USCIS scare, AOS approved and Divorce pending

[Kez/JWolf 6]

am1996.... this is a internet forum where people come to get others opinions on there situation... unless you are a immigration lawyer then your interpretation of the USCIS guidelines is only your opinion.... if someone here posts that they think that the OP was dumb... then that is their opinion....

If the OP was only seeking definite answers and not opinions then he would not have asked his question on a public forum.....

Kezzie

Edited August 24, 2006 by Kezzie

[JenT 0]

am1996.... this is a internet forum where people come to get others opinions on there situation... unless you are a immigration lawyer then your interpretation of the USCIS guidelines is only your opinion.... if someone here posts that they think that the OP was dumb... then that is their opinion....

If the OP was only seeking definite answers and not opinions then he would not have asked his question on a public forum.....

Kezzie

I wish the use of the word 'dumb' was the worst thing ever said about someone or their actions within VJ. am1996 could make a career out of correcting people here...

[rebeccajo 14]

Agreed, with the caveat that USCIS' rulings must be made within the parameters given to them by Congress and the courts. As such, unless the applicable statutory and common law authority imposes an affirmative obligation on the OP to volunteer information that is not specifically requested by the USCIS, there may not have been anything wrong with the OP's answer (I can't tell one way or the other right now).

Gee that was ambiguous. Sounded good though.

I'm sorry, but in my opinion it is dumb to second-guess what USCIS might think of something. Especially the very thing that one's immigration status hangs on. Sorry if that's rude or misleading.

[Dr_LHA 3]

am1996 could make a career out of correcting people here...

The classic being quoting of immigration law to correct a former CBP officer on entry requirements. That was funny.

[am1996 0]

I see absolutely no problem with correcting others or have my posts corrected, especially when such corrections are substantiated (by personal experience, statutory references, links to articles, etc...).

An "opinion," which is based neither on law or on reality and cannot be otherwise substantiated is reckless and irresponsible. When such an "opinion" is accompanied by offensive remarks, regardless of their degree of offensiveness, it becomes rather inexcusable.

We have received both incredibly helpful, useful and accurate replies to our questions on this board as well as some well intentioned but clearly wrong ones. The reason that we have and continue to express our profound gratitude for all of those replies is because they are clearly given with the best of intentions and provide an excellent starting point for our research. By contrast, replies such as "this is very dumb" without more is akin to telling a drowning person how dumb he/she is for ending up in that predicament but not offering any help.

Rebeccajo, what is ambiguous in the portion of the post you have quoted? If Congress and the courts say that it doesn't matter what USCIS might "think" of you getting a ticket for running a red light, then that's all that matters to a person who is worried that his AOS petition might get denied simply because USCIS doesn't like it. Likewise, if Congress and the courts say that the OP has no obligation to volunteer any information to USCIS that it does not request, then the OP's answer may not have been incorrect, imprudent or, as you say, "dumb."

[Dr_LHA 3]

To be fair, the OP was pretty stupid to omit the fact he was getting divorced when asked by USCIS. They will find out sooner or later, and by holding back that information it can only prejudice them against his case I'm afraid. You could say that as his divorce hadn't gone through yet, it was the right answer, but IMHO a lie of omission is still a lie.

Being open and honest is the best policy at all times. If USCIS officers think you are being anything other than that you'll be booted out of the country pretty fast.

[am1996 0]

am1996 could make a career out of correcting people here...

The classic being quoting of immigration law to correct a former CBP officer on entry requirements. That was funny.

Are you saying that my corrections were false? If so, let's hear it.

Yes, "am1996" is just a screen name, which is used by my fiance as well as myself. I am an attorney and although I certainly do not specialize in immigration law, the corrections that I've previously posted have been based on the applicable case and statutory law (I have also provided citations thereto).

By the way, why do you find an assertion that a former CBP officer may not be aware of various caveats of immigration law so implausible and amusing (especially when that assertion is backed up by statutory and case citations)?

[Dr_LHA 3]

I found your assertions that a former CBP was incorrect in interpreting the law to be hilarious yes. Mainly because it was his job to implement that law every day.

Unless you are an immigration lawyer, I'll believe a former CBP officer to be correct before I believe you, no matter how much law you quote on these pages.

Edited August 24, 2006 by dr_lha

[Kez/JWolf 6]

Please answer me something.... if you are a lawyer who quite clearly has a good understanding of how to read the law then why are you here in a public forum that helps people who for whatever reason are not using a lawyer to help them with the process of immigration...

Kezzie

[am1996 0]

I found your assertions that a former CBP was incorrect in interpreting the law to be hilarious yes. Mainly because it was his job to implement that law every day.

Unless you are an immigration lawyer, I'll believe a former CBP officer to be correct before I believe you, no matter how much law you quote on these pages.

I am not sure that I completely understand your reply but it is certainly your prerogative to do as you please. The only reason that I have posted my corrections was in a heartfelt effort to help others, since this forum has already provided incredible help to my fiance and I. If you would rather automatically reject the information contained in my posts, you are certainly free to do so.

As for the comments calling the OP's actions "very dumb," I would once again urge people not to kick him when he is down (in all fairness, very few people have done that) and to instead provide a responsible advice to him or, if they are unable to do that, to tell him that his best bet is to consult an attorney.

[rebeccajo 14]

Agreed, with the caveat that USCIS' rulings must be made within the parameters given to them by Congress and the courts. As such, unless the applicable statutory and common law authority imposes an affirmative obligation on the OP to volunteer information that is not specifically requested by the USCIS, there may not have been anything wrong with the OP's answer (I can't tell one way or the other right now).

Gee that was ambiguous. Sounded good though.

I'm sorry, but in my opinion it is dumb to second-guess what USCIS might think of something. Especially the very thing that one's immigration status hangs on. Sorry if that's rude or misleading.

Ambiguous?

The use of everything highlighted in bold....used in one sentence.

[Dr_LHA 3]

The only reason that I have posted my corrections was in a heartfelt effort to help others, since this forum has already provided incredible help to my fiance and I. If you would rather automatically reject the information contained in my posts, you are certainly free to do so.

This is all very well and good, but unfortunately your credibility in interpreting immigration law took a huge dent after the whole thread where you tried to convince yourself it was OK to get engaged, then leave the country, return on a B2 visa in order to get married. The former CBP officer correctly pointed out to you that you would get turned away at entry due to having immigration intent, and instead of accepting his advice, you argued and quoted case law at him, when he was trying to help you out.

So yes, Iwill be free to automatically reject information in your posts. Thanks!

[am1996 0]

Please answer me something.... if you are a lawyer who quite clearly has a good understanding of how to read the law then why are you here in a public forum that helps people who for whatever reason are not using a lawyer to help them with the process of immigration...

Kezzie

Reading and interpreting the law is one thing; locating the starting point for any research is an entirely different issue. Since I do not specialize in immigration law, this forum has been incredibly helpful in helping me locate a starting point for my research as well as in answering procedural questions. For instance, many issues that we have encountered so far are simply not addressed in the statutes and cases (for instance, the way that pictures should be taken is not, to my knowledge, a statutory requirement, so very much appreciated people's answers to our questions), so people's practical experience with these issues has been incredibly helpful.

What's with the hostility? We are not trolls and all our questions in this forum have been genuine. Likewise, we have at this point more or less thoroughly researched a number of questions that have come up and are simply trying to give back to the forum that has already given so much to us.

Edited August 24, 2006 by am1996

[rebeccajo 14]

No hostility. Just common sense.

You may think the title JD gives you free reign here. It does not. There's loads of experience behind this board. When you are given common sense advice you really should give it some credence rather than pooh-poohing it with your scholarly credentials.

What's with the hostility? We are not trolls and all our questions in this forum have been genuine. Likewise, we have at this point more or less thoroughly researched a number of questions that have come up and are simply trying to give back to the forum that has already given so much to us.

Edited August 24, 2006 by rebeccajo

[diadromous mermaid 36]

Please answer me something.... if you are a lawyer who quite clearly has a good understanding of how to read the law then why are you here in a public forum that helps people who for whatever reason are not using a lawyer to help them with the process of immigration...

Kezzie

Reading and interpreting the law is one thing; locating the starting point for any research is an entirely different issue. Since I do not specialize in immigration law, this forum has been incredibly helpful in helping me locate a starting point for my research as well as in answering procedural questions. For instance, many issues that we have encountered so far are simply not addressed in the statutes and cases (for instance, the way that pictures should be taken is not, to my knowledge, a statutory requirement, so very much appreciated people's answers to our questions), so people's practical experience with these issues has been incredibly helpful.

What's with the hostility? We are not trolls and all our questions in this forum have been genuine. Likewise, we have at this point more or less thoroughly researched a number of questions that have come up and are simply trying to give back to the forum that has already given so much to us.

Ambiguous?

The use of everything highlighted in bold....used in one sentence.

Precisely. The answer to the OP's question is ambiguous, which is one of the reasons that his actions should not have been called "very dumb."

am1966, As an officer of the court, any court, of course it's natural to believe that familiarity with the legal foundation of the various procedures is priceless and good ammunition. Unfortunately, having the ability to regurgitate the law and statutory language as one's argument only comes into play once you're in a dispute with the Service. In other words, once one is appealing an unfavourable decision. I believe in all fairness, if I am reading this thread correctly, opinions as to the OPs action were only provided as recommendations to others and the OP so as to avoid such an event, or future events.