Removing condition GC got denied

[Rocio0010 5,579]

Just now, Okboy said:

He’s in serious trouble and need not just any lawyer but a good lawyer. Omg!!!

Yeah no kidding.

I’d be calling Jim Hacking tomorrow!

[SalishSea 17,841]

2 minutes ago, ra0010 said:

This is exactly my fear. 
While he still has a conditional resident status, failing to disclose separation at the interview might be construed as material misrepresentation. In addition, aren’t you under oath when you interview at USCIS? (I’ve never had an interview yet, so I genuinely don’t know). 
 

Well, others with direct experience with this are dismissing the situation as no big deal at all, so I guess we have to defer to them.  Makes you wonder why USCIS even has policies, deadlines, rules, etc.  

[mindthegap 2,590]

14 minutes ago, Jorgedig said:

Well, yeah.  But this is not a normal divorce waiver situation.  This could be construed as a misrepresentation to receive an immigration benefit.

 

But, if as you say, the OP has really nothing to worry about, hopefully this will be a unique first here on VJ.

Well I can't read the letters, so I'm unsure.

I'm guessing from the general tone that they already separated/not living together at the time of filing?

The spouse signed and attended the interview, so was certainly co-operative.

The line from the letter as quoted by someone else is very interesting to me: “During your interview, your spouse voluntarily withdrew the I-751 petition in the form of
because you and your spouse has not been residing together since December 2019 due to and wish to have a chance to reassess your marital relationship”

It could be argued that that very line and the signing and attending by the spouse proves they had no choice but to file jointly, as they did not want to get divorced....yet...as they were working on the relationship, and it was simply a separation - which technically doesn't exist in USCIS' eyes as you are either married, or divorced. 

That he wasn't upfront with USCIS in this respect - hell, even AT the interview he could had voluntarily said 'hey we are now separated and undergoing divorce, I'll provide the decree as soon as it is done" -  was indeed monumentally stupid,  so while it is a big deal,  I'm not so sure it is the death knell many are making it out to be here.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 30, 2021 by mindthegap

[SalishSea 17,841]

1 minute ago, mindthegap said:

 I'm not so sure it is the death knell many are making it out to be here.

Yeah, I'm sure it's fine.

[Rocio0010 5,579]

4 minutes ago, Jorgedig said:

Well, others with direct experience with this are dismissing the situation as no big deal at all, so I guess we have to defer to them.  Makes you wonder why USCIS even has policies, deadlines, rules, etc.  

Plus, I mean… why wouldn’t you disclose such big event at the interview? I mean, you clearly *don’t* forget that you’re separated… especially when the interview revolves precisely around that!

 

I imagine OP’s friend saying something like “oh, by the way, I forgot to tell you we’re separated. But in the grand scheme of things that’s not biggie”.

 

Anyhow, I digress. Please don’t report me to the mods!😆

[mindthegap 2,590]

9 minutes ago, Jorgedig said:

 Makes you wonder why USCIS even has policies, deadlines, rules, etc.  

So they can completely ignore, bend and make them up as they go, with no accountability to anyone if my experience is anything to go by. 

[SalishSea 17,841]

Just now, ra0010 said:

Plus, I mean… why wouldn’t you disclose such big event at the interview? I mean, you clearly *don’t* forget that you’re separated… especially when the interview revolves precisely around that!

 

I imagine OP’s friend saying something like “oh, by the way, I forgot to tell you we’re separated. But in the grand scheme of things that’s not biggie”.

 

Anyhow, I digress. Please don’t report me to the mods!😆

Well, my assessment of the OP's friend's situation was deemed as "rubbish," so......   I'm out, lol.   Clearly, despite the very clear language of the letter, there are no consequences or drawbacks to having done this.  Carry on.

[Rocio0010 5,579]

1 minute ago, Jorgedig said:

there are no consequences or drawbacks to having done this

Not everything is said and done. But if nothing happens, it makes you wonder what the purpose of ROC is.

[mindthegap 2,590]

2 minutes ago, ra0010 said:

Plus, I mean… why wouldn’t you disclose such big event at the interview? I mean, you clearly *don’t* forget that you’re separated… especially when the interview revolves precisely around that!

 

I imagine OP’s friend saying something like “oh, by the way, I forgot to tell you we’re separated. But in the grand scheme of things that’s not biggie”.

Well, at my (first 😂) interview, I was immediately asked where my spouse was, and I handed them the (not quite final) divorce paperwork I had in my hand and said I wanted to switch to a divorce waiver.  That's being upfront.

Not taking that opportunity in this case was incredibly stupid.

[SalishSea 17,841]

Just now, mindthegap said:

Well, at my (first 😂) interview, I was immediately asked where my spouse was, and I handed them the (not quite final) divorce paperwork I had in my hand and said I wanted to switch to a divorce waiver.  That's being upfront.

Not taking that opportunity in this case was incredibly stupid.

I can't really see any connection whatsoever with your situation, and the material omission of the nearly 2 year separation in the OP's.  No one is disputing the validity of divorce waivers, but that was not the case here.

 

But again, you seem to know best.

 

 

[mindthegap 2,590]

3 minutes ago, Jorgedig said:

Well, my assessment of the OP's friend's situation was deemed as "rubbish," so......   I'm out, lol.   Clearly, despite the very clear language of the letter, there are no consequences or drawbacks to having done this.  Carry on.

Calm down, dear.

The 'rubbish' was because you said "His right to live and work in the US has been terminated." (it hasn't been) and "Next step:  packing his bags.  I don't see a way out of this.  He is out of status and needs to leave asap." (he isn't and doesn't).

 

How do I know this is rubbish?

Unfortunately from direct experience, and precisely because I have received two denials and two denial letters with exactly the same standard wording.

It has no legal basis, as the only person who can strip someone of their permanent residence is an immigration judge. Up to that time they are entitled to live, work, and travel, and obtain stamps as proof of this. This is why I have had ten stamps, and have left and re-entered the US multiple times and been re-stamped in as LPR/ARC as normal. They are also entitled to (re)file as many I-751s as they like, which all must be adjudicated. 

This isn't speculation - it is legal fact, unlike the letter. I also in the past have posted lengthy quotations of the precise legalese of this before - including, amongst other things, highlighted passages from genco opinion 96-12 confirming this

 

You did also make some valid points too!

[Rocio0010 5,579]

11 minutes ago, mindthegap said:

Not taking that opportunity in this case was incredibly stupid

I don’t want to sound judgmental, but a lot of people wrongly assume that Divorce equals ROC denial and triggers removal proceedings. So I’m assuming that OP’s friend willingly omitted disclosing the separation, and that’s where I see some (possible) material representation. 

[SalishSea 17,841]

23 minutes ago, mindthegap said:

Well I can't read the letters, so I'm unsure.

And yet you're completely confident that the contents of the letter are utterly incorrect.    

10 minutes ago, mindthegap said:

The 'rubbish' was because you said "His right to live and work in the US has been terminated." (it hasn't been)

The letter that you "can't read" actually states this.

[mindthegap 2,590]

9 minutes ago, ra0010 said:

I don’t want to sound judgmental, but a lot of people wrongly assume that Divorce equals ROC denial and triggers removal proceedings. So I’m assuming that OP’s friend willingly omitted disclosing the separation, and that’s where I see some (possible) material representation. 

Very true and entirely possible. Again, I can't see the letter and no-one here knows precisely what was said and transpired, so all we can do is advise on the information presented to us. 

 

 

4 minutes ago, Jorgedig said:

And yet you're completely confident that the contents of the letter are utterly incorrect.    

Yes, because the discussion part of the letter is tailored to the individual and that isn't my concern here and isn't what I called rubbish. 

The termination part is identical on every one, and that is the part that you seem to think means he has to pack his bags and get on the next flight out of the US, which is what I called rubbish, because it is. 

But please, by all means continue to be argumentative. 

Edited November 30, 2021 by mindthegap

[SalishSea 17,841]

Just now, mindthegap said:

Very true and entirely possible. Again, I can't see the letter and no-one here knows precisely what was said and transpired, so all we can do is advise on the information presented to us. 

 

 

Yes, because the discussion part of the letter is tailored to the individual and that isn't my concern here and isn't what I called rubbish. 

The termination part is identical on every one, and that is the part that you seem to think means he has to pack his bags and get on the next flight out of the US, which is what I called rubbish, because it is. 

But please, by all means continue to be argumentative. 

I'm not being argumentative for the sake of it.  It's just that I have read the letter, and it states what I quoted, and at the end it specifies that he will receive an NTA.   It certainly doesn't look generic or boilerplate.

 

It is worrisome that you're so cavalier about the situation, as clearly it is not a divorce waiver situation like yours, and leading the OP astray by minimizing the seriousness of it is a disservice, IMHO.