Supreme Court Considers Visa Case For Foreign Spouses

[LibCampFireClub 635]

I forget the term but if your lawyer has a belief that a ban has been imposed incorrectly they have a route to submit an appeal.

The case does not look that sympathetic.

There is a "writ" or writ of mandamus. It can compel DOS to provide an answer, but I'm told it's usually always brief and your case will surely be denied, even if it wasn't dead.

[unsmiley 111]

I said nothing untrue. Anyone who enters the borders illegally, or overstays in these borders is a criminal. That is not slander. That is the truth!

slander

[ ˈslandər ]

NOUN

the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation

I agree.

This is an outrage that I am afraid won't be corrected in our lifetime. Political correctness gone amok. All those illegals will eventually vote Democratic. And if by some miracle they suddenly closed off the southern border, but still made it exceedingly difficult for legitimate foreign spouses, undoubtedly people in your shoes would still be very unhappy.

[Janelle2002 3,865]

I looked at the amici curiae briefs and so far the majority are in favor of eliminating or in part changing the doctrine. I already email the Supreme Court and I have other people doing so as well. We, who are not being heard or being proactive because we are scared, need to speak up and out!!!

[Janelle2002 3,865]

Go American Bar Association!!!!!!

That consideration is our focus in this brief. Although the government has nothing at all to say on the point, there is in fact no doubt that consular officials frequently make dispositive errors, both legal and factual in nature, when resolving visa applications. It could hardly be otherwise. Many of the governing statutory provisions are vague and broad; resolving visa applications may require consular officials (often non-attorneys) to make complex legal decisions; and decisions must be made without the structural advantages that help courts decide matters correctly. That these officials—however competent and well intentioned they may be—often err cannot be gainsaid: such errors have been well documented, as has been the reality that judicial review can provide a valuable and essential check on official mistakes that can have shattering consequences on the lives of visa applicants and their families in this country. In particular: 1. Although this case arises in the context of an unspecified allegation of some kind of support for terrorism, the rule sought by the government would govern admissibility decisions generally. Yet the necessity and value of judicial review of admissibility decisions is demonstrated by the longstanding history of federal judicial review of the admissibility of aliens already present in the United States. Courts frequently review such admissibility decisions for legal error, and then identify and correct errors committed by immigration authorities. Reviews have found that a variety of considerations, including simple misunderstandings, language deficiencies, inadequate training, the complex nature of immigration law, and occasional instances of personal prejudice, lead government officials to make mistakes— mistakes that courts sometimes label “glaring.”

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/BriefsV4/13-1402_amicus_resp_nijc.authcheckdam.PDF

[LibCampFireClub 635]

I looked at the amici curiae briefs and so far the majority are in favor of eliminating or in part changing the doctrine. I already email the Supreme Court and I have other people doing so as well. We, who are not being heard or being proactive because we are scared, need to speak up and out!!!

I admire your resolve. Most people today would run, not walk the other way from such a significant challenge. Legal immigration is a minority to begin with, and those of us who got screwed....? well, I don't know for sure. But, from the numbers I got from Brent Renison, anyone doing K1 in a non-Philippine, latin escape, or NATO country should reconsider marriage.

[Janelle2002 3,865]

I admire your resolve. Most people today would run, not walk the other way from such a significant challenge. Legal immigration is a minority to begin with, and those of us who got screwed....? well, I don't know for sure. But, from the numbers I got from Brent Renison, anyone doing K1 in a non-Philippine, latin escape, or NATO country should reconsider marriage.

Well you know, we have been married since 2012 and we have been in this process since 2012. He is my husband and this is our life. Why should I have to give up?

Email the Supreme Court ExExpat!!!! We have the support! This things has numbers of lawyers backing it. The Supreme Court needs to see this matters to some amount of people in the public!

[LibCampFireClub 635]

Go American Bar Association!!!!!!

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/BriefsV4/13-1402_amicus_resp_nijc.authcheckdam.PDF

Okay, I read a once-through, and came up with several, what the hell are they talking about, this whole this seems disjointed feeling. For example:

dispositive errors, It could hardly be otherwise., often err cannot be gainsaid,

I despise legal and technical speak. When I see it, I need a broom to sweep up the mess, and throw out the garbage, salvage what can still be consumed, and try to maintain some semblance of English grammar. But hell, Americans don't much care about English grammar anymore, or for that matter know what it is.

It sounds like someone in the lawyer group had a warm fuzzy though and may buy us drinks?

[Janelle2002 3,865]

Okay, I read a once-through, and came up with several, what the hell are they talking about, this whole this seems disjointed feeling. For example:

I despise legal and technical speak. When I see it, I need a broom to sweep up the mess, and throw out the garbage, salvage what can still be consumed, and try to maintain some semblance of English grammar. But hell, Americans don't much care about English grammar anymore, or for that matter know what it is.

It sounds like someone in the lawyer group had a warm fuzzy though and may buy us drinks?

You can't deny that these errors exist. Previous immigration errors have been discovered by courts and corrected by courts. Their argument is, courts have been correctly immigration problems for several years so to say they have no jurisdiction is boo boo on cookie rocks. These errors would not have ever been discovered if it was not for the courts expert, legal knowledge. That's why in cases involving family members of USCs the court should hear the case.

When you send me my topshelf margarita my friend?

[LibCampFireClub 635]

You can't deny that these errors exist. Previous immigration errors have been discovered by courts and corrected by courts. Their argument is, courts have been correctly immigration problems for several years so to say they have no jurisdiction is boo boo on cookie rocks. These errors would not have ever been discovered if it was not for the courts expert, legal knowledge. That's why in cases involving family members of USCs the court should hear the case.

When you send me my topshelf margarita my friend?

A lot of folks think of cuervo, when it comes to cactus juice. You can pay a lot more than necessary, but I'm told if you mix it with something else, then don't pay too much for the base.

http://www.tequila.net/

Tequila, tripple sec, and sweet and sour mix make the fundamental margarita.

It's well established that humans cause errors. But remember, just because some wise-en-heimer geek wrote an algorithm to separate the good immigrants and safe immigrants from the bad and dangerous ones, does not show the criteria used to create it.

There is a lot of criteria, and off the record stuff they are doing that rule folks in, and rule them out and no one knows what it is except them. I think their list is comprised of 76% bullshit magic, 8% government standards, and the rest is decided during coffee breaks and lunch.

[Janelle2002 3,865]

A lot of folks think of cuervo, when it comes to cactus juice. You can pay a lot more than necessary, but I'm told if you mix it with something else, then don't pay too much for the base.

http://www.tequila.net/

Tequila, tripple sec, and sweet and sour mix make the fundamental margarita.

It's well established that humans cause errors. But remember, just because some wise-en-heimer geek wrote an algorithm to separate the good immigrants and safe immigrants from the bad and dangerous ones, does not show the criteria used to create it.

There is a lot of criteria, and off the record stuff they are doing that rule folks in, and rule them out and no one knows what it is except them. I think their list is comprised of 76% bullshit magic, 8% government standards, and the rest is decided during coffee breaks and lunch.

I like that.

You should look at the amici submitted by National Justice for our neighbors. It is some powerful stuff. Especially about uniting families.

Not much legalise. I think you would like it.

[LibCampFireClub 635]

This one I guess. Okay. Phewwwwww. This stuff......blows. They make a lot out of saying whether you're a thumb-up or a thumb-down. Newsflash. It doesn't soften the blow, or substantiate that the consular dudes are nice people trying to make everyone safe by killing families.

Edited February 26, 2015 by ExExpat

[Boiler 43,430]

The practicality confuses me.

The practicality confuses me.

The practicality confuses me.

[Janelle2002 3,865]

This one I guess. Okay. Phewwwwww. This stuff......blows. They make a lot out of saying whether you're a thumb-up or a thumb-down. Newsflash. It doesn't soften the blow, or substantiate that the consular dudes are nice people trying to make everyone safe by killing families.

Here is your answer to this question.

"In recognizing that the right to live with one’s spouse is a vital component of the right to marry, this Court will break no new ground. The right to live with one’s spouse is integral to the marital rights that this Court already has recognized as fundamental. The right to marry includes the right to be free from arbitrary governmental restraints in choosing whom to marry, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 9 (1967), in obtaining counseling and prescriptions for contraception, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 483, 485-87 (1965), and in directing the upbringing of children, Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399-401 (1923). Each of these rights would be severely compromised if the government arbitrarily could prevent spouses from living together. The protection afforded to marital privacy is expressly grounded, in significant part, on the right to associate with one’s spouse. Griswold, 381 U.S. at 485-87. Marital association is constrained when one cannot live with one’s spouse."

Yes, because the courts have already expressed it is a fundamental right to marry, live together with your spouse and raise a family, yes, denial of spouse visas for U.S. citizens should warrant a limited judicial review of the decision. The courts have heard numerous cases pertaining to the rights of marriage, how to raise children and in cases of couples wanting to have children. Here cases where U.S. citizens have spouses who have been denied visas will be no different. The spouse will still be outside of the country while the USC will be petitioning the court to correct the wrongdoing.

[LibCampFireClub 635]

Here is your answer to this question.

"In recognizing that the right to live with one’s spouse is a vital component of the right to marry, this Court will break no new ground. The right to live with one’s spouse is integral to the marital rights that this Court already has recognized as fundamental. The right to marry includes the right to be free from arbitrary governmental restraints in choosing whom to marry, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 9 (1967), in obtaining counseling and prescriptions for contraception, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 483, 485-87 (1965), and in directing the upbringing of children, Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399-401 (1923). Each of these rights would be severely compromised if the government arbitrarily could prevent spouses from living together. The protection afforded to marital privacy is expressly grounded, in significant part, on the right to associate with one’s spouse. Griswold, 381 U.S. at 485-87. Marital association is constrained when one cannot live with one’s spouse."ri

Yes, because the courts have already expressed it is a fundamental right to marry, live together with your spouse and raise a family, yes, denial of spouse visas for U.S. citizens should warrant a limited judicial review of the decision. The courts have heard numerous cases pertaining to the rights of marriage, how to raise children and in cases of couples wanting to have children. Here cases where U.S. citizens have spouses who have been denied visas will be no different. The spouse will still be outside of the country while the USC will be petitioning the court to correct the wrongdoing.

Okay, let's break it down:

1. to live with mama

2. ya'll better be good so dat dis court can rock your world

3. Folks say, married folks needs ta live with married folk

4. And, ifn they liven together, the govment caint say no way jose, or who you can or who you what

5. My buddy griswold sez so

6. Ifn ya'll got kids, well, that means da gov folk give ya'll a plus 1

7. All this stuff means, cook breakfast, beat your kids, call 911, and....

8. ....cont'd .....it should make da govmnt wanna check ya'll out a little closer

9. Now, becuz, da gubment, knows how to raze ur kids beddern u,

10. Ifn u listin to dem, day will tell ya, day will write it down dat u listened

11. Ifn your spowse ain't home, it's okay to call her.

[Janelle2002 3,865]

Okay, let's break it down:

1. to live with mama

2. ya'll better be good so dat dis court can rock your world

3. Folks say, married folks needs ta live with married folk

4. And, ifn they liven together, the govment caint say no way jose, or who you can or who you what

5. My buddy griswold sez so

6. Ifn ya'll got kids, well, that means da gov folk give ya'll a plus 1

7. All this stuff means, cook breakfast, beat your kids, call 911, and....

8. ....cont'd .....it should make da govmnt wanna check ya'll out a little closer

9. Now, becuz, da gubment, knows how to raze ur kids beddern u,

10. Ifn u listin to dem, day will tell ya, day will write it down dat u listened

11. Ifn your spowse ain't home, it's okay to call her.

Huh?