u/Medical_Addition_924

▲ 106 r/askimmigration+1 crossposts

I used to work at USCIS and I’m an immigration attorney. This is the advice I give to clients about social media.

I keep getting this question from clients, so figured I'd share what I actually know, both from practicing now and from my time on the inside.

The short answer: probably not as much as you think, unless something flags you.

USCIS does not have ICE's budget or ICE's staffing. Manually combing through every applicant's full social media history is not realistic at current resource levels. My educated guess (and it is a guess, not confirmed policy) is that even where initial sweeps or automated screening happen, a deep manual dive is reserved for cases where something already raised a flag. For what it's worth, none of my current clients have been asked about their social media yet.

That said, disclosure requirements have expanded a lot over the past year. If you're in a category required to list your accounts, that information is on the record and can be checked. "They're not reading everything" isn't the same as "it doesn't matter what's on there."

Advice I give clients:
-If your account is private, keep it private. If it's public, keep it public. Don't change your settings right now. A sudden shift can itself read as an attempt to manage what an officer sees.
-Don't delete old posts. Same logic: it can look like you're covering something up, which is often worse than the post itself.
-If an officer asks you about something on your social media, answer honestly. In my experience, officers respond far better to someone who owns something than someone who's clearly trying to spin it.

Officers are human. When I was adjudicating, I saw plenty of things in background checks that raised an eyebrow. Unless it pointed to an actual security concern or undermined the merits of the case, I usually didn't even bring it up. Most officers aren't looking to nitpick your Twitter history. They're trying to determine whether you're eligible and whether you're a security risk.

Bottom line: don't give them a reason to flag you. Don't hide, don't scrub, don't panic-change your privacy settings. If asked, be honest and move on.

Happy to answer questions. I have a few windows today it hop on.

I’m an attorney but this is not legal advice.

reddit.com
u/Medical_Addition_924 — 5 hours ago

Motion USCIS DORCAS .....

This document is a motion filed by the United States government before a federal court in Rhode Island, in the case of Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island, et al. v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, et al.

Summary of contents:

  1. Purpose of the motion: The government requests that the court issue a final ruling under Rule 54(b) on the claims already resolved in a prior order (ECF 28). Alternatively, it requests clarification that said order operates as an injunction pending the issuance of the final ruling.

  2. Background: On June 5, 2026, the court ruled that several immigration policies (Global Asylum Hold, Benefits Hold, Comprehensive Re-Review, and Country-Specific Factors) are unlawful and vacated them (set aside). However, other constitutional claims by the plaintiffs remain pending.

  3. Legal issue raised by the government: The vacating of policies is a final, not a preliminary, remedy. However, because there are still pending claims, there is no final judgment. Therefore, the vacating is neither effective nor appealable until the court issues a final judgment.

  4. Primary request (final judgment under Rule 54(b)): The government asks the court to certify that there is no reason to delay the appeal, issuing a final judgment only on the vacated policies. This would allow the government to appeal immediately and request a stay of the vacating pending the appeal.

  5. Alternative request (clarification as an injunction): If the court does not want to issue a final judgment, the government asks that it clarify that the vacating is effective immediately as if it were an injunction. This would also allow the government to appeal under another law (28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1)). 6. Main Reasons:

• To gain clarity on the government’s current obligations.

• To make the court’s decision appealable.

• To allow the appeals court to resolve the administrative law (APA) issues, which could avoid having to decide the pending constitutional claims.

• To serve the public interest, given the decision’s broad impact.

  1. Signature and Date: Filed June 9, 2026, by attorneys for the U.S. Department of Justice.

In summary: The government is asking the court to make its invalidation of immigration policies an appealable decision (either through a final judgment or a preliminary injunction) so that it can challenge it before a higher court.

u/Medical_Addition_924 — 26 days ago

Card sent, country on pause

Una mujer cubana, que está esperando su permiso de trabajo y la Green Card, solicitó I765 en marzo de 2025. Sabe cómo funcionan los procesos de USCIS: demoras, memorandos, etc. Hoy le mandó una consulta a USCIS, y esta fue su respuesta (adjunta): "Tu cuenta de USCIS no te ha notificado ningún cambio, aprobación o envío de tarjetas. Tu API no se ha actualizado recientemente."

u/Medical_Addition_924 — 26 days ago

Court of Appeals, HOLD

Good evening, I'd like to ask a question and discuss it. The stay has already been lifted in several courts, but only for the plaintiffs. They argue that it's a violation of the law, that it's illegal, and that it harms people. USCIS hasn't filed a motion or appeal regarding this. Do you think they have grounds to appeal now that it's been nationally recognized? Wouldn't the appeals court say something like: "If you didn't appeal before and you complied with the order, it's because the judge was right. So, if you want to appeal now, what are your grounds for appealing if you didn't do so before?" If USCIS were to claim national security, could the judge say, "A stay isn't necessary for that. You can review each case individually and approve or deny based on what you're reviewing?"

reddit.com
u/Medical_Addition_924 — 29 days ago
▲ 56 r/19countriesAOS+1 crossposts

USCIS Policy Manual vs Memorandum

As you all probably know, yesterday USCIS announced its new memorandum on the procedures for adjustment of status. We all know what it's about, but this directly contradicts the USCIS Policy Manual.

The attached excerpt is from the USCIS policy manual.

What do you think?

u/Medical_Addition_924 — 1 month ago

SAVE Verification

Soy de los 39 países, hasta ahora a todos los q estamos esperando un beneficio nos ha aparecido masivamente verificaciones del SSA en el SAVE, pero recientemente han ido apareciendo a personas esporadicamente estas nuevas verificaciones del SSA con la frase " Oversight Case Creation " , alguien mas en esta situación? Saben que significa ese Oversight Case Creation? Incluso le ha aparecido a solo 1 persona de un paquete familiar.

u/Medical_Addition_924 — 2 months ago