No Votes for Dems or Repubs Until They Fix Unfair Treatment Towards USCs filing for the Spouses Abroad

[JohnR! 5,495]

I figured as much... I was using the generic 'you', not its personal form.

I should have been clearer on my post. I wasn't referring to the latest group of children, etc entering the US. Those aren't the people on the immigrate2us site. Many there had a spouse that entered illegally, or should I say married someone who entered illegally. And there is a process for those illegals to become legal. They aren't getting any special privileges or any type of amnesty. They file a waiver and wait.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

I figured as much... I was using the generic 'you', not its personal form.

No problem, I just wanted to clarify it. Most here don't know much about the waiver process.

[JohnR! 5,495]

Don't go down that route just yet. At the moment it's just another rabbit hole...

Other than speculation, there is nothing concrete to suggest anther Reagan-style amnesty is about to take place.

I do agree though that embassies and consulates abroad should me more accessible to the petitioners when it comes to snags in processing though.

I have a problem with the people who crossed over and are now getting amnesty.

I have a problem with the doctrine of non-reviewability where no one is willing to challenge the U.S. embassies abroad on behalf of a USC. This should be a service offered to us being that this is our government we are having to deal with. The U.S. has completely cut us out of this process and it is unfair.

Do the illegals who are about to get amnesty have to go through embarrassing embassy interviews? Embarrassing physicals? Have someone to tell them their relationship isn't good enough? Deal with their rogue government back home and sometimes rogue embassy? Go through the stress we go through every day waiting on a decision? No they do not.

What is the point of us going through this if others do not have to.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

I have a problem with the people who crossed over and are now getting amnesty.

I have a problem with the doctrine of non-reviewability where no one is willing to challenge the U.S. embassies abroad on behalf of a USC. This should be a service offered to us being that this is our government we are having to deal with. The U.S. has completely cut us out of this process and it is unfair.

Do the illegals who are about to get amnesty have to go through embarrassing embassy interviews? Embarrassing physicals? Have someone to tell them their relationship isn't good enough? Deal with their rogue government back home and sometimes rogue embassy? Go through the stress we go through every day waiting on a decision? No they do not.

What is the point of us going through this if others do not have to.

I'm not familiar with the doctrine of non reviewabilty. Any link or Cliff Notes version? I'm not familiar with your case, so I don't know the details or what happened.

[JohnR! 5,495]

Fact is, that our immigration laws are broken and there are so many loop holes and exceptions, that in their current form they do favor citizens of certain countries or B-visa holders.

There is absolutely no incentive - legal or otherwise - for any VPW/non immigrant-visa holder to follow the K or CR/IR route anymore. The USCIS knows that and we all know that, however, it is how the laws are written and how they apply.

One can fume all one wants about those who are waiting for waivers, or the beneficiaries of DACA, or anyone else who is going through the system, but these are no worse than the VWP/NI-visas who enter the US under the guise of tourism, studies, etc only to marry and adjust status. If we want to make our laws respected they need to contain in themselves verbiage to that effect - no exceptions, no pardons to overstays, no breaks.

Nothing will change until we fix the broken laws, and while we're at it, let's also revise the 14th Amendment.

No problem, I just wanted to clarify it. Most here don't know much about the waiver process.

Edited November 3, 2014 by JohnR!

[Janelle2002 3,865]

I'm not familiar with the doctrine of non reviewabilty. Any link or Cliff Notes version? I'm not familiar with your case, so I don't know the details or what happened.

Here's a little reading material for you.

http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/conference/ILR13_DIDonaldDobkinChallengingtheDoctrine.pdf

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Here's a little reading material for you.

http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/conference/ILR13_DIDonaldDobkinChallengingtheDoctrine.pdf

I don't have time to read that right now. Do you have a lawyer?

[Janelle2002 3,865]

I don't have time to read that right now. Do you have a lawyer?

No. I was told $20,000. That ain't happening right now. If all else fails we will wait until I am able to move back to Sri Lanka.

Basically, it says USCs nor foreigners are able to take the U.S. embassies to court to sort out issues with denials or other problems. Courts don't have jurisdiction.

The can however ask the embassies to make a decision on an application that has been pending for a while but they will not litigate when it comes to matters of the embassies' decisions.

Even if it involves giving out confidential information about an applicant.

Edited November 3, 2014 by Janelle2002

[Boiler 46,240]

That is a LOT of money for a waiver, must be mega complications.

[Janelle2002 3,865]

That is a LOT of money for a waiver, must be mega complications.

The waiver is done. That amount was for litigation against the embassy for a writ of mandamus and to fight against the misrep charge and for giving out information about me and my husband to the local police after we told the embassy they were trying to get a bribe from us.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

No. I was told $20,000. That ain't happening right now. If all else fails we will wait until I am able to move back to Sri Lanka.

Basically, it says USCs nor foreigners are able to take the U.S. embassies to court to sort out issues with denials or other problems. Courts don't have jurisdiction.

The can however ask the embassies to make a decision on an application that has been pending for a while but they will not litigate when it comes to matters of the embassies' decisions.

Even if it involves giving out confidential information about an applicant.

I don't know anything about your case, but if you are in the waiver process and had problems, it sounds like you need some good legal advice from an attorney who specializes in waivers and these types of cases. Did you do a consult with anyone before you started the waiver process or when the problem arose? I don't know why you need the waiver, but obviously their is an issue with admissibility. A paid consult with a good lawyer would give you an overview of what is involved.

Otherwise and in addition to the above, immigrate2us is the best site for waiver information. Have you joined and fully explained the details of your case there? Have you gotten any feedback from the more experienced members over there? Did you spend weeks reading and researching over there and reading up on proving hardship so that you can write a good letter and support it with ample documentation to help prove your hardship?

[spookyturtle 9,466]

The waiver is done. That amount was for litigation against the embassy for a writ of mandamus and to fight against the misrep charge and for giving out information about me and my husband to the local police after we told the embassy they were trying to get a bribe from us.

Have you posted a concise overview of your case anywhere that I can read? What was the reason for the waiver being required, was it approved, denied, never adjudicated.....? I apologize because I don't know the particulars.

[Boiler 46,240]

OP quoted a post made on I2US.

Not sure I understand the situation or how Mandamaus comes into it. Never seen it come up in conjunction with a waiver.

I has assumed that background checks involved contact with local Governments.

[Janelle2002 3,865]

The mandamus was because the embassy left us in AP for over a year.

Husband had a case he was exonerated from in Sri Lanka. He was not charged.

The local police contacted him wanting him to give a bribe so they can send back a clean police report. He said no. We told the embassy. Embassy told the police. Police contacted his cousin angry. We asked embassy what to do. They said they couldn't talk to us about what was happening.

Sri Lanka police decided to recharge him with the case. I guess there is no double jeopardy in Sri Lanka even though we had the court documents showing he had no case. They were mad he told the U.S. embassy about the bribe.

Embassy stopped communicating with us. Then i filed writ. Then they called him in for an interview. Made him inadmissible for the old crime he was recharged for and then gave us a misrep which they never told us why for.

And yes, even though he was not charged for it when did put it in his application.

Then the embassy went back to court and said the issue was moot. Then i did a revised petition for giving out confidential information but the court said they could not touch that issue and then they said the issue was moot since the embassy did make a decision, to make him inadmissible.

Submitted the waiver in August. Takes a minimum of 5 months on waivers at this point.

Edited November 3, 2014 by Janelle2002

[spookyturtle 9,466]

The mandamus was because the embassy left us in AP for over a year.

Husband had a case he was exonerated from in Sri Lanka. He was not charged.

The local police contacted him wanting him to give a bribe so they can send back a clean police report. He said no. We told the embassy. Embassy told the police. Police contacted his cousin angry. We asked embassy what to do. They said they couldn't talk to us about what was happening.

Sri Lanka police decided to recharge him with the case. I guess there is no double jeopardy in Sri Lanka even though we had the court documents showing he had no case. They were mad he told the U.S. embassy about the bribe.

Embassy stopped communicating with us. Then i filed writ. Then they called him in for an interview. Made him inadmissible for the old crime he was recharged for and then gave us a misrep which they never told us why for.

And yes, even though he was not charged for it when did put it in his application.

Then the embassy went back to court and said the issue was moot. Then i did a revised petition for giving out confidential information but the court said they could not touch that issue and then they said the issue was moot since the embassy did make a decision, to make him inadmissible.

Submitted the waiver in August. Takes a minimum of 5 months on waivers at this point.

So you were in AP before filing the waiver? Did you have to provide proof that he was exonerated when you initially filed? I can't remember the wording on the questions you must answer about prior issues. Didn't he have to provide police reports to the embassy before or at his interview?