Hi Everyone,
i filed my AOS (I-130/I-485) sometime feb 2003 from clarksburg WV and recently had our interview at pittsburgh USCIS in jan 2006. Case was pending namecheck and recently got approved in 14th april 2006.

Since jan 2006 after our AOS interview, our relationship isn't strong and we have been living separately with no joint finances. We filed a no-fault divorce last month. However, I still haven't received either the welcome notice or the PR card.

I was also told to wait to receive the I-551 stamp until welcome notice is sent from VSC. However, I walked-in to USCIS at Charleston WV cuz of medical emergency and realized that I have to wait for 3 hours. They made me wait saying there is problem in the case. Eventually they invited me to a room and asked if we are still married and that if i lie, it will be perjury etc etc ....

Since divorce process wasn't completed, I said "yes, we are married". I am sure VSC will be aware of this as well.

Is there a possibility of my i-485 to be denied after local service center approval ?
I have email from Pittsburgh USCIS and 6-month I-551 stamp to prove i-485 approval.

What happens when case is approved and ready for green card production and divorce happens ?

Any information or pointers on the same will be highly appreciated.

Thanks
Atul

Find yourself an attorney specializing in immigration law.

Why didn't you tell them you were separated?

Perhaps they are sceptical about your divorce immediately after being approved for the GC. Is it possible someone gave them a call? Maybe they have decided to investigate further whether they will grant permanent residence.

yes, thats what exactly they told me....they'd investigate further and that I would be in trouble if i were lieing. we for USCIS, all that matters is "married" or "divorced". Since divorced is not finalized, I think i was right in saying we're "still married". I didnt wanna risk getting the temporary stamp either.

But can the case be denied once approved ?

Yes, we do have a common enemy and she could have called them. But, since there's no concrete evidence of separation and divorce (still in process and not finalized), they gave me the i-551 temporary stamp after hours of waiting...

But, what would happen if i were divorced or become one until the PR card is mailed-in ?

In any case, you should have been up-front and informed them that you're separated. You never know what they know... It sounds to me like they already know you guys are separated and divorce is in the works. Yes, approval can be recinded at any point.

Your opinion. Not theirs. Since they make the rules and not you, that's a deadly game. Very dumb.

Simply married or divorced is certainly NOT all that matters to the USCIS. It is the nature of that relationship that matters...are you continuing to live together as husband and wife or is there some indication that the marriage was for immigration benefit only. You have much going against you now. You initiated an end to the marriage immediately after the GC approval and your answer to their marriage question was deceptive. I wouldn't count on getting the GC any time soon, if ever.

You say you were approved in April after a name check. The fact that you havn't received your GC after almost 6 months makes me think that they know or suspect fraud - best thing to do is for you to consult with an immigration attorney - there are several Indian attorneys in New York and maybe some in Pittsburgh too. I think they have info about your separation or withdrawal of your sponsirship. Good Luck

I know my wife hasn't withdrawn the i-130 or support...we are in regular touch....i am sure uscis didn't have enough to deny me the passport stamp...Is it not better to wait and see the direction (approval or denial) and then act with immigration attorneys accordingly ?
since i filed the no-fault divorce complaint, i can always call my attorney and take back the complaint...

can u give me some names of indian attorneys in PA/WV area ?

thanks
Atul

Atul,
My understanding is that once divorce proceedings and/or legal separation through the courts has been instituted, then USCIS considers the marriage ended.

Sorry, but if I were the adjudicator in this case, I'd be very suspicious as well.

Legal counsel is the best advice you're gonna get here.

Respectfully, USCIS does not make the rules. Congress does. Regardless, where do you see a clear answer to the OP's question? Before you take it upon yourself to categorize another person's actions as "dumb" or create other similarly offensive posts, please be sure to familiarize yourself with the rules and statury requirements that apply to the situation or refrain from creating these offensive and unequivocal posts.

To the OP, I've briefly glanced at the regs that seem to govern your situation and am not at all certain that there is a straightforward answer to your dilemma. For instance, I am not at all certain that the OP has an affiirmative obligation to volunteer any information that is not otherwise specifically requested by the USCIS (I can't tell one way or the other). Unless the OP has such an affirmative obligation under the law and unless the OP's situation clearly falls within the scope of such an affirmative obligation, it is not at all clear that his response was unlawful.

Unfortunately, in the apparent absence of a clear answer to this question, all the replies in this thread (including mine) seem to be based on speculation and interpretation of various rules. Consequently, I would join the posters who have urged the OP to consult with a qualified immigration attorney.

USCIS does not make the rules, but they do make a ruling and congress has given them the authority to make that ruling. Their authority to adjudicate the merits of these cases came from congress. If they decide that the marriage was for immigration benefit only they can deny him. He may have some recourse on appeal and that's where he would need an attorney the most. The OP asked our opinion regarding their ability to deny him the GC and we gave our opinions.

Agreed, with the caveat that USCIS' rulings must be made within the parameters given to them by Congress and the courts. As such, unless the applicable statutory and common law authority imposes an affirmative obligation on the OP to volunteer information that is not specifically requested by the USCIS, there may not have been anything wrong with the OP's answer (I can't tell one way or the other right now).

There is absolutely nothing wrong with posting our opinions and understandings of the system, especially if and when the posts are qualified as such. My issue had to do with a poster unequivocally categorizing a person's actions as "very dumb," which was not only uncalled for and profoundly offensive but, in light of the uncertain answer to the OP's question, may have been quite misleading.

am1996.... this is a internet forum where people come to get others opinions on there situation... unless you are a immigration lawyer then your interpretation of the USCIS guidelines is only your opinion.... if someone here posts that they think that the OP was dumb... then that is their opinion....

If the OP was only seeking definite answers and not opinions then he would not have asked his question on a public forum.....

Kezzie

I wish the use of the word 'dumb' was the worst thing ever said about someone or their actions within VJ. am1996 could make a career out of correcting people here...

Gee that was ambiguous. Sounded good though.

I'm sorry, but in my opinion it is dumb to second-guess what USCIS might think of something. Especially the very thing that one's immigration status hangs on. Sorry if that's rude or misleading.

The classic being quoting of immigration law to correct a former CBP officer on entry requirements. That was funny.

I see absolutely no problem with correcting others or have my posts corrected, especially when such corrections are substantiated (by personal experience, statutory references, links to articles, etc...).
An "opinion," which is based neither on law or on reality and cannot be otherwise substantiated is reckless and irresponsible. When such an "opinion" is accompanied by offensive remarks, regardless of their degree of offensiveness, it becomes rather inexcusable.

We have received both incredibly helpful, useful and accurate replies to our questions on this board as well as some well intentioned but clearly wrong ones. The reason that we have and continue to express our profound gratitude for all of those replies is because they are clearly given with the best of intentions and provide an excellent starting point for our research. By contrast, replies such as "this is very dumb" without more is akin to telling a drowning person how dumb he/she is for ending up in that predicament but not offering any help.

Rebeccajo, what is ambiguous in the portion of the post you have quoted? If Congress and the courts say that it doesn't matter what USCIS might "think" of you getting a ticket for running a red light, then that's all that matters to a person who is worried that his AOS petition might get denied simply because USCIS doesn't like it. Likewise, if Congress and the courts say that the OP has no obligation to volunteer any information to USCIS that it does not request, then the OP's answer may not have been incorrect, imprudent or, as you say, "dumb."

To be fair, the OP was pretty stupid to omit the fact he was getting divorced when asked by USCIS. They will find out sooner or later, and by holding back that information it can only prejudice them against his case I'm afraid. You could say that as his divorce hadn't gone through yet, it was the right answer, but IMHO a lie of omission is still a lie.

Being open and honest is the best policy at all times. If USCIS officers think you are being anything other than that you'll be booted out of the country pretty fast.

Are you saying that my corrections were false? If so, let's hear it.

Yes, "am1996" is just a screen name, which is used by my fiance as well as myself. I am an attorney and although I certainly do not specialize in immigration law, the corrections that I've previously posted have been based on the applicable case and statutory law (I have also provided citations thereto).

By the way, why do you find an assertion that a former CBP officer may not be aware of various caveats of immigration law so implausible and amusing (especially when that assertion is backed up by statutory and case citations)?

I found your assertions that a former CBP was incorrect in interpreting the law to be hilarious yes. Mainly because it was his job to implement that law every day.

Unless you are an immigration lawyer, I'll believe a former CBP officer to be correct before I believe you, no matter how much law you quote on these pages.

Please answer me something.... if you are a lawyer who quite clearly has a good understanding of how to read the law then why are you here in a public forum that helps people who for whatever reason are not using a lawyer to help them with the process of immigration...

Kezzie

I am not sure that I completely understand your reply but it is certainly your prerogative to do as you please. The only reason that I have posted my corrections was in a heartfelt effort to help others, since this forum has already provided incredible help to my fiance and I. If you would rather automatically reject the information contained in my posts, you are certainly free to do so.

As for the comments calling the OP's actions "very dumb," I would once again urge people not to kick him when he is down (in all fairness, very few people have done that) and to instead provide a responsible advice to him or, if they are unable to do that, to tell him that his best bet is to consult an attorney.

Ambiguous?

The use of everything highlighted in bold....used in one sentence.

This is all very well and good, but unfortunately your credibility in interpreting immigration law took a huge dent after the whole thread where you tried to convince yourself it was OK to get engaged, then leave the country, return on a B2 visa in order to get married. The former CBP officer correctly pointed out to you that you would get turned away at entry due to having immigration intent, and instead of accepting his advice, you argued and quoted case law at him, when he was trying to help you out.

So yes, Iwill be free to automatically reject information in your posts. Thanks!

Reading and interpreting the law is one thing; locating the starting point for any research is an entirely different issue. Since I do not specialize in immigration law, this forum has been incredibly helpful in helping me locate a starting point for my research as well as in answering procedural questions. For instance, many issues that we have encountered so far are simply not addressed in the statutes and cases (for instance, the way that pictures should be taken is not, to my knowledge, a statutory requirement, so very much appreciated people's answers to our questions), so people's practical experience with these issues has been incredibly helpful.

What's with the hostility? We are not trolls and all our questions in this forum have been genuine. Likewise, we have at this point more or less thoroughly researched a number of questions that have come up and are simply trying to give back to the forum that has already given so much to us.

No hostility. Just common sense.

You may think the title JD gives you free reign here. It does not. There's loads of experience behind this board. When you are given common sense advice you really should give it some credence rather than pooh-poohing it with your scholarly credentials.

am1966, As an officer of the court, any court, of course it's natural to believe that familiarity with the legal foundation of the various procedures is priceless and good ammunition. Unfortunately, having the ability to regurgitate the law and statutory language as one's argument only comes into play once you're in a dispute with the Service. In other words, once one is appealing an unfavourable decision. I believe in all fairness, if I am reading this thread correctly, opinions as to the OPs action were only provided as recommendations to others and the OP so as to avoid such an event, or future events.

Please breath. First, none of us are infallible -- lawyers, doctors, plumbers, CBP officers or even you (didn't you just incorrectly advised a poster that aliens with K3 visas and pending AOS applications were required to obtain AP to travel?). Second, with all due respect, you are mischaracterizing the thread you are referring to (we had done ZERO research prior to posting the first question there). We never said that the strategy that we had intended to employ at the time was without peril. Instead, we were trying to check exactly how dangerous that strategy was and were trying to see if there were any viable alternatives. Once people (especially Kezzie, to whom we are forever grateful) pointed us in the right direction, we were good to go.

I believe that all our posts have at all times been very respectful and appreciative of others. Regardless of how you may feel about my fiance or I, would it be too much to ask for you to return the favor?

Respectfully, what is the "common sense" or any other type of an advice that you have provided in your initial post in this thread? You have characterized the OP's actions as "very dumb" without offering any suggestions that he could follow to help him out of the situation.

For the record, my JD does not give me "free reign" here or anywhere else. When I post my advice here, I do so not as a lawyer but as a person who is merely trying to help, while also trying not to mislead. As such, I substantiate it with citations. The beauty of citations is that you can easily google them and read them yourself and then decide whether you agree with the posts or not. You definitely don't need a JD to do so; just a bit of "common sense," which you prize (and rightfully so).

Asked and answered! Come on, let's not make too much of a members' comment. Right now this thread has been diverted way off topic, and the OP is getting no advice, quasilegal or otherwise. Back to topic, folks

am1996, I'm all for second starts and chances, ok?

Sure there's room for argument in immigration matters. But it belongs in the courtroom, (as mermaid said) and not here. In a self help forum such as this one we are best served sticking to black and white.

And I think you would do well to admit that despite your credentials, you would be just as lost in a courtroom setting as I would. If you graduated 'smartly' in your class, you should know full well that whatever area you practice in makes you woefully incapable in the areas in which you don't. Or if not incapable, then at least dangerous - as in the old adage "I know just enough to be dangerous".

I'm sorry if you think my post was rude. But I believe that what the OP did was - well - plain dumb. Especially when his immigration status hangs upon the answer to the question put to him. There is nothing wrong with telling someone what they did was less than smart. My divorce lawyer told me I did dumb stuff. Do you speak to your clients with something less than candor? Perhaps it's just where I am from. Around here we call it being 'straight up'.

What I said might not help the OP. But it's straight up. It's the heart of his problem and the reason he came here with a question. What more does he need to know? How to keep evading the answer?

Common sense and experience on a site like this are more useful than quoting laws IMHO. I'd rather have the advice of someone who's gone through it, than someone who read the immigration laws on a web page.

As such forums like this are useful for opinions and advice, however if you want advice on the exact word of the law: see an licensed immigration attorney.

FYI: I have been dealing with the INS/BCIS/USCIS for 7 1/2 years, so have some experience with how they operate, but I wouldn't want to give the impression that anything I say on this website is anything but an opinion based on my own experience, rather than my interpretation of legal documents.

I think the main problem here is that you am1996 like to quote law and case studies to back up your point.... as 99% of us on this board dont even know how to fully understand legal language it make it seam to others that you are trying to be smart and above them when you do this...

You have said some very interesting things in many of your posts and have given me area's to investigate further... but the bottom line is that most people here are looking for others opinions of there actions or possible actions and that is what most people give in reply to the question... if they wanted a legal interpritation of the USCIS laws they would consult a lawyer... and yes sometime real life expirence if far better than academic learning....

Kezzie

I hate to continue belaboring this point but you still don't seem to understand what I am saying. There are plenty of circumstances out there when your "complete candor" as you call it (I call it "volunteering information when you are not required to do so") is the worst possible thing you can do -- this is true in every legal, practical and every other sense out there. For instance, if you are ever audited by the IRS, you are generally well advised to only respond to the questions asked without volunteering ANYTHING. If you give them all the paperwork you have for everything out there, then you are asking for trouble. If you are ever pulled over and asked whether you know why the police officer pulled you over, the right answer in almost every situation is NO. If you tell him that it is because you just ran a red light but he pulled you over for speeding, you will get two tickets.

Likewise, it is not at all clear here that the OP was required to volunteer information to USCIS. If he was not and the law clearly states that USCIS cannot hold it against him, then as a legal, practical and every other matter out there the answer that the OP has provided was the right one. Are we now on the same page?

I'd like to point out that the parameters given to them allow them to make a subjective judgement as to whether the immigrant is being truthful or deceptive and apply that judgement to the decision regarding their approval. In this case, it may not have exactly been "smart" to elude the question of his current marital status. Making a stand on the technical truth of a statement does not make it any less deceptive.

Having said that, I agree there are better ways to express your objection to someone's actions than to call them dumb. Such statements usually indicate to me a lack of expressive competence.

That depends on the nature of the question. For instance, yesterday somebody asked how to answer an I485 question that reads "Were you inspected by a US immigration officer?" (http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=28324&hl=). Kezzie and John correctly answered the question but the complete and definitive answer to that question lies in the statute that I quoted there. If you simply take 30 seconds to google the citation that I provided (8 USC 1255(a)), the very first website that google returns will take you there and even a cursory reading of that one paragraph should undoubtedly confirm the answer beyond all possible doubts. Is there a problem with doing that?

The difference is, Kezzie's and John's answers were useful, whereas quoting statue is confusing to all but attorney's who aren't used to such legal language.

I'd much rather have someone say: "Yes, this is what I did and it was correct", than someone say "Well, Section 231(Q) of the Immigration Act of 1997 states..."

The "above them" comment certainly makes a lot of sense and all I can do is assure you and others that that is absolutely NOT my intention and sincerely apologize if people have gotten that impression from my posts. I have absolutely nothing to prove to people on this board, especially since we are all in the same boat anyway.

As for the case and statutory quotations, I don't know how else to explain certain positions or statements. For the most part, the citations that I provide are quite precise, aren't difficult to research (just google them or ask me to send you a free link to them) and do not require any special skills. Yes, the language used there may not be straightforward, but keep in mind that CBP and USCIS is reading the same exact legal language. Quite a few times, the way to answer a certain question unambiguously can be found in cases and statutes, so when I come across those instances, I try to post them.

As for your last point, I wholeheartedly agree that real life experience in quite a few cases is far superior to purely academic knowledge. However, what's wrong with supplementing this real life experience with some legal knowledge, so that you know how to better answer certain questions because you then know the REASON that the questions are being asked and can then formulate the best answer?

The difference is, Kezzie's and John's answers were opinions, which the OP can never be sure are correct. If those opinions are supplemented by a simple statutory reference (once again, google "8 USC 1255(a)), which you can then read and understand for yourself, then you don't have to wonder whether those opinions were correct. The language there is really not that confusing!

It comes down to this:

If people really wanted to be quoted statute, they would Google it for themselves. If people were able to understand the law statutes easily, they wouldn't need this website as generally everything they need to know is included on the USCIS website and in the form instructions.

If they want opinions and advice from people who have gone through the process that they are about to, then they ask here.

People don't want opinions and people don't want statutes. People want ANSWERS that are as precise and accurate as they can get and they want them at the lowest possible cost ("free" is even better). I don't know about you, but I find that people's practical experiences COMBINED with legal references are the best way to confirm that the answers are correct.

For the most part, people can't google a statute because they don't know what to look for or where to start (the latter is the reason that my fiance and I are on this forum, since it would otherwise take FOREVER for me to research everything from scratch). Once such a reference or a link is provided, I am not sure why people would refuse to look at it and, if unclear, ask questions.

As for the USCIS website and form instructions, I don't know about you but I often find statutes FAR MORE CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS than those USCIS instructions (especially those that seem to contradict each other). For instance, the I485 question that I referred to above ("Have you been inspected by a US Immigration Officer?") makes NO SENSE to me. Once I see people's responses to the question and then see the statute that requires an affirmative response to it, I feel quite comfortable answering it.

In situations where people's practical experiences seem to contradict the law, I know that I need to do more research and ask more questions. It's as simple as that.

P.S.
Another excellent example of helpful statutory references is Advance Parole (I've posted it in a couple of threads). Once you know how USCIS makes decisions about it (which is based on the way it was instructed to do so by Congress, which gave USCIS virtually no discretion), you will know how to answer certain questions. For instance, if the reasons that you want AP is because you want to "go on an African safari" and to "visit elderly parents," providing the second answer gives you a much better chance of qualifying for AP than the first. If you just ask for people's practical experiences without reviewing the statute, you'll get answers that essentially say that "any answer will suffice." Even if that may be true in many cases, a second answer gives you a much higher likelihood of approval than the first.

This thread is giving me a headache.

How nonsensical is the question "Have you been inspected by a US Immigration Officer?" I see that as a clear, concise and simple question. What's nonsensical about it?

** gives Icey an aspirin **

I've been following and muttering under my breath, but there are attorneys in my family, so I'll shut up now.

I think that it is quite reasonable to assume that you must only answer that question in the affirmative if you encountered problems crossing the border, i.e., if you were subjected to secondary screening etc... In other words, I think that it is reasonable to assume that answering that question in the affirmative would cause USCIS to take a much closer and harder look at you. The OP in the thread in question was wondering the same thing.

In my fiance's question, she has always been just "waved through" the border without any questions whatsoever (and in many cases without even showing a passport), so it was not immediately obvious to us that her answer to it must be affirmative, or USCIS would be required to reject the I-485.

I certainly can't attest to knowing a vast number of cases, of course, but in all the years associated with the immigration process, I don't recall one case of AP being denied. Some emergency cases, yes, but if applied for in advance, not. So, regardless of how little discretion Congress gave to USCIS and the "family need" ranking above purely recreational requests, USCIS has created discretion to reinterpret COngress' intention, it would appear!

Sure, and that's wonderful to know. If an AP applicant is, however, unlucky enough to run across a USCIS adjudicator who just finished reading that statute for whatever reason and decides to deny the application, you wouldn't be a happy camper. Likewise, the fact that USCIS has in the past been quite lenient with AP applications is certainly no guarantee that it will continue to do so in the future.

If you know what the AP statute says and can provide an honest answer that clearly satisfies its requirements, why on god's green earth would you not do it?

I think it's great that am1996 can expose us to another side of things that we may not be able to access without legal experience. If you disagree with his conclusions, so be it. I havent gotten the impression that he's trying to condescend, although that's how some have taken it. Maybe I've missed something....

I'm not questioning the statute, in fact, I'm commenting on the fact that the decision-makers, that is, the day-to-day decision makers (the AOs), may not be as familiar with the statutory language as they should be or have more discretion than Congress initially intended by virtue of the law. AP is a clear case in point. The vast majority of AP cases are approved for recreational purposes. Does that suggest that AOs are not adjudicating with strict interpretation of the INA in mind? I'd say that's probably true. Which brings me to the point that often decisions are made by AOs that will fall when confronted with statutory language as a legal argument. However, as I suggested earlier, these postures only manifest themselves before the IJ.

With reference to the OP's original question, he was confronted by the AO in the WV office. And, yes, answering only the questions posed is critical, however, misrepresentation comes into play when the AOs question is answered in such a fashion that a natural line of questioning is shut down by an answer given. In this case, the OP declared he was "married". Technically, until a final divorce decree is offered, I suppose in many arenas that is true. The question becomes, did his answer impede the natural flow of the questioning such that the AO would not/could not ascertain as to the viability of his marriage? I can't provide the citation that I stumbled across before, but it seems that I recall USCIS' position on marriage is that it is still viable until legal separation or court process has been initiated. I could be wrong, but this I believe is what I recall. These are points that should be brought before a competent immigration counsel.




Applying your subjective interpretation of the term "inspected" I can see your point, but in terms of immigration "inspected" at a POE or border crossing point is a clear definition and involves processing, albeit at some points that may come as a wave, or be relatively unofficial. Unarguably, a response in the negative would indicate that an alien entered the country without being processed at a POE or border point. In other words, sneaking across the border.