USCIS scare, AOS approved and Divorce pending

[john_and_marlene 162]

I forgot to add this concerning the difference between this and a couple of traffic tickets.

http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pd...=%22B-275860%22

Some provisions of immigration law are designed to prevent misuse of marital status. The law calls for termination of the permanent resident status of an alien granted on the basis of marriage, if it is dertermined that the marriage was for the purpose of procuring the alien's entry to the United States, or if the marriage is annulled or terminated (other than through the death of a spouse) within two years.

[Kez/JWolf 6]

You know all this legal arguments is making this thread very interesting... its almost as good as Judge Judy on TV..... you never know you could be the next big daytime legal show.....

Kezzie

[attyinsandiego 0]

You're living in la-la land if you believe that's how USCIS works. If you really are a lawyer you will have heard of something called reasonable doubt. If USCIS has any reasonable doubt that you are defrauding them, they will deny the Green Card benefit and do not have to provide any evidence or burden of proof as to why they denied his application.

At the risk of once again sounding condescending, there are specific procedures, statutes and regulations that are in place that specifically govern the type of burden that each party has, the type and the amount of evidence that is required or is sufficient to overcome the burden, etc... The term "reasonable doubt" (just like "totality of the circumstances," which I addressed earlier) has a specific legal meaning and applicability. The reason I am mentioning all of this is because it is entirely possible (we have no way of knowing either way, which is the point that I've been trying to make) that the statute(s) that govern the issue do not allow the OP's nondisclosure to create a "reasonable doubt" or to do anything else to harm the OP and/or to get his benefits denied.

For instance, if the laws say that USCIS is not allowed to deny your AOS petition just because you have a couple of minor speeding tickets, you cannot be legally denied your immigration benefit regardless of the way the USCIS adjudicator feels about speeders or the dangers that they cause.

Once again, my point is not that the OP's actions were intelligent or prudent. My point is that we have NO IDEA, all the speculation on both sides notwithstanding. We can continue making very reasonable, logical and compelling arguments on both sides until cows come home, but none of these opinions or arguments will amount to much until and unless the OP finds out exactly what the law requires of him under the circumstances. To get that knowledge, he will most likely have to go see an immigration lawyer.

I understand the angle that you are coming from, but I think when you immerse yourself in these matters, you will see why problems arise and why people are disagreeing so vehemently with you.

The matter of fact is that USCIS often acts outside the scope of law and often misapplies or quite simply IGNORES it --- this give rise to quite a volume of litigation which, usually is sorted out at the appellate level. I think what some members are expressing is that your ideas may work in front of the immigration judge/appellate court judge, but not in front of the USCIS officer.

It is not supposed to be this way --- but that is just the nature of the beast.

[Nikita2Charles 32]

It all comes down to the Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky case. Bill answered the question Truthfuly, did he have sexual intercourse with Monica? he answer no

It was up to the Prosecutor to ask the right question

Like what kind of sexual relationship you had with with her

what kind of sexual act did you perform

He didn't lie, so therefore didn't perjured himself, the same way the OP while not voluntereeing additional information didn't like because technically she/she is still married

If anything happen to the spouse, he/she will be the one having all the legal rights.

[rebeccajo 14]

Let me ask you this.

If the RESULT of an officers findings can be a denial based upon termination of the marriage (defined as diaddie said several posts back as separation) what purpose is served in 'non-disclosure' of such facts other than to temporarily delay the denial, or to somehow circumvent it?

I concur with John. The main difference in the immigration process vs. civil or criminal law is a benefit versus a constitutional right.

Rebecca, this is an aside, but I appreciate both the substance of the question as well as the tone. To the extent I haven't done it before, I'll do my best to reciprocate.

If the law says that USCIS adjudicators may only deny the OP's petition if he is legally divorced, then the fact that a divorce decree has been merely FILED would have no effect on him. Once again, we do not know what the requirements of the applicable laws are as they relate to this specific situation, which is the reason that we cannot answer the OP's question one way or the other, or tell him that his actions were "intelligent" or "dumb."

In order for the OP to get in trouble, his nondisclosure must be somehow penalized by the applicable law. If he was not required to make the disclosure and the government is not allowed to hold it against him, he CANNOT get in trouble. This is the way ALL laws work, both civil and criminal, immigration statutes and traffic ordinances, etc...

I don't get this. And maybe it's partly my fault because of the way I worded the question.

I stated 'termination of marriage' which in fact was WAY WRONG on my part. It's been well-established in this thread (and I do know better but misspoke) that a marriage doesn't have to be terminated in order for the benefit of a greencard to be denied. All the adjudicator has to determine is that the relationship is fraudulent, or a 'matter of convenience' for immigration purposes.

Sooooooooo.....I don't how the non-disclosure is anything short of causing trouble. If you want to get down to brass tacks it's almost moot. All the adjudicator need determine is that the marriage was fraudulent and - boom - no greencard and possibly deportation. Indeed, as John said, the non-disclosure was a huge mistake on the OP's fault as that was his opportunity to refute any claim of fraud.

[geo1234 0]

For instance, if the laws say that USCIS is not allowed to deny your AOS petition just because you have a couple of minor speeding tickets, you cannot be legally denied your immigration benefit regardless of the way the USCIS adjudicator feels about speeders or the dangers that they cause.

True, but a USCIS officer can deny a case if they feel the person is committing fraud in representing a fake marriage for immigration purposes as a real one.

Note the use of the word "feel" as opposed to "prove".

As john_and_marlene pointed out above, the OP does not face loss of immigration benefit because he didn't tell USCIS he's getting divorced, but rather because USCIS suspect (or maybe even know) that he's getting divorced. Getting divorced shortly after getting a Green Card is a huge red flag. The OP has to prove beyond doubt that he is deserving of a Green Card.

I don't know much about this debate to have an opinion but the above post is just plain insane. Dr_lha, why do you continue to offend and alienate others with your personal attacks, especially when the post above makes it so clear that you have no idea what you are talking about.

All this "feel" as opposed to "prove" stuff is just plain silly. Please take a look at the post underneath yours to find the proper standard of proof ("preponderance of the evidence," which is quite specific).

What in the world does it mean that "the OP has to prove beyond doubt that he is deserving of a Green Card" -- beyond what doubt? There is no such standard or proof!

I am no lawyer (I do have a JD/MBA though) but I just coudn't stand to read all that stuff.

Edited August 28, 2006 by Geo123

[rebeccajo 14]

The matter of fact is that USCIS often acts outside the scope of law and often misapplies or quite simply IGNORES it --- this give rise to quite a volume of litigation which, usually is sorted out at the appellate level. I think what some members are expressing is that your ideas may work in front of the immigration judge/appellate court judge, but not in front of the USCIS officer.

It is not supposed to be this way --- but that is just the nature of the beast.

attyinsandiego, may I kiss you! LOL

This is the point that we have been trying to get am1996 to see. Perhaps we went about it the wrong way.

I think it's VERY much on point that a petition by a citizen of another country asking the US government for the right to live here is just that - a REQUEST - and therefore a benefit, a priviledge. Not a right governed by the Constitution.

One has to wrap one's brain around the concept that while there is indeed LAW governing these requests, there is no fundamental protection of the petitioner that would be afforded a citizen of our country in our civil judicial system. Indeed it is up to the petitioner to PROVE that they are worthy of admission to this country. There is no Bill of Rights underneath his request that protects him.

My own boss, an attorney of course, won't touch this immigration stuff with a 10-foot pole. He's got a law-school buddy in Washington who works for the State Department and he's had enough conversations with him to have respect for the difference in not only the practice of immigration law, but respect for the fundamental difference in the foundation of it.

[Dr_LHA 3]

I don't know much about this debate to have an opinion but the above post is just plain insane. Dr_lha, why do you continue to offend and alienate others with your personal attacks, especially when the post above makes it so clear that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Personal attacks? ####### are you talking about? I don't think I've alienated anyone, unless they can't stand healthy debate.

Also I have a very clear idea what I'm talking about, not because I'm a lawyer, but because I've been dealing, successfully, with INS/BCIS/USCIS for almost 8 years. I also have had many friends who have gone through this process, some who have been denied (for no good reason sometimes) and some who have been denied for good reasons.

All this "feel" as opposed to "prove" stuff is just plain silly. Please take a look at the post underneath yours to find the proper standard of proof ("preponderance of the evidence," which is quite specific).

Yes, but in reality it comes down to how a USCIS officer applies the standards. Those statutes are only useful after you have been denied and you are trying to prove the officier did the wrong thing in court. While going through the initial process often you are as much liable to the whim of the particular officer as you are any strict rules. Consider the cases of people who have been getting RFE's for I-864 filed with the "new rules", often the way USCIS officiers decide a case is inconsistant.

What in the world does it mean that "the OP has to prove beyond doubt that he is deserving of a Green Card" -- beyond what doubt? There is no such standard or proof!

I meant not in a legal sense of proof, but prove beyond doubt in the mind of the adjudicating officier that they are deserving of a Green Card. If the USCIS officer thinks you're trying to defraud him, you'll get denied.

[sjoefl01 1]

Why is everybody so sensitive on this one? It is a pretty straight forward question that seems to have incited some kind of VJ riot.

I read the whole thread and I really can't find the " bad guy ". You all seem more or less intelligent and articulate. I really don't see why this has turned into a cat fight. The poor OP walked away long ago!

[M. 0]

Why is everybody so sensitive on this one? It is a pretty straight forward question that seems to have incited some kind of VJ riot.

I read the whole thread and I really can't find the " bad guy ". You all seem more or less intelligent and articulate. I really don't see why this has turned into a cat fight. The poor OP walked away long ago!

Because everyone wants to be right, and because, as my 83 year old grandfather says, "Opinions are like #######..."

In all seriousness, I think everyone honestly wants to help the OP -- but there are so many divergent opinions that conflict is bound to arise, and when people aren't people, just faceless entities on a rather congested and convoluted series of tubes, it's easier to go for the throat when one feels offended.

Just my $.25 ($.02 adjusted for inflation).

M.

[Dr_LHA 3]

Why is everybody so sensitive on this one? It is a pretty straight forward question that seems to have incited some kind of VJ riot.

I read the whole thread and I really can't find the " bad guy ". You all seem more or less intelligent and articulate. I really don't see why this has turned into a cat fight. The poor OP walked away long ago!

This sort of thing always happens when someone comes in, says they're a lawyer in an attempt to validate their supposed superior knowledge, despite the fact that they aren't an immigration lawyer, and starts telling everyone they're wrong. If you want to understand why there is so much "bad blood" look no further than that. Trust me I've seen this happen on a few other forums before!

The real point here is this thread should have been locked 6 pages ago. I guess the moderator is too busy doing the following:

[ceriserose 1]

Why is everybody so sensitive on this one? It is a pretty straight forward question that seems to have incited some kind of VJ riot.

I read the whole thread and I really can't find the " bad guy ". You all seem more or less intelligent and articulate. I really don't see why this has turned into a cat fight. The poor OP walked away long ago!

This sort of thing always happens when someone comes in, says they're a lawyer in an attempt to validate their supposed superior knowledge, despite the fact that they aren't an immigration lawyer, and starts telling everyone they're wrong. If you want to understand why there is so much "bad blood" look no further than that. Trust me I've seen this happen on a few other forums before!

The real point here is this thread should have been locked 6 pages ago. I guess the moderator is too busy doing the following:

I'm shocked this got to 9 pages with so few popcorn icons.

[rebeccajo 14]

*shrugs*

I was mad at first. I'll admit it. But I'm not here to have a cat fight. I'm here to learn. Same as everyday.

[john_and_marlene 162]

In all seriousness, I think everyone honestly wants to help the OP

I don't want to help this OP. His filing for divorce immediately after the AOS interview is suspect to me. I simply wanted to explain to him why I think the USCIS will reverse their approval and deny him the GC.

I don't see why this thread should be locked either. I think the debate here has provided some useful insight.

[geo1234 0]

Why is everybody so sensitive on this one? It is a pretty straight forward question that seems to have incited some kind of VJ riot.

I read the whole thread and I really can't find the " bad guy ". You all seem more or less intelligent and articulate. I really don't see why this has turned into a cat fight. The poor OP walked away long ago!

This sort of thing always happens when someone comes in, says they're a lawyer in an attempt to validate their supposed superior knowledge, despite the fact that they aren't an immigration lawyer, and starts telling everyone they're wrong. If you want to understand why there is so much "bad blood" look no further than that. Trust me I've seen this happen on a few other forums before!

Why do you continue to insult people and grossly mischaracterize their statements? In fact, I've now read a number of threads where you've done just that. Noone in this thread announced that others should just trust him because he is a lawyer. In fact, the opposite is true. He has been posting ample support for his views and explanations and telling people NOT to rely on the fact that he is a lawyer in forming their own conclusions.

At the very least have the guts to accept that you are one of the primary instigators of this debate and one of the reasons this thread is as long as it is and as off-topic as it is.