I think I blew it

[African Zealot 1,455]

The issue here is that even without her saying the asylum application was essentially to mark time while figuring options out, asylum applications by people who failed/abandoned attempts to adjust status by other means are viewed by USCIS as last ditch desperadoes hence they were going to get scrutinized regardless.

 

Good luck to you. If you don’t get an approval relatively soon, retain the services of a good immigration attorney with expertise in removals and asylum etc because you just might need it.

 

Also don’t stop those marriage counseling services. You have unresolved issues considering the number of breakups, suspicion of motives, and custody issues in your history. And calling immigration on immigrant spouses in retaliation is almost never cool. No American court will allow a foreign spouse to take American citizen children away to another country unless the American parent is a really unfit parent.

 

 

Edited March 9, 2020 by Ray.Bonaquist

[Marieke H 2,510]

5 hours ago, Shellymilms said:

My husband doesn’t know about the report. 

You need to tell him; this could seriously jeopardize his future here, and he deserves to know. It's a huge thing that you're hiding from him.

[NikLR 13,227]

~~moved to AOS from work, tourist  or student visa progress reports from K3 visas~~

[LibbyG99 65]

At least you were honest

[geowrian 22,337]

6 hours ago, laylalex said:

The OP's statement is just hearsay, in my opinion.

Just as a note, "just hearsay" is misleading. Photographs are hearsay. Videos are hearsay.

Hearsay itself does not imply anything bad or wrong, or like it's less important or accurate than direct testimony.

Edited March 10, 2020 by geowrian

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

14 minutes ago, geowrian said:

Just as a note, "just hearsay" is misleading. Photographs are hearsay. Videos are hearsay.

Hearsay itself does not imply anything bad or wrong, or like it's less important or accurate than direct testimony.

Not exactly. The classic formulation of the definition of hearsay is "A statement made out of court presented to assert the truth of the matter asserted." We can break it down like this. A statement can be written or oral, or as you say a photograph. It can even be a gesture or a non-verbal assertion like a grunt, if it's clear what that grunt indicates. Out of court means simply not made under oath within the proceedings. So testimony made at trial, in a deposition, or as part of discovery responses in the particular matter are "made in court"; sworn testimony in another proceeding is not. And then the statement needs to be "presented to assert the truth of the matter asserted" -- simply, "I'm saying that this statement means what it says it means." 

 

Hearsay is NOT admissible in a court of law. Except... under the 80 bajillion exceptions/exemptions/exclusions to the rule against hearsay. Okay, not that many, under the Federal Rules of Evidence (the rule against hearsay is FRE 802), there are roughly 30 of these. If you can get the hearsay statement in under one of them, it will be admissible, but sometimes it will be admitted with a limiting instruction from the judge -- basically saying to the jury, okay, you can use this statement ONLY for X purpose, but not for its truthfulness. Gluttons for punishment can start with FRE 801 and read all the way through to FRE 807 (if my memory is correct). Of course state rules of evidence will vary from the FRE. 

 

So it's not a matter of whether or not the hearsay statement is important (it could be) or accurate (ditto), but whether it's admissible. Unless it's admissible, it don't mean squat in terms of proving a fact is true. My own back of the envelope analysis of what happened here looks like this is actually hearsay that doesn't fall within one of the FRE exclusions/exceptions/exemptions. The only one I can possibly think of (and it's a stretch) is for the effect upon the listener -- that the wife was putting the interviewer on notice of this fact (assuming it is a fact). It would be admissible only for the purpose that the interviewer was put on notice of this, but not for the truth of the statement's contents.

 

Unfortunately everything I know about immigration law I learned on VJ, so it is merely my assumption that the FRE applies in an immigration court, since immigration is a Federal matter. Accordingly, and I cannot stress this enough, YMMV.

 

 

[geowrian 22,337]

2 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

Not exactly. The classic formulation of the definition of hearsay is "A statement made out of court presented to assert the truth of the matter asserted." We can break it down like this. A statement can be written or oral, or as you say a photograph. It can even be a gesture or a non-verbal assertion like a grunt, if it's clear what that grunt indicates. Out of court means simply not made under oath within the proceedings. So testimony made at trial, in a deposition, or as part of discovery responses in the particular matter are "made in court"; sworn testimony in another proceeding is not. And then the statement needs to be "presented to assert the truth of the matter asserted" -- simply, "I'm saying that this statement means what it says it means." 

 

Hearsay is NOT admissible in a court of law. Except... under the 80 bajillion exceptions/exemptions/exclusions to the rule against hearsay. Okay, not that many, under the Federal Rules of Evidence (the rule against hearsay is FRE 802), there are roughly 30 of these. If you can get the hearsay statement in under one of them, it will be admissible, but sometimes it will be admitted with a limiting instruction from the judge -- basically saying to the jury, okay, you can use this statement ONLY for X purpose, but not for its truthfulness. Gluttons for punishment can start with FRE 801 and read all the way through to FRE 807 (if my memory is correct). Of course state rules of evidence will vary from the FRE. 

 

So it's not a matter of whether or not the hearsay statement is important (it could be) or accurate (ditto), but whether it's admissible. Unless it's admissible, it don't mean squat in terms of proving a fact is true. My own back of the envelope analysis of what happened here looks like this is actually hearsay that doesn't fall within one of the FRE exclusions/exceptions/exemptions. The only one I can possibly think of (and it's a stretch) is for the effect upon the listener -- that the wife was putting the interviewer on notice of this fact (assuming it is a fact). It would be admissible only for the purpose that the interviewer was put on notice of this, but not for the truth of the statement's contents.

 

Unfortunately everything I know about immigration law I learned on VJ, so it is merely my assumption that the FRE applies in an immigration court, since immigration is a Federal matter. Accordingly, and I cannot stress this enough, YMMV.

I think we are on the same page. I'm at least fundamentally familiar with the FRE.

As it was being used here had nothing to do with admissibility. Sorry if that was not clear. I was just pointing out that downplaying the role of hearsay can be misleading. Far too often people think of it as "weak" or rarely considered (I guess this is where the admissibility comes in...), but as you pointed out, there's so many exceptions that most hearsay evidence can be considered, and can sometimes be quite powerful.

 

Anyway, this was not to state anything about thee evidence here being considered by USCIS or not, or if it would be admissible in immigration court.

[cd37 229]

10 hours ago, Shellymilms said:

Okay so my husband and I met almost 5 years ago and have been married for almost 4. We had a lot of issues in the beginning where I thought he was using me for his green card and we filed for a divorce. It was never finalized however. He applied for his political asylum in the tome being until we figured what we were going to do. We had a baby and got back together. And started filing for his green card. 
we got pregnant again and a year later had another baby. After the baby was born, we had another big issue and separated for a couple months. At this point I was very angry at the issue that had occurred and he was trying to take full custody of my children. I was angry and scared of him taking my children back to his country. I reported him to immigration because I honestly felt like he was using me and trying to take my children at the time. (Which I know what not true, now)
we got back together again and continued with his green card process. 
we had his interview today and I was asked to stay in the room alone and she asked me about the report. I told her that we had issues two years ago and that I did report him because I felt that way at the time. But we are working on our marriage and going to a marriage class at our church and we resolved our communication issues that we once had. She then asked if he was lying about his asylum and I said no that his lawyer told him to apply because it would give him time to figure out what we were going to do with our relationship. My husband doesn’t know about the report. 
my husband came back in and she asked him where I work, he forgot the name of the place but knew my occupation and knew i worked in a hospital and where it was. Then they asked if we knew each other’s birthdays, asked my husband our anniversary and the kids birthdates which he knew, and that was it. She said we would hear back within 30 days. 
 

I am so scared that I ruined this with my stupid anger and acting on my emotions. I told the lady i was emotional after having my daughter but i don’t think she believed it. Even though it was true. All marriages have issues but we chose to work through them instead of getting divorced. We do have a legit marriage with two kids, but we just had a lot of issues in the beginning. I’m just scared that I messed it all up. I regret reporting him but at the time it’s what I believed. 
 

“Trying to take my children” ?? Both of you together have these children. 

[cd37 229]

5 hours ago, Marieke H said:

You need to tell him; this could seriously jeopardize his future here, and he deserves to know. It's a huge thing that you're hiding from him.

Yup you made a very good point. He has a right to know this. 

[Boiler 45,522]

It never occurred to me that the OP's statement would be the be all of any Immigration hearing, it is more than enough to start a line of inquiry.

[Shellymilms 1]

UPDATE: he was approved. 
thanks for Letting me vent.