I751 ROC CPR ..new executive order

[cinti_confsd 0]

hope you some one can  advcie. a quick summary of case. 
waiting on ROC on Conditions. filed I751 myself without spouse. 
in 2014 my ex called cops and accused me of Domestic Violence. 
i was not even at home and i was arrested and charged with the same. 
i plead to disorderly Conduct and given 6 months anger management and probation.
we got back together and stayed and she filed for divorce a few months prior to green card extension date.
been following news and saw this Executive Order 13768 of January 25, 2017
Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States 

with this  new executive orders will that have effect on me or my case ?
i received my extension but with the new Executive orders.. i am worried 
can you shed some light please. 

[lost_at_sea 995]

The Executive Order has currently been suspended (i.e. it's not being enacted for now) and currently it does not have anything to do with the process you're currently doing. 

 

Follow your RoC process and make sure to respond in a timely fashion to any RFEs etc. 

[f f 725]

I am not sure what his executive order will change but if it was only one instance and it sounds like the punishment you got was pretty light. I would recommend looking at the petty crimes exemptionsince even if it was a cmit it can be overlooked if there was only one charge, it is the only charge you have, the maximum sentence you could get was one year in jail and you received a sent enable of less than 6 months in jail.

there is no mention of probation so I would think they do not care about that time, without knowing the maximum penalties I vän not say for sure if it qualfies.

 

good luck

[cinti_confsd 0]

thank you for responding and sorry i did not fill out the details. 

i was given  6 month probation with councelling. i was done with the whole thing early 

and was given an early release from probation . my Probation Officer removed it in 5.* months. 

my ex apologized and promised to go to coucneling (she never did ) and we got back together.

she filed divorce and we done.after divorce she would not stop contacting me and threatening me, 

so i even filed a police complaint to stop her to reach me . she is unstable, a moment she is nice and in a split sec she turns

in to evil. too bad i did not see that while we dated. 

any way i was referring to this  “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States

executive order please share your thoughts.

[KierenHby 899]

29 minutes ago, cinti_confsd said:

 

any way i was referring to this  “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States

executive order please share your thoughts.

What about the EO? (that's no longer in effect)

[mindthegap 2,606]

 

 

The actual relevant bit of the EO I believe the OP is concerned about is:

 

Quote

 

Sec. 5.  Enforcement Priorities.  In executing faithfully the immigration laws of the United States, the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) shall prioritize for removal those aliens described by the Congress in sections 212(a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(6)(C), 235, and 237(a)(2) and (4) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(6)(C), 1225, and 1227(a)(2) and (4)), as well as removable aliens who: 

(a)  Have been convicted of any criminal offense;

(b)  Have been charged with any criminal offense, where such charge has not been resolved; 

(c)  Have committed acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offense;

(d)  Have engaged in fraud or willful misrepresentation in connection with any official matter or application before a governmental agency; 

(e)  Have abused any program related to receipt of public benefits;

(f )  Are subject to a final order of removal, but who have not complied with their legal obligation to depart the United States; or 

(g)  In the judgment of an immigration officer, otherwise pose a risk to public safety or national security. 
 

 

 

The wording of the initial bit referencing 212 (a)(2) is troublesome, as it appears to be worded in such a way that anyone who is an alien (ie, not a citizen) with a criminal background is prioritized for removal. Note that it says 'as well as removable aliens who:' implying that removable aliens are in ADDITION to everyone else.

However, clause (2) of INA 212 does delve into the detail that lots of people overlook when, for example. thinking they can't travel under the VWP with any arrest or conviction, which is not the case. If those exemptions were to still apply - and as currently worded the EO does not exclude or nullify those exemptions - then only those who would normally require a criminal waiver would be removable. Whether the EO would override a prior or current criminal waiver, who knows.

IMO it is poorly thought out and badly worded unconstitutional garbage, but what do you expect coming from Trump et al. The only surprise to me is that it wasn't written all in CAPS. 

At any rate, it isn't legal or in effect at the present time, so sleep easy.

 

Edited February 13, 2017 by mindthegap

[cinti_confsd 0]

thank you so much .. it is the one i am worried. i believe i have a case. 

what do you think is the time line for waivers. it is almost 8 months(filed in July 2016).

i live in Michigan , i believe California Service Cenre ?

Also can you explain the following comment please .

what is "VWP"

 

 

18 minutes ago, mindthegap said:

thinking they can't travel under the VWP with any arrest or conviction, which is not the case. If those exemptions were to still apply - and

 

[KierenHby 899]

India nationals are not part of vwp. 

[f f 725]

vwp is the visa waver program.

it is an agreement by some countries to let thier nationals visit each others countries without needing a visa. sometimes also referred to as esta.

 

also the eo can not override laws or go against previously passed laws, they can  however change priorities in how laws are enforced. 

[cinti_confsd 0]

oh ok thank you.

[Hypnos 6,578]

15 hours ago, mindthegap said:

At any rate, it isn't legal or in effect at the present time, so sleep easy.

Only a handful of provisions in the EO have been stayed for now, and the enforcement priorities directive isn't one of them. 

 

It is in effect. 

 

The fact that it says they can go after any alien even if they've only been charged--not convicted--of a crime is chilling, and should seriously trouble anyone. 

 

I suspect it's unconstitutional on due process grounds, but as of today it remains in effect.

[mindthegap 2,606]

2 hours ago, Hypnos said:

Only a handful of provisions in the EO have been stayed for now, and the enforcement priorities directive isn't one of them. 

 

It is in effect. 

 

The fact that it says they can go after any alien even if they've only been charged--not convicted--of a crime is chilling, and should seriously trouble anyone. 

 

I suspect it's unconstitutional on due process grounds, but as of today it remains in effect.

You are of course, right. Apologies.

 

You know what though, even with all of the news re: federal judges etc, no-one made clear that it was just that part that has been stayed at this time...the impression is that the whole EO was on hold.

Speaks volumes regarding the confusion and lack of communication around the whole situation really.

 

The point re: charged only was not missed by me either and is especially worrying.

 

 

[cinti_confsd 0]

thank you guys.  heard two version from two lawyers.

1. USCIS has not released how it will process these rules.

2. my case is under review right now so , i need to wait anyway. 

 

so even a DUI is a criminal offence right ..

 

[KierenHby 899]

right

[cinti_confsd 0]

man , lotta people are frocked .. 

its brutal ....