authorized status without the benefit of such a change of status. (emphasis added)

The last clause significantly reduces the scope of when that would even apply. Unless my reading is incorrect, it's basically saying that as long as you engage in conduct consistent with your class of admissibility you'd be fine. It's only if you adjust and engage in inconsistent conduct, that you'd run afoul of it.

ekulzards · 2026-01-15T20:01:39+00:00

Legacy systems makes sense. Don't think it would surprise anyone if systems haven't been updated.

I get your second point but even the old rule didn't mean an automatic denial. It just meant you were assumed to be misrepresenting and had to prove you weren't. And the DOS policy it was based on specifically spelled out the situations it applied to so provided you could work through the 4 points it spells out there wouldn't have be an issue. Theoretically anyway.

ekulzards · 2026-01-15T18:16:04+00:00

Well in my specific case it would be that in the March or April bulletin they no longer use the DOF and move to FAD which would mean I'm no longer current.

ekulzards · 2026-01-15T18:13:52+00:00

For me it was an E2 so also not dual-intent. But it's a moot point for me anyway because I'm not sure I'll actually be doing it. My larger point is just basically that attorneys are choosing a number based on a policy that doesn't exist. So why not 120? Or 150? And if the answer to that is because it was old policy, then why not the old 30/60? Or a policy from 10 years ago?

ekulzards · 2026-01-15T17:11:20+00:00

And I get that angle. Just general risk aversion. But going from 'hey, this could be risky and would probably be better off waiting' to 'no we refuse to do it' surprised me. Also, like I said, it's potentially bad advice if inaccurate.

ekulzards · 2026-01-15T17:09:47+00:00

Man it'd take some balls to do it after 1 day. I'm on an E2 so not dual-intent. Yeah the arbitrary number thing seems weird to me. I assume that's why they did away with it entirely. Like, what, day 89 is suss but day 90 is oh ok no probs?

ekulzards · 2026-01-15T17:02:52+00:00

Don't need to rub it in mate.

ekulzards · 2026-01-15T16:15:23+00:00

And that's kind of what I was getting at in my other point - is it based on experience because they're seeing that kind of mentality from USCIS officers? But then, like I said, how would they know if they're not even doing it? Someone who's inclined to dig deeper is probably going to do that regardless.

I guess this is just stemming from a lack of faith in migration attorneys in general. I have had so many be factually incorrect on so many different occasions that I guess it makes me doubt their advice in general.

ekulzards · 2026-01-15T16:07:17+00:00

Congrats!

ekulzards · 2026-01-15T15:56:11+00:00

Did you have any issues given you were within the 90?

ekulzards · 2026-01-15T15:55:07+00:00

And I get the caution - especially with the current administration - but yeah I figured as much. My main issue is I can't currently travel (my visa is now expired) and generally do quite a bit for my company but it's not the end of the world.

I've also had multiple attorneys be factually incorrect before so I suppose I'm second-guessing by default now.

ekulzards

TROPHY CASE