Waiting for K-1 review in California Service Center?

[TBoneTX 45,088]

my common sense told me this was a solicitation for business.

1) In the body of the post: you may want to contact me

And what is unclear about "you may want"? The equivalent option is "you may NOT want."

2) In the signature: No attorney-client relationship is intended. You should not infer one.

And what is unclear about THIS?

Do not take any action without first consulting a qualified immigration attorney in greater detail.

And what is unclear about consulting "a" qualified immigration attorney? How many are truly out there, besides Gary's obvious and completely inaccurate answer of "zero"?

That reads like advertising to me.

What is the most sensible advice ever posted on VJ? "Read accurately and interpret literally." I perceive no "solicitation for business" (for which I have strong radar and palpable distaste) in the OP's post or in his forum signature.

In this case I don't feel Gary is off base at all.

"In this case"... toward what conclusions can we jump by reading these words?

[TBoneTX 45,088]

Is THIS an advertisement?

Yes, it is. If OP is not complying with TOS, then the same can be said for Gary.

Si, man... yet, again, if it's an offer of FREE help, then it's not a solicitation for business. We don't know this, but I'm sure that Gary will either confirm that the help is free, or he'll openly publish the schedule of fees. My money is on the possibility that this portion of the signature will mysteriously disappear in the near future, si man.

Now, getting back to business, I hope that posters will contact Mr. Ellis in order to learn what he has in mind.

Edited April 14, 2009 by TBoneTX

[scandal 951]

Disclaimer: I'm really not trying to start a flame war with you. Most likely we have an honest disagreement, and that's ok. I would agree that the OP was borderline, certainly not way over the line. So, btw, was Gary's tagline. Neither case is egregious.

my common sense told me this was a solicitation for business.

1) In the body of the post: you may want to contact me

And what is unclear about "you may want"? The equivalent option is "you may NOT want."

Sure... advertising by its nature is suggestive, not mandatory. No one is forced to buy that Big Mac just coz McD is promoting it. That doesn't mean it's not advertising though....

What's highly irregular is OP's inclusion of his personal email address right there, very convenient, n'est pas? Only thing missing is the 1-800 phone number.

Honestly - how many VJ posts can you think of which include an email address? What reason can he have for doing that other than to drive personal contacts to him in the hopes of soliciting business? Why not simply engage in on-forum discussion, or request PMs on VJ?

2) In the signature: No attorney-client relationship is intended. You should not infer one.

And what is unclear about THIS?

To me, that was actually the tip off that it WAS a solicitation. OP is an attorney. That means he is CAPABLE of being in an attorney-client relationship, with his clients. In writing his posting, he is clearly NOT in such a relationship with you, me, and all the plebes reading his words. It's standard practice for attorneys who wish to remain in good standing and not risk sanctions from their Bar association to offer blanket disclaimers when communicating with the public FOR PURPOSES OF SOLICITING BUSINESS to make it clear that they are NOT in a privileged relationship, unless and until that changes (i.e. they are retained).

Do not take any action without first consulting a qualified immigration attorney in greater detail.

And what is unclear about consulting "a" qualified immigration attorney? How many are truly out there, besides Gary's obvious and completely inaccurate answer of "zero"?

Well, I take the two sentences together. Namely: FIRST he instructs you to consult a qualified attorney. And then on the very next line he informs you that HE IS ONE!! Geee.... I dunno ..... what do you think he is implying?

That reads like advertising to me.

What is the most sensible advice ever posted on VJ? "Read accurately and interpret literally." I perceive no "solicitation for business" (for which I have strong radar and palpable distaste) in the OP's post or in his forum signature.

Well, you and I clearly have differently attuned antennae. That's fine. I'm sure we're different in other ways as well. I don't think any less of you for disagreeing with me. I hope that is mutual.

In this case I don't feel Gary is off base at all.

"In this case"... toward what conclusions can we jump by reading these words?

I'm not sure... I couldn't follow your point here. What conclusions?? Only that I do feel the OP was soliciting for his law practice. That's my opinion, nothing more. No big deal, really.

Peace.

[TBoneTX 45,088]

Peace, si man.

[pushbrk 12,824]

Mr. Ellis is attempting to provide a valuable service to the entire immigration community and has offered certain of his services free of charge (pro bono) in an effort to press a critical issue with CSC and USCIS. The result could be of tremendous value to many VJ members. His signature is appropriate, giving his long standing VJ membership and widely known identity as an immigration attorney. If it were a violation of TOS here, his participation would not have continued to be welcomed for nearly five years.

[scandal 951]

Mr. Ellis is attempting to provide a valuable service to the entire immigration community and has offered certain of his services free of charge (pro bono) in an effort to press a critical issue with CSC and USCIS. The result could be of tremendous value to many VJ members. His signature is appropriate, giving his long standing VJ membership and widely known identity as an immigration attorney. If it were a violation of TOS here, his participation would not have continued to be welcomed for nearly five years.

I'm not saying it's a TOS violation. I cite below the relevant TOS sections, readers can make up their own minds as to what is fair game. The VJ TOS most certainly does permit attorneys to become VJ members and to participate in discussions. It also explicitly allows advertisements. By this standard I would agree that OP is on solid footing and has committed no fouls here.

Personally, I find the idea of lawyers participating on VJ somewhat distasteful. I can easily find tons of immigration lawyers online, many with websites containing useful information. That's not what I am looking for on VJ. I come to VJ precisely because it is a community of people just like me who are navigating the process in real life, with real life stories and experiences. Other than OP, I cannot think of a single VJ member I've run across who is not actively pursuing a personal immigration case, considering beginning such a case, or is an alum that has completed an immigration process and has stayed to counsel others. That distinction alone puts OP in a uniquely different category than everyone else I see on this website and hence I approach his comments differently than I would others. Of course, this is just my personal POV. Others are free to do as they please.

From the VJ TOS:

NO LEGAL ADVICE OR ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP

Information contained on or made available through VisaJourney.com Websites and Services (including but not limited to the discussion forums) is not intended to and does not constitute legal advice, recommendations, mediation or counseling under any circumstance and no attorney-client relationship is formed. Do not act on or rely on any information from VisaJourney.com Websites and Services without consulting with a licensed attorney as this site is not a substitute for obtaining appropriate legal advice from a competent, independent legal counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. Moreover, due to the rapidly changing nature of the law and the reliance on information provided by outside sources, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the Content on VisaJourney.com Websites and Services or at other sites to which we link. Nothing submitted to this Web Site is treated as is privileged or confidential with the exception of items listed in Visajourney.com's Privacy Policy. All communications and Content Posted via the Service (including but not limited to the discussion forums) are NOT treated as privileged or confidential.

ATTORNEY ETHICS NOTICE

If you are an attorney, participating in any aspect or using any Service of Visajourney.com, including but not limited to, chat rooms or discussion forums, you acknowledge that rules of professional conduct apply to all aspects of your participation and that you will abide by such rules. The rules include, but are not limited to, the rules relating to advertising, solicitation of clients, unauthorized practice of law, and misrepresentations of fact. Visajourney.com disclaims all responsibility for your compliance with these rules. You further agree and acknowledge that when you use any Service of Visajourney.com, including but not limited to the discussion forums and chat rooms, you will not offer legal advice and will not solicit employment from prospective clients.

ADVERTISERS

Visajourney.com may contain advertising and sponsorship. Advertisers and sponsors are responsible for ensuring that material submitted for inclusion on Visajourney.com is accurate and complies with applicable laws. Visajourney.com will not be responsible for the illegality of or any error or inaccuracy in any advertiser’s or sponsor’s materials.

[ellis-island 6]

Hi.

Two words, 4th from paragraph from the bottom from my OP: "pro bono". (Emphasis added this time around).

Mods, if you like, delete the final sentence of that paragraph. It's too late for me to delete it. Or delete the whole thing.

I'm planning on doing the expedited review requests pro bono. I'll need to be reimbursed for costs, such as Fed-Ex, translation costs, copying or other costs associated with the filing. If people want to hire me for the revocation or re-file, that can be agreed to later. There is no obligation.

.

"Personally, I find the idea of lawyers participating on VJ somewhat distasteful. I can easily find tons of immigration lawyers online, many with websites containing useful information. That's not what I am looking for on VJ. I come to VJ precisely because it is a community of people just like me who are navigating the process in real life, with real life stories and experiences. Other than OP, I cannot think of a single VJ member I've run across who is not actively pursuing a personal immigration case, considering beginning such a case, or is an alum that has completed an immigration process and has stayed to counsel others. That distinction alone puts OP in a uniquely different category than everyone else I see on this website and hence I approach his comments differently than I would others. Of course, this is just my personal POV. Others are free to do as they please."

You're right. I've navigated the process at least two hundred times.

And I've interviewed at least a thousand clients who have been denied K-1 or

family visas at consulates.

I'll consider you to have opted out though.

Finally,

"Gary and Alla is fluent in Russian, Ukrainian, English. And can perform the valuable service to VJ members of document translations. Contact us if we can help."

I assume he's offering his service pro bono publico as well.

Two thoughts here.

1. It's better to be lucky than good.

And

2. Voltaire's prayer: "O Lord, make my enemies look ridiculous."

There is a pretty good history of CSC's policy of reviewing expired K-1's returned

by consulates from 2007 to the present, contained in my OP. In fact, I don't think you'll find

it anywhere else. And I'm definitely not soliciting paying clients. I'm doing this pro bono,

as I assume Gary and Alla are also offering their translation service pro bono.

Mods feel free to remove the thread. But I will be handling requests for

expedited review of expired K-1 petitions pro bono publico with CSC.

The grounds will be "USCIS error" and "Compelling Interest of USCIS".

I can't guarantee an outcome. But there is a serious problem here. Nothing is

happening. There is a paralysis between two agencies. People have brought

me emails from CSC stating it is reviewing cases returned from consulates in 2002.

There are hundreds if not thousands of these petitions returned by consulates

every year. I don't blame CSC for the problem. Really, Department of Homeland

Security should be training consular officers in immigration law and taking a greater

role in supervising the visa process, as DHS is the responsible agency - not DOS.

I'm not sure DHS knows it's in charge yet though. (Sec 402 & 428 of the Homeland

Security Act of 2002).

Edited April 15, 2009 by ellis-island

[TBoneTX 45,088]

Mods, please do not remove this thread!

[scandal 951]

"Personally, I find the idea of lawyers participating on VJ somewhat distasteful. I can easily find tons of immigration lawyers online, many with websites containing useful information. That's not what I am looking for on VJ. I come to VJ precisely because it is a community of people just like me who are navigating the process in real life, with real life stories and experiences. Other than OP, I cannot think of a single VJ member I've run across who is not actively pursuing a personal immigration case, considering beginning such a case, or is an alum that has completed an immigration process and has stayed to counsel others. That distinction alone puts OP in a uniquely different category than everyone else I see on this website and hence I approach his comments differently than I would others. Of course, this is just my personal POV. Others are free to do as they please."

You're right. I've navigated the process at least two hundred times.

And I've interviewed at least a thousand clients who have been denied K-1 or

family visas at consulates.

I'll consider you to have opted out though.

Yeah, I probably have opted out. Unless I find, heaven forfend, that BKK embassy rejects our K-1 back to CSC and then I come, tail between legs, looking for an expert such as yourself to help us out!

I'm taking the bait to respond again because of the bold phrase above. I think we just have a different take on this.

See --- from my point of view, you haven't navigated the process. Not even once.

Sure, you've helped your clients navigate it. And I'm sure that is a good and noble service you've performed, and your clients are grateful (at least I hope they are!).

But you, yourself, have not navigated it. You haven't been up at 2AM on Skype or MSN with your loved one across the world, night after night.

You haven't agonized over when your case will bump up through Igor's list from the triple digits to the double digits.

You haven't personally experienced the joy and elation of clearing each bureaucratic hurdle in the process.

No one will ever wish you a 'congratulations' on getting through a major milestone like NOA2, or release from AP @NVC, or consulate approval - as I and many have and will continue to do for our VJ friends.

No one also will ever wish you to persevere, to hang in there, to buck up your confidence that your long awaited approval is around the corner - as VJ members do for each other when their confidence flags.

See, that's what VJ members do for each other. Are you part of that community? Do you wish 'congratulations' when a member has a new baby (as a VJ couple did just tonight)? Or offer condolences to the unimaginable loss a member goes through when losing their loved one before they can be reunited (unfortunately happened here only too recently)? Do you fit into any of the regional forums (despite your Vietnam flag)? No, I don't think so.

Look, we all know the classic stereotype of lawyers. You and I both know that there are bad lawyers, and great ones, just as in any profession. Lawyers are not all sharks, many perform valuable services to society. I have had need in my life for legal representation - a divorce attorney, real estate attorneys. I have been grateful for good legal representation when I needed it. I have every reason to believe you are a good conscientious immigration attorney. Should I one day need such a service, I would consider you. But ... you are a bit fish out of water in our community here, imho.

You're of course welcome to stay, and post, and be as active as you please. I don't make the rules here, I'm just another shmo with a pending immigration case. You are abiding by the TOS, and others (e.g. TBoneTX) find your presence valuable. Who am I to argue with that?

All I'm saying is that if YOU have the right to freely post and express yourself here, and TBone has that right, well then -surely I have that same right too! And I shall express myself. And my free expression is - I don't think you fit in here. At least not in the way all the rest of us do. Respectfully. Imho.

Mods, please do not remove this thread!

Agreed - please do leave it. I for one think there is value in this discussion.

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

I see that I should at least comment on this to clear things up. As the OP has phrased (and re-clarified things) I am ok with this thread and the original intended post. This is a pro-bono effort that can help many people here. I certainly doubt the OP intended to use this as anything but a helpful jesture -- and I am sure if it were anything but this then people would contact me to let me know.

As a courtesy (to our membership) please contact me in the future before directly accusing people of things like this. On occasion I have even allowed members to post a small ad in their signature for items of "reasonable and good cause" (to raise money for charity, things that benefit the community, etc). This does not happen often but it does on occasion.

On VJ we certainly do welcome anyone to post, which includes professionals in the field... The main page of VJ in fact clearly says "We encourage all members to seek a qualified immigration attorney as this site is no substitute for the valuable help and advice a good attorney can provide! "

I will state that what we want to discourage (and thus do not allow) is for anyone to come here and actively solicit people to their business. I have mentioned this before, that if a person wishes to place their personal credentials on their signature I am ok with this as long as it does not read as an advertisement. Additionally I am ok with people mentioning their business as a matter of conversation as long as they do not do so to try and gain direct benefit from this. This policy is done to keep the message forums for on-topic discussion and not a place for advertising (there are places for that but just not inside of threads).