I need all your advice. I recieved a letter (Aug25) that my I-485 was denied. Because the New York office sent me a letter on Aug. 16 asked me to interview on Aug. 23. I didn't recieve the mail on time. The first letter was sent to my working address (I left it for I-485 application). The second letter was sent to my home (I used it for my EAD, AP). The odd is that I didn't recieve any email about the first letter. And I had LUD about my EAD renewal on Aug 29.
I made an appointment at the New York office. I ask to talk to a officer in Rm310. But the second letter said I need to hand in my motion in Rm 8-800.
My questions are:
Do I have any hope? What would be my excuse?
Thank you very much
Xiaobaitu and other expert, Please Help.
所有跟帖:
•
You may file a motion to reopen,usually CIS will approve
-xiaobaitu-
♀
(200 bytes)
()
09/01/2006 postreply
17:59:19
•
What does it mean "file a motion to reopen", What form should I
-cdc7-
♀
(30 bytes)
()
09/01/2006 postreply
18:05:34
•
用通俗的話說,就是書麵解釋為什麽沒有參加麵談,要求再給一次機會
-xiaobaitu-
♀
(0 bytes)
()
09/01/2006 postreply
18:10:04
•
So there is no specific form for it. I just need to write and ex
-cdc7-
♀
(179 bytes)
()
09/01/2006 postreply
18:16:15
•
Don't need form,just a paper.You'd better ask the CIS
-xiaobaitu-
♀
(58 bytes)
()
09/01/2006 postreply
18:21:12
•
Thank you very much. You really help me a lot. Wish you the best
-cdc7-
♀
(34 bytes)
()
09/01/2006 postreply
18:23:14
•
you will get your case reopened. you are not the only case.
-ask66-
♀
(152 bytes)
()
09/01/2006 postreply
19:08:23
•
It all depends How you could explain to USCIS
-howdy-
♂
(1240 bytes)
()
09/02/2006 postreply
11:47:14
•
howdy, I called a lawyer's office, they do not accept the MOTION
-cdc7-
♀
(439 bytes)
()
09/02/2006 postreply
11:55:06
•
where are u located?
-howdy-
♂
(728 bytes)
()
09/02/2006 postreply
14:19:19
•
He has said his case at NY office,I think he means
-xiaobaitu-
♀
(140 bytes)
()
09/02/2006 postreply
17:44:56
•
4 field offices in NY. NYC, Garden City, Bufflo, Albany
-howdy-
♂
(201 bytes)
()
09/02/2006 postreply
18:33:01