Q for Moderators - why do you treat posters differently?

[aaron2020 11,651]

Hi All,

Simple question. Why are posters who adjust in the US treated differently from posters outside the U.S.?

We can provide information about immigrant intent treatment under case law from Matter of Battista and Matter of Cavazos to a person seeking to adjust as the IR of a USC after entering on the VWP or nonimmigrant visa. The Moderators never delete the legal information. In fact, they have helped these people.

When we provide information about immigrant intent treatment under case law from Matter of Battista and Matter of Cavazos to a person outside the U.S. and tell them it's immigration fraud to enter the U.S. with the intent to immigrate, the Moderators will delete the information.

Why are some people allowed to know about the law and others can not be told what the law is?

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

All members should be treated the same, within the terms of service. If you think we made a mistake this is certainly the place to post that. Can you give us more information on an example where you think we made a mistake or could do better?

[Pitaya 2,577]

Interesting question. Perhaps others can better explain. I am not privy as to whether a person is posting within, or outside of the US. Agree with Ewok, all members should be treated equally.

[aaron2020 11,651]

All members should be treated the same, within the terms of service. If you think we made a mistake this is certainly the place to post that. Can you give us more information on an example where you think we made a mistake or could do better?

Ask Ryan. He deleted my posts so I can't give you an exact example.

Here is a typical post that gets deleted.

OP asked if he can come to the U.S. with his USC wife and adjust.

I reply that it's immigration fraud to enter the US on the VWP or nonimmigrant visa with the intent to immigrate. I also would tell the OP about Matter of Battista and Matter of Cavazos and the consequences for entering the US on he VWP or nonimmigrant visa. My posts are then deleted as a TOS violation.

I suspect that the Moderators delete my posts because they don't agree with the consequences provided by law because when I give out the consequences for other illegal activities, they are never deleted.

Meanwhile, my posts to folks already here and adjusting from the VWP or a nonimmigrant visa about Matter of Battista and Matter of Cavazos are never deleted.

Why the disparity in providing information about the law when I tell people it's immigration fraud to enter on the VWP or a nonimmigrant visa with the intent to immigrate?

Edited April 5, 2015 by aaron2020

[Penguin_ie 5,993]

A lot of it depends on the wording of a post; you can absolutely point out consequences for actions, and the law when it is appropriate. But if you say something like "I am not advocating fraud, but..." then that can be an issue.

[Fan_Dancer 171]

Because apparently it's ok to come here as a tourist and adjust, but not ok to know you can come here as a tourist and adjust before you get on that plane.

[aaron2020 11,651]

A lot of it depends on the wording of a post; you can absolutely point out consequences for actions, and the law when it is appropriate. But if you say something like "I am not advocating fraud, but..." then that can be an issue.

Please provide the appropriate wordings and I will use it.

If you can not provide the appropriate wordings, then the end results is that you are denying legal information to some people while providing it to others. Therefore, you are treating members differently which Ewok said is wrong.

My I suggest the following since it contains just the law;

"It is immigration fraud to enter the US on the VWP or a nonimmigrant visa with the intent to immigrate.

US laws does not allow a person who enters the US on the VWP or a nonimmigrant visa to adjust with one exception. Under Matter of Battista and Matter of Cavozos, USCIS can not deny the adjustment of an Immediate Relative of a USC when the person does not lie at the POE."

Nothing but the law. Would these wordings be acceptable to you? You can edit if you like.

Will you determine when it is appropriate to tell some people the law and when it is not appropriate to tell other people about the same law?

Edited April 5, 2015 by aaron2020

[aaron2020 11,651]

Because apparently it's ok to come here as a tourist and adjust, but not ok to know you can come here as a tourist and adjust before you get on that plane.

So knowledge of the law should be limited to those already here, but not for those outside the US?

[Villanelle 4,122]

Yikes Aaron.

Im going to speak here because I am not a mod, and because having been a mod on other sites I know that the mods generally have to be careful about what they post in public on issues like this. You asked a really really hard question- so Im sure theres going to be a lot of back room discussion before an official answer is given.

Im going to say that the problem is not so much the answers but the question.

Someone that comes here and poses a question like you stated " if he can come to the US with his wife and adjust". Well Im sorry. The answer is - "It is immigration fraud to enter the US on the VWP or a nonimmigrant visa with the intent to immigrate."

IMO expanding on that and explaining further legalities such as those that do so can have relief is endorsing doing so. The poster already explained their intent in traveling with intent to adjust. So its over.

For someone thats already in the US and did not lie at the POE- advising them of the matters of Battista and Cavozos is incredibly useful.

But for someone that has not- its basically giving them ideas and advance planning on how to circumvent laws and find loopholes- which is against the TOS here.

[MacUK 983]

I agree with the above.

Telling someone who is already in the US and successfully got past PoE that there is a legal precedent allowing them to adjust is one thing.

Telling someone who is outside of the US that basically entering with intent to adjust is naughty and can have serious consequences but if they get past the nasty man at the airport then they're perfectly fine can be seen as advocating and advising fraud.