Question about AOS and overstaying

[Kez/JWolf 6]

Jane is 100% correct here, both illegal work and overstay are forgiven if you're married to a USC. USCIS cannot use illegal work or overstay as a reason for denial of AOS.

Subject of course to the caveat that AOS is a discretionary benefit. They do not strictly need a reason to deny it as there is no automatic right to it.

And what percentage of AOS applicants do you think are denied with no reason given?

.0000001 %?

I have no idea and if it is your petition that is denied you really wont give a damn what the percentage is as it is pretty irrelevant. As there is in effect no review of a discretionary refusal I am not sure where the figures you ask for may be found.

The fact remains the benefit is discretionary. Often the assumption is made in this forum that it is a right. Whilst in the vast majority of cases it is plain sailing the possibility of denial is still very much a possibility. It is important that readers understand it is discretionary, not mandatory. It is possible for a person who is technically eligible for immigrant status to nonetheless be denied adjustment of status in the exercise of that discretion. The most common instances of such discretionary denials involve cases where the applicant abused the nonimmigrant process. For example, if a person applies for admission into a school or for a change in nonimmigrant status within 30 days of entry, they are presumed to have acted in bad faith. That is, they had the preconceived intent to make the change and they used an easier to obtain visa in order to evade the normal screening process abroad for the visa they really wanted.

If an AOS applicant has anything in his or her past visa history that suggests that he or she may have abused the visa process, or otherwise tried to take shortcuts, the USCIS has made it clear that they can and will deny such adjustment applications in the exercise of discretion. Discretionary AOS refusals are not subject to administrative review. While federal court review is theoretically possible, few judges are willing to attempt to substitute their judgment for that of USCIS officers in the absence of gross abuse of discretion.

Please share with us the links to back up your statements.....

Kez

[rebeccajo 14]

All I've got to say about the ORIGINAL POST is this.

My boss is a 'regular flavor' lawyer. And a pretty good one at that. Honest too. All the things you want in representation.

He wouldn't touch immigration with a ten-foot pole. Because he knows he's not qualified to represent the client to the fullest of his ability.

[Killer_Clown_2009 0]

Actually the percentage does matter. I would be interested in knowing how many AOS applications are denied without a reason of some sort being given. I imagine the percentage must be very low to nonexistent. It's a pretty poor policy for any government agency to deny a benefit, (whether right or priviledge), without providing a valid reason to the client.

Edited February 17, 2007 by jane2005

[DelcoCouple 1]

Please share with us the links to back up your statements.....

Kez

With pleasure

http://www.us-immigration-attorney.com/pri...t-of-status.htm

You will find the author is a practising immigration lawyer who previously was an Immigration Adjudicator at the California Service Center (CSC) for over 12 years and he adjudicated every type of immigration visa petition. His experience with the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (formerly known as the Immigration and Naturalization Service) may be said to be extensive

[Killer_Clown_2009 0]

And, if my AOS was denied and we were not given a reason, I think my husband would be pretty upset and the media quite interested.

[no name 1]

Actually the percentage does matter. I would be interested in knowing how many AOS applications are denied without a reason of some sort being given. I imagine the percentage must be very low to nonexistent. It's a pretty poor policy for any government agency to deny a benefit, (whether right or priviledge), without providing a valid reason to the client.

And anyone who overstays and/or works without a work permit is DAMN LUCKY to get AOS approved.

[Kez/JWolf 6]

I agree rebeccajo.... I dont know one lawyer who would take on a client and then have a member of staff who has just gone through immigration go ask questions on-line so he can advise the client... I would find another lawyer...

Kez

[DelcoCouple 1]

All I've got to say about the ORIGINAL POST is this.

My boss is a 'regular flavor' lawyer. And a pretty good one at that. Honest too. All the things you want in representation.

He wouldn't touch immigration with a ten-foot pole. Because he knows he's not qualified to represent the client to the fullest of his ability.

Agreed which is what made me wonder about the bona fides of the original question posed. No lawyer in his right mind would act for a client in an area he was not suitably qualified. Professional negligence suit much?

[Killer_Clown_2009 0]

Can you also post the link to the site where you were advised that AOS applications can be denied for no reason?

I couldn't find it on the link you did post.

Actually the percentage does matter. I would be interested in knowing how many AOS applications are denied without a reason of some sort being given. I imagine the percentage must be very low to nonexistent. It's a pretty poor policy for any government agency to deny a benefit, (whether right or priviledge), without providing a valid reason to the client.

And anyone who overstays and/or works without a work permit is DAMN LUCKY to get AOS approved.

That or married to a USC.

Edited February 17, 2007 by jane2005

[DelcoCouple 1]

Actually the percentage does matter. I would be interested in knowing how many AOS applications are denied without a reason of some sort being given. I imagine the percentage must be very low to nonexistent. It's a pretty poor policy for any government agency to deny a benefit, (whether right or priviledge), without providing a valid reason to the client.

Poor practice or not it is the reality. It is pretty poor practice to kidnap people abroad move them half way around the globe and intern them with out trial or due process for years on end. Yet lo and behold it has been known to happen. The percentage of the worlds population it happens to is also very low to non existent

Poor practice is rarely accepted as a valid reason by those in power for a government to change its policy

And, if my AOS was denied and we were not given a reason, I think my husband would be pretty upset and the media quite interested.

The first part is a given Jane, the second I am rather more sceptical about. The medias focus with regard to immigration tends to be of the "illegals shock horror hyperbole" type rather than any good reporting sad to say.

Edited February 17, 2007 by DelcoCouple

[rebeccajo 14]

All I've got to say about the ORIGINAL POST is this.

My boss is a 'regular flavor' lawyer. And a pretty good one at that. Honest too. All the things you want in representation.

He wouldn't touch immigration with a ten-foot pole. Because he knows he's not qualified to represent the client to the fullest of his ability.

Agreed which is what made me wonder about the bona fides of the original question posed. No lawyer in his right mind would act for a client in an area he was not suitably qualified. Professional negligence suit much?

Absolutely.

My boss was mildly impressed that I did my husband's paperwork myself. In other words its ok to represent yourself.

But when I had questions about Writ of Mandamus, he was like......um no I'm not filing that for you....

Edited February 17, 2007 by rebeccajo

[Killer_Clown_2009 0]

Actually the percentage does matter. I would be interested in knowing how many AOS applications are denied without a reason of some sort being given. I imagine the percentage must be very low to nonexistent. It's a pretty poor policy for any government agency to deny a benefit, (whether right or priviledge), without providing a valid reason to the client.

Poor practice or not it is the reality. It is pretty poor practice to kidnap people abroad move them half way around the globe and intern them with out trial or due process for years on end. Yet lo and behold it has been known to happen. The percentage of the worlds population it happens to is also very low to non existent

Poor practice is rarely accepted as a valid reason by those in power for a government to change its policy

And, if my AOS was denied and we were not given a reason, I think my husband would be pretty upset and the media quite interested.

The first part is a given Jane, the second I am rather more sceptical about. The medias focus with regard to immigration tends to be of the "illegals shock horror hyperbole" type rather than any good reporting sad to say.

I still want to see the link citing denial of AOS benefits without a reason being given to the client. I'm thinking it doesn't exist.

Edited February 17, 2007 by jane2005

[Kez/JWolf 6]

My Husbands cousin in a Federal court judge and when we asked him about the paperwork he found us a immigration lawyer to talk to.... he would not dream of doing work in an area that he does not know...

Kez

[rebeccajo 14]

And anyone who overstays and/or works without a work permit is DAMN LUCKY to get AOS approved.

Dev, from an anecdotal point of view I'd have to say I don't agree with that. Not if the AOS is based on marriage to a USC. I've done my share of digging through the CFR in the last month or two and there is a plethora of caveats for spouses in 'reason for denial' sections.

[DelcoCouple 1]

I still want to see the link citing denial of AOS benefits without a reason being given to the client. I'm thinking it doesn't exist.

Knock yourself out then

http://lawcrawler.findlaw.com/scripts/lc.p...tes=findlaw.com

The world existed pre google. The fact that every case is not archived somewhere on the internet matters not really. The important thing is that pesky little irritant that keeps clouding peoples judgement in here. It is called the Law. The fact that there is provision for such denial is sufficient in itself for it to be undeniable and a real albeit remote possibility.

There are I imagine very few 'links' to a child walking into the side of a skyscraper and breaking their nose because they "didn't see the 84 floor tall building", but trust me I have intimate knowledge of such an event and the crooked nose to show for it.