USCIS scare, AOS approved and Divorce pending

[vincit_qui_se_vincit 0]

"If you can't convince them, confuse them."

[rebeccajo 14]

"If you can't convince them, confuse them."

fas est et ab hoste doceri

[vincit_qui_se_vincit 0]

fas est et ab hoste doceri

Quisnam est vestri hostilis?

[rebeccajo 14]

fas est et ab hoste doceri

Quisnam est vestri hostilis?

Not me. Seemed like you were mocking my explanation. Perhaps I was wrong.

[diadromous mermaid 36]

vincit qui se vincit,

Erhm.... Shouldn't it be Quisnam est vestri hostis? No?

[meauxna 15]

vincit qui se vincit,

Erhm.... Shouldn't it be Quisnam est vestri hostis? No?

ahhhh, I knew the Latin would draw you in nectar to bees.....

Now, where is Julia, herein?!

[geo1234 0]

I'd rather not resurrect this thread for the purpose of any slanging.

I'd like to say, on behalf of those of us who have been here awhile and who have already 'tread the boards' of immigration - well it's kind of hard to take a new poster who comes along and speaks 'down' to us.

Also, some posters (not myself personally) when presented a situation such as the OP wrote will immediately suspect immigration fraud. Actually I was just amazed that the OP chose to 'stretch the truth'.

I've spent nearly 2 years on this board. Many of the other posters in this thread have been posting here a good while - some longer. We do that because to some degree we feel duty bound to help others - we answer and try to solve problems. I personally get a bit of satisfaction out of helping others - it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling - sappy as it sounds - and I'm glad to do it.

It's a bit of an insult to be 'challenged' repeatedly by someone who implies that they know better and will not concede to learning. I've made MANY an error on this board and was corrected or straightened out by someone with more knowledge. I always would thank them and publicly state that I 'goofed' and was grateful for having expanded my knowledge.

In my opinion, that was what caused the trouble in this thread. Nobody here knows it all. Nobody. Plus those of who do have a bit of knowledge from experience - well that has usually shown us that ANYTHING can happen when it comes to immigration.

You seem like a nice person but you also seem to have a rather large chip in your shoulder. I've read all the posts here carefully and do not see how it is possible to even suggest to somebody was speaking "down" to you or anybody else. On the other hand, your posts here are so venomous that they are almost scary.

By the way, what's wrong with being challenged by another poster, especially when he tells you an easy way to verify that his info is correct (yes, I did google the statutes and read them)? Instead of attacking him personally for everything on the planet, this thread would have been must shorter and more helpful if you (and Dr_lha) would just stick to the substance and stop trying to find ways to alienate others.

By the same token, the attorney who did chat here does need to learn when it is appropriate to post. The OP's post forms a fairly complex scenario, that any AILA lawyer would not really hesitate to answer here. The only answer that would suffice is: There may be options, but see an immigration attorney in your area ASAP.

I've been a lurker here for a while and actually found this thread quite entertaining. I am no lawyer but am not sure why am1996 "needs to learn when it is appropriate to post." Didn't he say throughout the thread that the OP needs to consult an immigration lawyer?

On the other hand, the hostility and ignorance some members here have displayed towards others has been just puzzling and scary. Attacking others is certainly not a great way to create friends or maintain credibility.

Lilliputians have always been known to resent Gullivers.

How true!

[diadromous mermaid 36]

vincit qui se vincit,

Erhm.... Shouldn't it be Quisnam est vestri hostis? No?

ahhhh, I knew the Latin would draw you in nectar to bees.....

Now, where is Julia, herein?!

Ubi mel ibi apes! Est rerum natura, quod natura non sunt turpia

Last time I heard Julia had to Retire in Italy, therein..

Edited August 28, 2006 by diadromous mermaid

[Dr_LHA 3]

Err... Caecilius est in horto?

Sorry its the only phrase I remember from Latin class.

[rebeccajo 14]

Geo123, like I said, not resurrecting for slanging. There are no chips here. I was just trying to explain myself. Maybe it's just differences in communication styles - who knows. I think someone is condescending - you think someone is venemous. It's just whatever floats your boat, you know?

[Heracles 417]

Quick question, Is AM1996, the lawyer, Canadian or American??

Why have we gone off topic?? The fact is this person is trying to commit immigration fraud. Yeah, Ok there are numerous 'technicalities' but everyone who is going through this legitimately, has a little common sense and has waited x months for a visa is not going to be happy to hear how someone is trying to scam the government to stay in the US, after a divorce..

It's like I have seen people say, "yaaaayyyyy AOS is over, now I can apply for citizenship!!!". So I think to myself, "Hmmm. I bet you were in this for love, when your already thinking about citizenship combined with the fact the your migrated from a underdeveloped country.."

Disclaimer: Before anybody barks, I KNOW the above does not apply to everybody...

Edited August 28, 2006 by Infidel

[arwensun1965 0]

Oh Boy by page three I had a big headache what with all the flipping legal jargon. What rebbecca said was blunt and too the point but was it wrong, noooo it was not, this board as many have said is an open discussion board and i've come to realize that whatever people say it is just their own opinion and we are here on this planet to choose weather we take those opinions or not. Some people are well aware of the dangers of taking just one person's word as truth and so chooses to take a few cases into consideration before taking action.

As for the person lying to USCIS when he could of told them he was separated then Yes that was DUMB.....but it is past tense he has already done it and nobody can take his actions back. He has to talk to an immigration lawyer now as his actions have caused a big ole red flag in his file.

[am1996 0]

Wow, I come back from a long weekend to find that this thread is still alive and well. I guess I am not the only one who finds it at least mildly entertaining.

At the risk of once again being accused of sounding condescending, I want to take one last stab at explaining my point that without more information, we cannot form a responsible opinion that the OP's actions were illegal, imprudent or "dumb." For instance, as I've previously posted, 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 instead of one.

In other words, without any legal jargon, if you do not mention something to the authorities (regardless of whether we are talking about the police, IRS, CBP, USCIS, etc...), you can only get in trouble for it if the applicable law requires you to disclose such information to them and/or allows them to hold such nondisclosure against you. This is an extremely important point and is anything but splitting hairs -- if the law does not specifically require you to disclose information and does not permit the authorities to hold such nondisclosure against you, as a legal, practical and every other matter out there, you cannot get in trouble if you choose not to disclose something.

On the other hand, if you are not required to disclose potentially damaging information to the authorities and the authorities are not allowed to hold such nondisclosure against you, why in the world would you still go ahead and make the disclosure?

Based on the above, the only way to tell whether the OP did something "dumb" or illegal is to know whether the law requires him to make the disclosure about his impending divorce and/or allows the USCIS to do anything about the nondisclosure. Since we do not know what the law requires him to do in his situation, all the opinions (both for and against the disclosure) won't mean much until and unless he sees and immigration lawyer and finds out what the law required him to do.

[john_and_marlene 162]

Wow, I come back from a long weekend to find that this thread is still alive and well. I guess I am not the only one who finds it at least mildly entertaining.

At the risk of once again being accused of sounding condescending, I want to take one last stab at explaining my point that without more information, we cannot form a responsible opinion that the OP's actions were illegal, imprudent or "dumb." For instance, as I've previously posted, 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 instead of one.

In other words, without any legal jargon, if you do not mention something to the authorities (regardless of whether we are talking about the police, IRS, CBP, USCIS, etc...), you can only get in trouble for it if the applicable law requires you to disclose such information to them and/or allows them to hold such nondisclosure against you. This is an extremely important point and is anything but splitting hairs -- if the law does not specifically require you to disclose information and does not permit the authorities to hold such nondisclosure against you, as a legal, practical and every other matter out there, you cannot get in trouble if you choose not to disclose something.

On the other hand, if you are not required to disclose potentially damaging information to the authorities and the authorities are not allowed to hold such nondisclosure against you, why in the world would you still go ahead and make the disclosure?

Based on the above, the only way to tell whether the OP did something "dumb" or illegal is to know whether the law requires him to make the disclosure about his impending divorce and/or allows the USCIS to do anything about the nondisclosure. Since we do not know what the law requires him to do in his situation, all the opinions (both for and against the disclosure) won't mean much until and unless he sees and immigration lawyer and finds out what the law required him to do.

This strict legal/illegal point of view fails to account for an important difference that needs to be kept in mind. An immigration benefit is not a right that must be granted. In a criminal matter, the burden of proof is on the government to show a violation. For immigration, the burden of proof is on the immigrant to show qualification. In the absence of any evidence, the criminal goes free and the immigrant is denied.

[am1996 0]

This strict legal/illegal point of view fails to account for an important difference that needs to be kept in mind. An immigration benefit is not a right that must be granted. In a criminal matter, the burden of proof is on the government to show a violation. For immigration, the burden of proof is on the immigrant to show qualification. In the absence of any evidence, the criminal goes free and the immigrant is denied.

As a general matter, I agree with you wholeheartedly. The fact, however, that the alien has the burden of proof when it comes to immigration benefits does not change the analysis above in the least. If the applicable law does not require the alien to disclose the fact that he is going through a divorce and does not permit the government to use such nondisclosure against him, then the immigration benefit cannot be denied simply because USCIS "does not like" the nondisclosure.