USCIS scare, AOS approved and Divorce pending

[am1996 0]

This clearly demonstrates your lack of understanding of this subject area. I guess reading the statutes failed you on this topic.

Hhhhhm, perhaps I did not make my posts sufficiently clear. My initial confusion about the question came BEFORE I read the statute. The statute makes the answer to the question crystal clear.

My understanding of that question was... when I arrived at the POE I had my passport inspected so therfore I had been inspected so I answered yes...

Kezzie, that is certainly a reasonable interpretation. Except, as I believe I posted above, my fiance has never been asked any follow up question and her passport has almost never been inspected. In fact, quite a few times she didn't even have her passport on her.

In any event, as I've posted above, the statute I've previously referenced makes the reason for the question quite clear and the answer unambiguous.

Nobody like to have the laws and statutes thrown at them.... most of us dont understand what it is trying to tell us.... I know you am1996 find it helpful to go and look at and understand.... you have a legal mind but please remember that not everybody does....

Its like being back at school... you remember the smart kid???? the one who when asked a question took half the leason explaining the answer... well he understood the reasoning and wanted to show he understood... the fact it totally pissed off the rest of the class never entered his smart head....

of course all of this is just my opinion as I have no laws to back it up....

I completely understand the way that you feel and have already said that I have never intended to sound condescending. In fact I am not even sure why I would have any reason to even sound condescending -- after all, you were the one who essentially provided the incredibly helpful answer to my fiance, for which we are quite grateful.

As for the laws and statutes being "thrown" at them, I honestly do not understand why you find USCIS instructions more clear than some of the statutes I have quoted. Besides, if the answer to a question lies in a statute, how can I formulate an answer and give the person asking it a way to double check it without quoting the statute? Once again, we are all on the SAME SIDE here and this is anything but a competition. I don't care if I come up with an answer or if you do. It just needs to be correct and people have to have a way to double check its accuracy.

[am1996 0]

I tried to offer you an olive branch. Instead you continue to bang your gong.

I stand by my opinion that your JD does not give you the expertise nor the credibility to come on here and spout your opinion on immigration law. All it shows me is that you learned how to research. A good paralegal can do the same.

There is a little phrase that you may not yet have come upon in your self-help crash course in immigration law. It's called 'totality of circumstance'. Adjudicators have been granted the latitude to use it. CBP officers have been granted the latitude to use it. It's in their handbooks - not the law as hammered out in the legislative process and stamped by the Senate and President.

You may have a JD but you have much to learn.

I agree that a law degree doesn't give me or anyone else out there the expertise or the credibility to do or to say anything. When was that ever in doubt? This is the precise reason that I provide citations and explanations in my posts, so that people can review the information that I am using and then either agree or disagree with me.

By the way, at the risk of sounding condescending (here's that word again), the phrase "totality of the circumstances" is just a fancy way of saying "common sense." For instance, the affidavit of support requires a certain level of income -- if you provide your AGI on the affidavit instead of the total taxable income, the USCIS adjudicator can theoretically ask you for the latter. If the "totality of the circumstance" is such that such an inquiry would not change anything (if, for instance, the AGI is already well about the stated limits), then the adjudicators are instructed not to make the useless and hypertechnical inquiry (meaning that they should use "common sense" when the law allows it).

Please note that the "totality of the circumstances" test cannot always be used -- it all depends on the way the applicable statute is structured and how much authority and discretion it allows. For instance, if in the above "affidavit of support" scenario, the statute not only required a sufficient income level but also required a precise statement of the "taxable income," the USCIS adjudicator would not be permitted to use the "totality of the circumstances" test or his/her discretion to waive it.

By the way, perhaps I am overly sensitive, but am I the only one who finds the tone of your post above quite offensive ("spout your opinion" and "have much to learn" are respectful phrases?). Once again, whether or not you agree with my posts, I believe that I have always been respectful in all my replies. Would it be too much to ask you to do the same?

Edited August 25, 2006 by am1996

[rebeccajo 14]

By the way, at the risk of sounding condescending (here's that word again), the phrase "totality of the circumstances" is just a fancy way of saying "common sense." For instance, the affidavit of support requires a certain level of income -- if you provide your AGI on the affidavit instead of the total taxable income, the USCIS adjudicator can theoretically ask you for the latter. If the "totality of the circumstance" is such that such an inquiry would not change anything (if, for instance, the AGI is already well about the stated limits), then the adjudicators are instructed not to make the useless and hypertechnical inquiry (meaning that they should use "common sense" when the law allows it).

Please note that the "totality of the circumstances" test cannot always be used -- it all depends on the way the applicable statute is structured and how much authority and discretion it allows. For instance, if in the above "affidavit of support" scenario, the statute not only required a sufficient income level but also required a precise statement of the "taxable income," the USCIS adjudicator would not be permitted to use the "totality of the circumstances" test or his/her discretion to waive it.

By the way, perhaps I am overly sensitive, but am I the only one who finds the tone of your post above quite offensive ("spout your opinion" and "have much to learn" are respectful phrases?). Once again, whether or not you agree with my posts, I believe that I have always been respectful in all my replies. Would it be too much to ask you to do the same?

For your further edification, the FAM handbook tells the adjudicator to refer to Line 22 of the 1040.

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

You say you have been respectful. I politely disagree. I find your lectures to be condescending and gratuituous.

As for me - well I'm just a girl from the sticks who happens to work in a law firm. For 14 years now.

I've seen 'em come and I've seen 'em go. The ones who can't see that they should stick to their area of expertise and leave the rest to those who have TRULY studied it.

But then my boss always told me there's several things omitted in law school. Like real life experience, business sense, and a touch of humility.

Edited August 25, 2006 by rebeccajo

[vartan 0]

I think of a cartoon when I read this thread

[Dr_LHA 3]

am1996: This forum is one of the most agreeable ones I've ever been on (with perhaps the exception of "off topic" sometimes). The fact is every thread I have seen you post in has turned into a frustrating slanging match. This doesn't seem to happen to anyone else, at some point you have to realise that it's your attitude on here that's causing the friction and not everyone else.

Someone really needs to lock this thread.

[hotairguy 0]

am1996: This forum is one of the most agreeable ones I've ever been on (with perhaps the exception of "off topic" sometimes). The fact is every thread I have seen you post in has turned into a frustrating slanging match. This doesn't seem to happen to anyone else, at some point you have to realise that it's your attitude on here that's causing the friction and not everyone else.

Someone really needs to lock this thread.

This poster am1996 is very similar to another lawyer that used to post here, Matt Udall Very similar, Hmmm. Just like this poster, he was very arrogant and dimwitted to the way of the real world of immigration and the USCIS. Can you imagine walking into a USCIS office and quoting legal citations? Telling an officer that the REAL meaning of this law is such and such and they are wrong. He also seemed to have all the time in the world to respond to each and every post almost immediately right after people created them. When everyone on the board finally got wise to how terrible he was, he left and demanded that items he had contributed to this board be taken down. I asked him if he picked up his pacifier on the way out. Hmm, very similar and just as dense.

Marilyn and Peter.

[Dr_LHA 3]

I thought Matt Udall is an actual AILA immigration lawyer?

[am1996 0]

am1996: This forum is one of the most agreeable ones I've ever been on (with perhaps the exception of "off topic" sometimes). The fact is every thread I have seen you post in has turned into a frustrating slanging match. This doesn't seem to happen to anyone else, at some point you have to realise that it's your attitude on here that's causing the friction and not everyone else.

Someone really needs to lock this thread.

This poster am1996 is very similar to another lawyer that used to post here, Matt Udall Very similar, Hmmm. Just like this poster, he was very arrogant and dimwitted to the way of the real world of immigration and the USCIS. Can you imagine walking into a USCIS office and quoting legal citations? Telling an officer that the REAL meaning of this law is such and such and they are wrong. He also seemed to have all the time in the world to respond to each and every post almost immediately right after people created them. When everyone on the board finally got wise to how terrible he was, he left and demanded that items he had contributed to this board be taken down. I asked him if he picked up his pacifier on the way out. Hmm, very similar and just as dense.

Marilyn and Peter.

If you choose to attack somebody, would it be at least possible for you to attack us for the right reasons? Where on god's green earth did I ever tell anybody to walk into a USCIS office and quote legal citations?

The reason that knowing the law is important is the same reason that reading this board before you complete various applications and/or prepare for USCIS interviews is helpful -- knowing what USCIS might ask you and answering it correctly is what this advance knowledge allows you to do.

am1996: This forum is one of the most agreeable ones I've ever been on (with perhaps the exception of "off topic" sometimes). The fact is every thread I have seen you post in has turned into a frustrating slanging match. This doesn't seem to happen to anyone else, at some point you have to realise that it's your attitude on here that's causing the friction and not everyone else.

Someone really needs to lock this thread.

Dr_lha, as entertaining as this thread as been, I am still curious about this and several other posts you have made here. You have already stated several times that you do not find case and statutory references helpful and are not interested in double checking their accuracy and/or applicability. I've already replied several times that that is certainly your prerogative.

Some people on this board do, however, find such references helpful and useful. Perhaps this would not turn into as much of a "frustrating slanging match," as you put it, if you would allow them and me the courtesy of going about the immigration process as we see fit, while you do the same. Otherwise, it is difficult to take the "frustrating slanging match" complaints seriously from one of its primary initiators.

[atul 0]

An update :

I received a letter from VSC yesterday that my case has indeed been transferred to Pittsburgh sub-office and that I direct all my enquiries to that office......

Just about a month ago when i e-mailed Pittsburgh Office, I received a reply saying case is with Vermont and that Pittsburgh sub-office cannot expedite the production of PR card....

So, back to square 1 now....I am planning to move to another state end september and would let Pittsburgh USCIS know abt it to act soon whatever they decide.....

Will keep everyone posted.......

Atul

[caregiver4ever 0]

I thought it was against the law for anyone to ask you your status of citizanship. I know police cannot if they stop u but i would guess a hospital wouldnt have the right to ask u either.

[Buttons 0]

I can't believe you guys are still argueing about this !!!!!!!! LOL Keep going good amusement.

[Kez/JWolf 6]

I thought it was against the law for anyone to ask you your status of citizanship. I know police cannot if they stop u but i would guess a hospital wouldnt have the right to ask u either.

Now I am totaly lost...... did I miss something??????

Kezzie

[JenT 0]

Now I have a headache.

[meauxna 15]

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."

I think the phrase you were looking for here is 'concealment of a material fact'. ie, "dumb".

I also don't believe that the USCIS officer took the OP in a back room and asked him one, single question. Who knows what else he said?

But that's OK; he's going to move offices now and somehow magically avoid the problem he has, which is: applying for an immigration benefit based on a relationship that does not exist.

If the OP thought what he did was "right", he wouldn't be posting here for reassurance, would he?

[rebeccajo 14]

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."

I think the phrase you were looking for here is 'concealment of a material fact'. ie, "dumb".

I also don't believe that the USCIS officer took the OP in a back room and asked him one, single question. Who knows what else he said?

But that's OK; he's going to move offices now and somehow magically avoid the problem he has, which is: applying for an immigration benefit based on a relationship that does not exist.

If the OP thought what he did was "right", he wouldn't be posting here for reassurance, would he?

Watch it. People aren't gonna like that you used the word 'dumb'. B)