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