USCIS scare, AOS approved and Divorce pending

[am1996 0]

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!

Please breath. First, none of us are infallible -- lawyers, doctors, plumbers, CBP officers or even you (didn't you just incorrectly advised a poster that aliens with K3 visas and pending AOS applications were required to obtain AP to travel?). Second, with all due respect, you are mischaracterizing the thread you are referring to (we had done ZERO research prior to posting the first question there). We never said that the strategy that we had intended to employ at the time was without peril. Instead, we were trying to check exactly how dangerous that strategy was and were trying to see if there were any viable alternatives. Once people (especially Kezzie, to whom we are forever grateful) pointed us in the right direction, we were good to go.

I believe that all our posts have at all times been very respectful and appreciative of others. Regardless of how you may feel about my fiance or I, would it be too much to ask for you to return the favor?

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.

Respectfully, what is the "common sense" or any other type of an advice that you have provided in your initial post in this thread? You have characterized the OP's actions as "very dumb" without offering any suggestions that he could follow to help him out of the situation.

For the record, my JD does not give me "free reign" here or anywhere else. When I post my advice here, I do so not as a lawyer but as a person who is merely trying to help, while also trying not to mislead. As such, I substantiate it with citations. The beauty of citations is that you can easily google them and read them yourself and then decide whether you agree with the posts or not. You definitely don't need a JD to do so; just a bit of "common sense," which you prize (and rightfully so).

[diadromous mermaid 36]

Respectfully, what is the "common sense" or any other type of an advice that you have provided in your initial post in this thread? You have characterized the OP's actions as "very dumb" without offering any suggestions that he could follow to help him out of the situation.

For the record, my JD does not give me "free reign" here or anywhere else. When I post my advice here, I do so not as a lawyer but as a person who is merely trying to help, while also trying not to mislead. As such, I substantiate it with citations. The beauty of citations is that you can easily google them and read them yourself and then decide whether you agree with the posts or not. You definitely don't need a JD to do so; just a bit of "common sense," which you prize (and rightfully so).

Asked and answered! Come on, let's not make too much of a members' comment. Right now this thread has been diverted way off topic, and the OP is getting no advice, quasilegal or otherwise. Back to topic, folks

[rebeccajo 14]

am1996, I'm all for second starts and chances, ok?

Sure there's room for argument in immigration matters. But it belongs in the courtroom, (as mermaid said) and not here. In a self help forum such as this one we are best served sticking to black and white.

And I think you would do well to admit that despite your credentials, you would be just as lost in a courtroom setting as I would. If you graduated 'smartly' in your class, you should know full well that whatever area you practice in makes you woefully incapable in the areas in which you don't. Or if not incapable, then at least dangerous - as in the old adage "I know just enough to be dangerous".

I'm sorry if you think my post was rude. But I believe that what the OP did was - well - plain dumb. Especially when his immigration status hangs upon the answer to the question put to him. There is nothing wrong with telling someone what they did was less than smart. My divorce lawyer told me I did dumb stuff. Do you speak to your clients with something less than candor? Perhaps it's just where I am from. Around here we call it being 'straight up'.

What I said might not help the OP. But it's straight up. It's the heart of his problem and the reason he came here with a question. What more does he need to know? How to keep evading the answer?

[Dr_LHA 3]

Common sense and experience on a site like this are more useful than quoting laws IMHO. I'd rather have the advice of someone who's gone through it, than someone who read the immigration laws on a web page.

As such forums like this are useful for opinions and advice, however if you want advice on the exact word of the law: see an licensed immigration attorney.

FYI: I have been dealing with the INS/BCIS/USCIS for 7 1/2 years, so have some experience with how they operate, but I wouldn't want to give the impression that anything I say on this website is anything but an opinion based on my own experience, rather than my interpretation of legal documents.

Edited August 24, 2006 by dr_lha

[Kez/JWolf 6]

I think the main problem here is that you am1996 like to quote law and case studies to back up your point.... as 99% of us on this board dont even know how to fully understand legal language it make it seam to others that you are trying to be smart and above them when you do this...

You have said some very interesting things in many of your posts and have given me area's to investigate further... but the bottom line is that most people here are looking for others opinions of there actions or possible actions and that is what most people give in reply to the question... if they wanted a legal interpritation of the USCIS laws they would consult a lawyer... and yes sometime real life expirence if far better than academic learning....

Kezzie

[am1996 0]

am1996, I'm all for second starts and chances, ok?

Sure there's room for argument in immigration matters. But it belongs in the courtroom, (as mermaid said) and not here. In a self help forum such as this one we are best served sticking to black and white.

And I think you would do well to admit that despite your credentials, you would be just as lost in a courtroom setting as I would. If you graduated 'smartly' in your class, you should know full well that whatever area you practice in makes you woefully incapable in the areas in which you don't. Or if not incapable, then at least dangerous - as in the old adage "I know just enough to be dangerous".

I'm sorry if you think my post was rude. But I believe that what the OP did was - well - plain dumb. Especially when his immigration status hangs upon the answer to the question put to him. There is nothing wrong with telling someone what they did was less than smart. My divorce lawyer told me I did dumb stuff. Do you speak to your clients with something less than candor? Perhaps it's just where I am from. Around here we call it being 'straight up'.

What I said might not help the OP. But it's straight up. It's the heart of his problem and the reason he came here with a question. What more does he need to know? How to keep evading the answer?

I hate to continue belaboring this point but you still don't seem to understand what I am saying. There are plenty of circumstances out there when your "complete candor" as you call it (I call it "volunteering information when you are not required to do so") is the worst possible thing you can do -- this is true in every legal, practical and every other sense out there. For instance, if you are ever audited by the IRS, you are generally well advised to only respond to the questions asked without volunteering ANYTHING. If you give them all the paperwork you have for everything out there, then you are asking for trouble. If you are ever pulled over and asked whether you know why the police officer pulled you over, the right answer in almost every situation is NO. If you tell him that it is because you just ran a red light but he pulled you over for speeding, you will get two tickets.

Likewise, it is not at all clear here that the OP was required to volunteer information to USCIS. If he was not and the law clearly states that USCIS cannot hold it against him, then as a legal, practical and every other matter out there the answer that the OP has provided was the right one. Are we now on the same page?

Edited August 24, 2006 by am1996

[john_and_marlene 162]

USCIS does not make the rules. Congress does.

USCIS does not make the rules, but they do make a ruling and congress has given them the authority to make that ruling. Their authority to adjudicate the merits of these cases came from congress. If they decide that the marriage was for immigration benefit only they can deny him. He may have some recourse on appeal and that's where he would need an attorney the most. The OP asked our opinion regarding their ability to deny him the GC and we gave our opinions.

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).

There is absolutely nothing wrong with posting our opinions and understandings of the system, especially if and when the posts are qualified as such. My issue had to do with a poster unequivocally categorizing a person's actions as "very dumb," which was not only uncalled for and profoundly offensive but, in light of the uncertain answer to the OP's question, may have been quite misleading.

I'd like to point out that the parameters given to them allow them to make a subjective judgement as to whether the immigrant is being truthful or deceptive and apply that judgement to the decision regarding their approval. In this case, it may not have exactly been "smart" to elude the question of his current marital status. Making a stand on the technical truth of a statement does not make it any less deceptive.

Having said that, I agree there are better ways to express your objection to someone's actions than to call them dumb. Such statements usually indicate to me a lack of expressive competence.

[am1996 0]

Common sense and experience on a site like this are more useful than quoting laws IMHO. I'd rather have the advice of someone who's gone through it, than someone who read the immigration laws on a web page.

That depends on the nature of the question. For instance, yesterday somebody asked how to answer an I485 question that reads "Were you inspected by a US immigration officer?" (http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=28324&hl=). Kezzie and John correctly answered the question but the complete and definitive answer to that question lies in the statute that I quoted there. If you simply take 30 seconds to google the citation that I provided (8 USC 1255(a)), the very first website that google returns will take you there and even a cursory reading of that one paragraph should undoubtedly confirm the answer beyond all possible doubts. Is there a problem with doing that?

[Dr_LHA 3]

The difference is, Kezzie's and John's answers were useful, whereas quoting statue is confusing to all but attorney's who aren't used to such legal language.

I'd much rather have someone say: "Yes, this is what I did and it was correct", than someone say "Well, Section 231(Q) of the Immigration Act of 1997 states..."

[am1996 0]

I think the main problem here is that you am1996 like to quote law and case studies to back up your point.... as 99% of us on this board dont even know how to fully understand legal language it make it seam to others that you are trying to be smart and above them when you do this...

You have said some very interesting things in many of your posts and have given me area's to investigate further... but the bottom line is that most people here are looking for others opinions of there actions or possible actions and that is what most people give in reply to the question... if they wanted a legal interpritation of the USCIS laws they would consult a lawyer... and yes sometime real life expirence if far better than academic learning....

Kezzie

The "above them" comment certainly makes a lot of sense and all I can do is assure you and others that that is absolutely NOT my intention and sincerely apologize if people have gotten that impression from my posts. I have absolutely nothing to prove to people on this board, especially since we are all in the same boat anyway.

As for the case and statutory quotations, I don't know how else to explain certain positions or statements. For the most part, the citations that I provide are quite precise, aren't difficult to research (just google them or ask me to send you a free link to them) and do not require any special skills. Yes, the language used there may not be straightforward, but keep in mind that CBP and USCIS is reading the same exact legal language. Quite a few times, the way to answer a certain question unambiguously can be found in cases and statutes, so when I come across those instances, I try to post them.

As for your last point, I wholeheartedly agree that real life experience in quite a few cases is far superior to purely academic knowledge. However, what's wrong with supplementing this real life experience with some legal knowledge, so that you know how to better answer certain questions because you then know the REASON that the questions are being asked and can then formulate the best answer?

The difference is, Kezzie's and John's answers were useful, whereas quoting statue is confusing to all but attorney's who aren't used to such legal language.

I'd much rather have someone say: "Yes, this is what I did and it was correct", than someone say "Well, Section 231(Q) of the Immigration Act of 1997 states..."

The difference is, Kezzie's and John's answers were opinions, which the OP can never be sure are correct. If those opinions are supplemented by a simple statutory reference (once again, google "8 USC 1255(a)), which you can then read and understand for yourself, then you don't have to wonder whether those opinions were correct. The language there is really not that confusing! Edited August 24, 2006 by am1996

[Dr_LHA 3]

It comes down to this:

If people really wanted to be quoted statute, they would Google it for themselves. If people were able to understand the law statutes easily, they wouldn't need this website as generally everything they need to know is included on the USCIS website and in the form instructions.

If they want opinions and advice from people who have gone through the process that they are about to, then they ask here.

[am1996 0]

It comes down to this:

If people really wanted to be quoted statute, they would Google it for themselves. If people were able to understand the law statutes easily, they wouldn't need this website as generally everything they need to know is included on the USCIS website and in the form instructions.

If they want opinions and advice from people who have gone through the process that they are about to, then they ask here.

People don't want opinions and people don't want statutes. People want ANSWERS that are as precise and accurate as they can get and they want them at the lowest possible cost ("free" is even better). I don't know about you, but I find that people's practical experiences COMBINED with legal references are the best way to confirm that the answers are correct.

For the most part, people can't google a statute because they don't know what to look for or where to start (the latter is the reason that my fiance and I are on this forum, since it would otherwise take FOREVER for me to research everything from scratch). Once such a reference or a link is provided, I am not sure why people would refuse to look at it and, if unclear, ask questions.

As for the USCIS website and form instructions, I don't know about you but I often find statutes FAR MORE CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS than those USCIS instructions (especially those that seem to contradict each other). For instance, the I485 question that I referred to above ("Have you been inspected by a US Immigration Officer?") makes NO SENSE to me. Once I see people's responses to the question and then see the statute that requires an affirmative response to it, I feel quite comfortable answering it.

In situations where people's practical experiences seem to contradict the law, I know that I need to do more research and ask more questions. It's as simple as that.

P.S.

Another excellent example of helpful statutory references is Advance Parole (I've posted it in a couple of threads). Once you know how USCIS makes decisions about it (which is based on the way it was instructed to do so by Congress, which gave USCIS virtually no discretion), you will know how to answer certain questions. For instance, if the reasons that you want AP is because you want to "go on an African safari" and to "visit elderly parents," providing the second answer gives you a much better chance of qualifying for AP than the first. If you just ask for people's practical experiences without reviewing the statute, you'll get answers that essentially say that "any answer will suffice." Even if that may be true in many cases, a second answer gives you a much higher likelihood of approval than the first.

Edited August 24, 2006 by am1996

[iceyspots 0]

This thread is giving me a headache.

[diadromous mermaid 36]

It comes down to this:

If people really wanted to be quoted statute, they would Google it for themselves. If people were able to understand the law statutes easily, they wouldn't need this website as generally everything they need to know is included on the USCIS website and in the form instructions.

If they want opinions and advice from people who have gone through the process that they are about to, then they ask here.

People don't want opinions and people don't want statutes. People want ANSWERS that are as precise and accurate as they can get and they want them at the lowest possible cost ("free" is even better). I don't know about you, but I find that people's practical experiences COMBINED with legal references are the best way to confirm that the answers are correct.

For the most part, people can't google a statute because they don't know what to look for or where to start (the latter is the reason that my fiance and I are on this forum, since it would otherwise take FOREVER for me to research everything from scratch). Once such a reference or a link is provided, I am not sure why people would refuse to look at it and, if unclear, ask questions.

As for the USCIS website and form instructions, I don't know about you but I often find statutes FAR MORE CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS than those USCIS instructions (especially those that seem to contradict each other). For instance, the I485 question that I referred to above ("Have you been inspected by a US Immigration Officer?") makes NO SENSE to me. Once I see people's responses to the question and then see the statute that requires an affirmative response to it, I feel quite comfortable answering it.

In situations where people's practical experiences seem to contradict the law, I know that I need to do more research and ask more questions. It's as simple as that.

P.S.

Another excellent example of helpful statutory references is Advance Parole (I've posted it in a couple of threads). Once you know how USCIS makes decisions about it (which is based on the way it was instructed to do so by Congress and given virtually no discretion there), you will know how to answer certain questions. For instance, if the reasons that you want AP is because you want to "go on an African safari" and to "visit elderly parents," providing the second answer gives you a much better chance of qualifying for AP than the first. If you just asked for people's practical experiences without reviewing the statute, you'll get answers that essentially say that "any answer will suffice." Even if that may be true in many cases, a second answer gives you a much higher likelihood of approval than the first.

How nonsensical is the question "Have you been inspected by a US Immigration Officer?" I see that as a clear, concise and simple question. What's nonsensical about it?

[JenT 0]

** gives Icey an aspirin **

I've been following and muttering under my breath, but there are attorneys in my family, so I'll shut up now.