To the contrary, do you think that you would be more likely to have your AP petition denied if you answered it truthfully and as required by the statute or if you just answered "I want to go on an African safari"? Come on, are we really arguing about this?

I certainly find your analysis to be quite compelling (although I can easily construct, what I believe would amount to, an equally compelling argument on the other side) and would not be at all surprised if that analysis applies in the OP's situation. Consequently, I certainly join you in urging the OP to consult a qualified immigration lawyer.

Isn't it a big no-no to identify yourself as a lawyer and give legal advice on the same messageboard?

It is just as dangerous to provide a legal or for that matter ANY type of advice if you are a non-lawyer. Identifying yourself as a lawyer (or, for that matter, a former CBP officer or any other "knowledgeable" person) makes it more likely that people will attempt to rely on it without checking and confirming its accuracy, which is one of the many reasons that I continue to explain that I am not an immigration lawyer, that my observations are cursory and that my research is very far from complete and should not, therefore, be blindly relied upon. Further, I've already mentioned that "am1996" is not a person but is a screen name -- both I and my fiance (a med student) post under it. Consequently, I strongly urge all the readers to double and triple check all the information found in my posts (as well as in other people's post on this or any other forum). By the way, people on this board who come across as knowledgeable or as experts face the same if not greater perils than I do.

As for the "legal" nature of my advice, I have specifically mentioned in practically all of my posts on this board that although I am a lawyer, I for many different reasons cannot and do not purport to provide any legal advice here. Lawyers are certainly not prohibited from reviewing message boards and posting their "human" observations and experiences. If and when I come across cases or statutes that I believe apply in a situation, I provide citations to them. It is then up to the readers to review all the citations and determine what course of action to take, if any, or to ask follow up questions.

OK. How smart is it to sit and type "I think i was right in saying we're "still married". The OP must be questioning the wisdom of his decision to take that stance or else he would not be coming here asking what we think.

For those who want to split hairs, my comment (dumb) was regarding his decision to take that stance when he is NOT the one who can make a decision that may ultimately affect his life in the US. NOT whether or not the OP was smart or dumb - but his decision. His decision to say "I think I was right".

Perhaps I was rude in saying so. If so then I offer an apology to all offended.





I tried to offer you an olive branch. Instead you continue to bang your gong.

I stand by my opinion that your JD does not give you the expertise nor the credibility to come on here and spout your opinion on immigration law. All it shows me is that you learned how to research. A good paralegal can do the same.

There is a little phrase that you may not yet have come upon in your self-help crash course in immigration law. It's called 'totality of circumstance'. Adjudicators have been granted the latitude to use it. CBP officers have been granted the latitude to use it. It's in their handbooks - not the law as hammered out in the legislative process and stamped by the Senate and President.

You may have a JD but you have much to learn.

If I was the OP I would have done exactly the same thing. There was no perjury involved. The question was answered honestly. Had they followed to ask if the couple was living together or if there was a divorce pending then there would be a legal problem. You are not required to volunteer information to the government.
Lets say that the OP would have felt compelled to spill his guts and tell them the marriage was on the rocks. We all know the consequences would have been no green card and orders to go home. Let's also say that the USCIS has discovered that there are problems in the marriage. I am sure the consequences will be the same.
Why in the world would the OP want to inform the USCIS that the marriage was broken when they did not ask?
Pick another hypothetical situation. This time let's make it your situation:
Let's say that on the night before your interview you had found your spouse in bed with your best friend. Would you be required to inform the USCIS of this at the interview?
I really don't think you are required to answer questions that have never been asked.

On the downside I do think the OP is in trouble. I think the USCIS has gotten wind that the marriage is over. I don't know what a lawyer can do to help. I don't think the lawyer can change immigration law.

am1996,

I am sorry if I offend you, but quating the immigration laws and statutes does not help me at all.
I know we can google and find what the laws say, but please remember,
not all users' native language is English and some cannot understand the laws like you do.
My native language is Japanese, and it is hard for me to understand the laws and statutes.
I believe it is much easier for you, and I think that is great.
But then I want you to break it down to the words that some users, like me, can understand.
Even though I can understand what you are saying here, it gives me headache, too.
I am not sure if this is only me, but it is much easier to understand "hey, what you did was not smart"
than "you know what? the laws say this and that, so according to the laws, I think that was fine"
It's just my opinion, so please ignore if you want.

lovelypanda

Hypothetically I could say that I damn sure wouldn't be there at the interview to have that question asked of me!

Nobody like to have the laws and statutes thrown at them.... most of us dont understand what it is trying to tell us.... I know you am1996 find it helpful to go and look at and understand.... you have a legal mind but please remember that not everybody does....

Its like being back at school... you remember the smart kid???? the one who when asked a question took half the leason explaining the answer... well he understood the reasoning and wanted to show he understood... the fact it totally pissed off the rest of the class never entered his smart head....

of course all of this is just my opinion as I have no laws to back it up....

Kezzie

This clearly demonstrates your lack of understanding of this subject area. I guess reading the statutes failed you on this topic.

My understanding of that question was... when I arrived at the POE I had my passport inspected so therfore I had been inspected so I answered yes...

Kezzie

Hhhhhm, perhaps I did not make my posts sufficiently clear. My initial confusion about the question came BEFORE I read the statute. The statute makes the answer to the question crystal clear.

Kezzie, that is certainly a reasonable interpretation. Except, as I believe I posted above, my fiance has never been asked any follow up question and her passport has almost never been inspected. In fact, quite a few times she didn't even have her passport on her.

In any event, as I've posted above, the statute I've previously referenced makes the reason for the question quite clear and the answer unambiguous.


I completely understand the way that you feel and have already said that I have never intended to sound condescending. In fact I am not even sure why I would have any reason to even sound condescending -- after all, you were the one who essentially provided the incredibly helpful answer to my fiance, for which we are quite grateful.

As for the laws and statutes being "thrown" at them, I honestly do not understand why you find USCIS instructions more clear than some of the statutes I have quoted. Besides, if the answer to a question lies in a statute, how can I formulate an answer and give the person asking it a way to double check it without quoting the statute? Once again, we are all on the SAME SIDE here and this is anything but a competition. I don't care if I come up with an answer or if you do. It just needs to be correct and people have to have a way to double check its accuracy.

I agree that a law degree doesn't give me or anyone else out there the expertise or the credibility to do or to say anything. When was that ever in doubt? This is the precise reason that I provide citations and explanations in my posts, so that people can review the information that I am using and then either agree or disagree with me.

By the way, at the risk of sounding condescending (here's that word again), the phrase "totality of the circumstances" is just a fancy way of saying "common sense." For instance, the affidavit of support requires a certain level of income -- if you provide your AGI on the affidavit instead of the total taxable income, the USCIS adjudicator can theoretically ask you for the latter. If the "totality of the circumstance" is such that such an inquiry would not change anything (if, for instance, the AGI is already well about the stated limits), then the adjudicators are instructed not to make the useless and hypertechnical inquiry (meaning that they should use "common sense" when the law allows it).

Please note that the "totality of the circumstances" test cannot always be used -- it all depends on the way the applicable statute is structured and how much authority and discretion it allows. For instance, if in the above "affidavit of support" scenario, the statute not only required a sufficient income level but also required a precise statement of the "taxable income," the USCIS adjudicator would not be permitted to use the "totality of the circumstances" test or his/her discretion to waive it.

By the way, perhaps I am overly sensitive, but am I the only one who finds the tone of your post above quite offensive ("spout your opinion" and "have much to learn" are respectful phrases?). Once again, whether or not you agree with my posts, I believe that I have always been respectful in all my replies. Would it be too much to ask you to do the same?

For your further edification, the FAM handbook tells the adjudicator to refer to Line 22 of the 1040.

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

You say you have been respectful. I politely disagree. I find your lectures to be condescending and gratuituous.

As for me - well I'm just a girl from the sticks who happens to work in a law firm. For 14 years now.

I've seen 'em come and I've seen 'em go. The ones who can't see that they should stick to their area of expertise and leave the rest to those who have TRULY studied it.

But then my boss always told me there's several things omitted in law school. Like real life experience, business sense, and a touch of humility.

I think of a cartoon when I read this thread

am1996: This forum is one of the most agreeable ones I've ever been on (with perhaps the exception of "off topic" sometimes). The fact is every thread I have seen you post in has turned into a frustrating slanging match. This doesn't seem to happen to anyone else, at some point you have to realise that it's your attitude on here that's causing the friction and not everyone else.

Someone really needs to lock this thread.

This poster am1996 is very similar to another lawyer that used to post here, Matt Udall Very similar, Hmmm. Just like this poster, he was very arrogant and dimwitted to the way of the real world of immigration and the USCIS. Can you imagine walking into a USCIS office and quoting legal citations? Telling an officer that the REAL meaning of this law is such and such and they are wrong. He also seemed to have all the time in the world to respond to each and every post almost immediately right after people created them. When everyone on the board finally got wise to how terrible he was, he left and demanded that items he had contributed to this board be taken down. I asked him if he picked up his pacifier on the way out. Hmm, very similar and just as dense.

Marilyn and Peter.

I thought Matt Udall is an actual AILA immigration lawyer?

If you choose to attack somebody, would it be at least possible for you to attack us for the right reasons? Where on god's green earth did I ever tell anybody to walk into a USCIS office and quote legal citations?

The reason that knowing the law is important is the same reason that reading this board before you complete various applications and/or prepare for USCIS interviews is helpful -- knowing what USCIS might ask you and answering it correctly is what this advance knowledge allows you to do.


Dr_lha, as entertaining as this thread as been, I am still curious about this and several other posts you have made here. You have already stated several times that you do not find case and statutory references helpful and are not interested in double checking their accuracy and/or applicability. I've already replied several times that that is certainly your prerogative.

Some people on this board do, however, find such references helpful and useful. Perhaps this would not turn into as much of a "frustrating slanging match," as you put it, if you would allow them and me the courtesy of going about the immigration process as we see fit, while you do the same. Otherwise, it is difficult to take the "frustrating slanging match" complaints seriously from one of its primary initiators.

An update :

I received a letter from VSC yesterday that my case has indeed been transferred to Pittsburgh sub-office and that I direct all my enquiries to that office......

Just about a month ago when i e-mailed Pittsburgh Office, I received a reply saying case is with Vermont and that Pittsburgh sub-office cannot expedite the production of PR card....

So, back to square 1 now....I am planning to move to another state end september and would let Pittsburgh USCIS know abt it to act soon whatever they decide.....

Will keep everyone posted.......


Atul

I thought it was against the law for anyone to ask you your status of citizanship. I know police cannot if they stop u but i would guess a hospital wouldnt have the right to ask u either.

I can't believe you guys are still argueing about this !!!!!!!! LOL Keep going good amusement.

Now I am totaly lost...... did I miss something??????

Kezzie

Now I have a headache.

I think the phrase you were looking for here is 'concealment of a material fact'. ie, "dumb".

I also don't believe that the USCIS officer took the OP in a back room and asked him one, single question. Who knows what else he said?
But that's OK; he's going to move offices now and somehow magically avoid the problem he has, which is: applying for an immigration benefit based on a relationship that does not exist.

If the OP thought what he did was "right", he wouldn't be posting here for reassurance, would he?

Watch it. People aren't gonna like that you used the word 'dumb'.

rebeccajo... I will change my on-line name to dumb... then you can call me dumb as much as you want.....

Kezzie

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Hey you never did play "Relax" for me yesterday!

Sorry I was at work.... and well relax is a word never found at work.... I am too busy trying to fit work around my posting on VJ.....

Kezzie

Aye. I understand - so I do!

6 plus pages ... on a topic of dumb .....way too much time folks...

heheh, if the big words are too much, skip the topic.

Greetings:

Be nice everyone --- I believe everyone just tried to help. While it is true that a JD does not give one
complete wisdom on everything, every young lawyer starts with little experience.

By the same token, the attorney who did chat here does need to learn when it is appropriate to post. The OP's post forms a fairly complex scenario, that any AILA lawyer would not really hesitate to answer here. The only answer that would suffice is: There may be options, but see an immigration attorney in your area ASAP.

This could have avoided a lot of unnecessary debate and spouting here.

Be kind.

I've been a lurker here for a while and actually found this thread quite entertaining. I am no lawyer but am not sure why am1996 "needs to learn when it is appropriate to post." Didn't he say throughout the thread that the OP needs to consult an immigration lawyer?

On the other hand, the hostility and ignorance some members here have displayed towards others has been just puzzling and scary. Attacking others is certainly not a great way to create friends or maintain credibility.

Lilliputians have always been known to resent Gullivers.

I guess that depends on whom you define as whom.

Just throwing in my $0.02

As someone who clerks in a divorce court, a judge will see your divorce and all the supporting evidence, and if he or his staff suspect immigration fraud, they'll call DHS/ICE for advice on how to proceed, as now they're getting involved in a potentially messy situation.

We had a couple come in to file a "no fault" divorce (in this state that's 18 mo. separation -- which means you have not cohabitated for 18 months) filed exactly 18 months after the date of marriage. He was from Southeast Asia, she was a USC -- which, combined with their timeline/grounds for divorce, seemed to myself and the rest of the judge's staff as plenty of time to get TPR and essentially fraudulent, so we sent a note to the judge who called the head of the family court division who phoned ICE for advice on how to proceed, which is apparently the proper procedure in such cases, as judges who put through divorces on cases that are suspicious/"green card marriages" can get in serious trouble

Thus, if you've filed for divorce, more than likely, USCIS knows.

I'd rather not resurrect this thread for the purpose of any slanging.

I'd like to say, on behalf of those of us who have been here awhile and who have already 'tread the boards' of immigration - well it's kind of hard to take a new poster who comes along and speaks 'down' to us.

Also, some posters (not myself personally) when presented a situation such as the OP wrote will immediately suspect immigration fraud. Actually I was just amazed that the OP chose to 'stretch the truth'.

I've spent nearly 2 years on this board. Many of the other posters in this thread have been posting here a good while - some longer. We do that because to some degree we feel duty bound to help others - we answer and try to solve problems. I personally get a bit of satisfaction out of helping others - it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling - sappy as it sounds - and I'm glad to do it.

It's a bit of an insult to be 'challenged' repeatedly by someone who implies that they know better and will not concede to learning. I've made MANY an error on this board and was corrected or straightened out by someone with more knowledge. I always would thank them and publicly state that I 'goofed' and was grateful for having expanded my knowledge.

In my opinion, that was what caused the trouble in this thread. Nobody here knows it all. Nobody. Plus those of who do have a bit of knowledge from experience - well that has usually shown us that ANYTHING can happen when it comes to immigration.

Well said Becca.

?

As the last person to post before rebeccajo, I'm just wondering...was it something *I* said?

LOL..........nooooooooooooo!

"If you can't convince them, confuse them."

fas est et ab hoste doceri

Quisnam est vestri hostilis?

Not me. Seemed like you were mocking my explanation. Perhaps I was wrong.

vincit qui se vincit,
Erhm.... Shouldn't it be Quisnam est vestri hostis? No?

ahhhh, I knew the Latin would draw you in nectar to bees.....

Now, where is Julia, herein?!

You seem like a nice person but you also seem to have a rather large chip in your shoulder. I've read all the posts here carefully and do not see how it is possible to even suggest to somebody was speaking "down" to you or anybody else. On the other hand, your posts here are so venomous that they are almost scary.

By the way, what's wrong with being challenged by another poster, especially when he tells you an easy way to verify that his info is correct (yes, I did google the statutes and read them)? Instead of attacking him personally for everything on the planet, this thread would have been must shorter and more helpful if you (and Dr_lha) would just stick to the substance and stop trying to find ways to alienate others.


How true!

Ubi mel ibi apes! Est rerum natura, quod natura non sunt turpia

Last time I heard Julia had to Retire in Italy, therein..

Err... Caecilius est in horto?

Sorry its the only phrase I remember from Latin class.

Geo123, like I said, not resurrecting for slanging. There are no chips here. I was just trying to explain myself. Maybe it's just differences in communication styles - who knows. I think someone is condescending - you think someone is venemous. It's just whatever floats your boat, you know?