newbie question...do I need a lawyer

[tglea 0]

I'm just looking into all this visa stuff. I've met my (soon to be) fiancee, who lives in mexico. She was denied a visitor visa, but otherwise nothing else should be an issue, no arrests or visa problems before.

My question is this...is there a benefit to using a laywer? I see their fees range from $300 to $3000. Do they make things go any faster?

No. It is NOT POSSIBLE for an attorney to make the process go faster. The USCIS gives no preference and I will exolain further below that an attorney actually slows the process. But attorneys will lie to you about this, or at least imply they can make it go faster. They use the USCIS timelines as an indicator and then show you how "their" cases went faster and leave it to you to assign them the credit. Theu USCIS timelines are useless, they always refer to the oldest case in the system, one full of problems or maybe even abandoned. Nealry everyone gets their case done faster than the worst in the system.

Now, that said, what CAN an attorney do? Not much. Almost nothing. The process involves submitting a lot of persoanl forms and data. Copies of your birth certificate, passport, etc. Does the attorney have these? No. Where will he get them? From you! Does he know all your persoanl biographical data? No. Where will he get this? YOU! I could continue on and on. So what does HE do? After YOU gather all the documents and you provide all your personal information (he will tell you to write it out and give it to him, he is not going to sit there and collect it from you) then he will fill out some very simple forms, inputing the data you give him. He will use a $12 an hour secretary, for about an hour, to do this. He will make some copies (if you are lucky he will give a copy to you) which you could make at home or at Staples for about $5. He will do this some time when he has a chnace after juggling all his other clients. It can do nothing but slow the case down as NO ONE can give it the persoanl care you will.

You can get any questions answered here for free...and FAST. Post a question here and you will get many answers much faster than a return call from an attorney and I bet it will be more accurate. For one thing, if I give an answer and it is wrong, you and I will know about it PRONTO! If your attoreny gives a wrong answer you will be stuck with it, he has no audience to correct him, and believe me, they give lots of wrong answers!

You have found the best website on earth for this topic, with many members eager to help. We all did or are doing the same thing, we all want to help each other. People helped me, I try to help them.

This is an expensive process as is, no need to add thousands for an attorney that does almost nothing. I wish I could say, oh if you are busy then pay them and go about your business, but I can't. They aren't like real estate agents that can sell your house when you aren't home. They need you for every step of the process. They cannot do anything until YOU do it for them, they can only copy what you give them.

Good luck

Amen! I had a lawyer for the 129F process and I discovered that, like Gary said, he gave a lot of wrong information and did nothing more than fill out the paperwork and make a few copies and drop it in the mail. Of course, it was before I found VJ and I thought that everything would be so difficult. It's not really that difficult and I have since let my attorney know that I don't need his service anymore. Take some time and read up and you can do it on your own, no sweat! Good luck!

[rebeccajo 14]

Your sroy indicates you did it yourself until you ran into a problkem with the AOS and then you hired an attorney who implied he did something. Good advice.

I suggest the same. As a rule, you do not need an attorney. You agree because you did not use one. If you have some problem it is a more viable option but as your story indicates it may still be a waste of money. I am glad you do not feel ripped off like many VJ members.

By the way, what do you think of an attorney disclosure law?

I sought a legal consult before we ever filed (re-read my first paragraph). My questions regarding the I134 were my reason for going. But I ran the entire case past him. It was a different attorney that was used in the second situation.

I have long advocated members seek a consult before filing. Such a step usually will cost less than $200 and can give peace of mind. The gentleman I consulted told me I was on the right track and did not need him.

I am unsure what you mean by attorney disclosure laws. At any rate, in the meanwhile the onus is on the consumer to select the proper counsel. IMO many persons tend to hire just anybody with the letters 'JD' after their name. All attorneys will have a certain area of expertise. One needs to seek out an IMMIGRATION attorney who concentrates on family immigration (many immigration lawyers practice the employment based variety). As TBoneTX said, the best will have former experience within the Service, as was the case with BOTH the attorneys I used.

Don't be afraid to ask an attorney their credentials. If he or she will not disclose them or becomes offended, then simply find another. It's federal law and not state, so you have a choice of anyone in the nation who can help you properly.

So no I wouldn't say I 'agree' with you at all. Hiring somebody to help you once you hit a snag might well be avoided had there been a consult in the first place. Some fires are mighty hard to put out once they are begun.

Edited March 9, 2009 by rebeccajo

[pushbrk 12,182]

Your sroy indicates you did it yourself until you ran into a problkem with the AOS and then you hired an attorney who implied he did something. Good advice.

I suggest the same. As a rule, you do not need an attorney. You agree because you did not use one. If you have some problem it is a more viable option but as your story indicates it may still be a waste of money. I am glad you do not feel ripped off like many VJ members.

By the way, what do you think of an attorney disclosure law?

I sought a legal consult before we ever filed (re-read my first paragraph). My questions regarding the I134 were my reason for going. But I ran the entire case past him. It was a different attorney that was used in the second situation.

I have long advocated members seek a consult before filing. Such a step usually will cost less than $200 and can give peace of mind. The gentleman I consulted told me I was on the right track and did not need him.

I am unsure what you mean by attorney disclosure laws. At any rate, in the meanwhile the onus is on the consumer to select the proper counsel. IMO many persons tend to hire just anybody with the letters 'JD' after their name. All attorneys will have a certain area of expertise. One needs to seek out an IMMIGRATION attorney who concentrates on family immigration (many immigration lawyers practice the employment based variety). As TBoneTX said, the best will have former experience within the Service, as was the case with BOTH the attorneys I used.

Don't be afraid to ask an attorney their credentials. If he or she will not disclose them or becomes offended, then simply find another. It's federal law and not state, so you have a choice of anyone in the nation who can help you properly.

So no I wouldn't say I 'agree' with you at all. Hiring somebody to help you once you hit a snag might well be avoided had there been a consult in the first place. Some fires are mighty hard to put out once they are begun.

I don't see anything wrong with consulting a professional if it will give one peace of mind. From the best I can figure out the main reason people have so many bad experiences filing cases through attorneys is that the initial consultation sounds fine. Then, since the attorney hasn't updated their knowledge of the current process details and/or once the retainer is paid, leaves the filing details to staff members, who may have little actual training in immigration, so things start going far astray. Usually things evenually work out, and in many cases, the petitioner never bothers to learn the process or discover what caused their process to be so long. It most cases where an attorney is definitely needed, their clients tend to be more satisfied.

[kaibigan 8]

Im probably not giving you any additional advice but..... if you do not have some specialized or complicated case than i do not see the need for a lawyer... They CAN NOT speed up the process and if anything may only delay the process by putting holding off the information u send to them directly. Like others said. don't take any of these words as "legal advise" but me and my Fiancee are doing this by are own and so far (with the MUCH NEEDED help with VJ) are getting along just fine after filing the I-129F petition. Just my 2 cents.

Good Luck

Hey Buddy!

we have sent the I-129F at the same date u sent them..

this is cool.. please share your updates! thanks a lot!

[lucyrich 19]

On a more personal level, I would hate to be the one who said to a stranger 'no dont use a lawyer' not knowing all the facts of the case and they had serious issues. While in this case, like most, it is likely not necessary...this is not true for everybody.

Besides, lets face it, some people need assistance because they have IMBRA issues, overstays, criminal history...etc.... some may just not have the comprehension skills to deal with what is required.

Very elegantly stated by the wise and gracious Kim. It frosts me when people flatly state "you do not need a lawyer!" Instead, dispassionately state the existence of the guides here on VJ, and ask the poster if he/she has potential issues, comprehension difficulties, or fear of paperwork that are out of the ordinary. "Ready, fire, aim" responses are rarely "one size fits all" or even very well-thought-out.

Down off soapbox, si man!

Agreed. We might know the procedures, we might even know the poster's situation well enough to say there's no problem (but we only know as much as the poster posted), but there's no way we know the poster's attention to detail, ability to understand and follow instructions, ability to research questions, etc.

Saying "lots of people have done it without a lawyer" is reasonable. It's a bit of a stretch, but I can't completely disagree with "most people shouldn't need a lawyer", but that's still not the same as "YOU don't need a lawyer".

Should I do my taxes myself? Or hire a quick tax prep place at a strip mall? Or hire a CPA? The tax laws are the same for all of us, but any of those three answers might be right for people with different situations and different talents and abilities.

Can a CPA lower your tax bill? No, the tax law is the same whether you use a CPA or not -- anything the CPA could do, you could do yourself. Just like a lawyer can't speed up your immigration process. But in either case, if you're not doing things right yourself in the first place, and the professional does it right, it might make it seem like the CPA is saving you money, or the attorney is speeding up your case.

I have asked this before, and will not receive an answer again, I can assure you.

For the defenders of attorneys for immigration procedures...please give ma scenario, an example, a "for instance" where an attorney can do something for a petitioner better or in a way that makes it worthwhile.

I can recall three recent cases.

In one, a Canadian was attempting to adjust status from a tourist visa after an overstay. People here mentioned that he shouldn't leave the US until adjustment was complete, but he went to a relative's wedding in Mexico anyway, thus abandoning his adjustment of status and invoking the ten year bar on admissibility. He already had the adjustment of status interview scheduled and was facing about a one month wait for the interview, with virtually certain straightforward approval. Now, he's looking at remaining out of the US, starting over from square one to file for a new visa, having the visa denied for the ten year ban, and then filing for a waiver. Probably a year and a half wait, with not so good odds of success. I suspect that, if an attorney (or anyone) had initially sat down with him face-to-face and explained exactly why leaving the US with AOS pending was a bad idea, he might have rethought the plan.

In another, an applicant filed for naturalization just under three years after coming in on a CR-1 visa. She read the guides that said you can file 90 days before the three year anniversary of gaining green card status, and filed at that time. But she missed the fact that you must also have completed a full three years married to and living with your US Citizen spouse at the time of filing. Since she came on a CR-1 visa, she and her spouse started living together on the same day she got LPR status. Her application for naturalization was denied. If she'd waited until eligible, she would have succeeded.

In another, an applicant filed for naturalization, but misunderstood that the "file 90 days early" shortcut applies only to the continuous residence requirement, not to the physical presence requirement. Again, the result was a denial, and the need to refile.

None of these people had complicated cases. In fact, I'd argue that none of the cases really needed a lawyer, but the people could have benefitted from a knowledgable person to properly explain the law to them.

If you really understand the laws that apply to your case, and you know that your case is uncomplicated, and if you have the attention to detail needed to avoid an RFE, you probably don't need a lawyer.

But not everyone starts out with that kind of knowledge. I know we didn't. If you're not sure, it's hard to beat a face-to-face consultation with a knowledgeable lawyer who can determine your eligibility, search for potential pitfalls, and plan a strategy. Most cases won't need anything more than that, and many won't even need that much.

[freetv 7]

On a more personal level, I would hate to be the one who said to a stranger 'no dont use a lawyer' not knowing all the facts of the case and they had serious issues. While in this case, like most, it is likely not necessary...this is not true for everybody.

Besides, lets face it, some people need assistance because they have IMBRA issues, overstays, criminal history...etc.... some may just not have the comprehension skills to deal with what is required.

Very elegantly stated by the wise and gracious Kim. It frosts me when people flatly state "you do not need a lawyer!" Instead, dispassionately state the existence of the guides here on VJ, and ask the poster if he/she has potential issues, comprehension difficulties, or fear of paperwork that are out of the ordinary. "Ready, fire, aim" responses are rarely "one size fits all" or even very well-thought-out.

Down off soapbox, si man!

Agreed. We might know the procedures, we might even know the poster's situation well enough to say there's no problem (but we only know as much as the poster posted), but there's no way we know the poster's attention to detail, ability to understand and follow instructions, ability to research questions, etc.

Saying "lots of people have done it without a lawyer" is reasonable. It's a bit of a stretch, but I can't completely disagree with "most people shouldn't need a lawyer", but that's still not the same as "YOU don't need a lawyer".

Should I do my taxes myself? Or hire a quick tax prep place at a strip mall? Or hire a CPA? The tax laws are the same for all of us, but any of those three answers might be right for people with different situations and different talents and abilities.

Can a CPA lower your tax bill? No, the tax law is the same whether you use a CPA or not -- anything the CPA could do, you could do yourself. Just like a lawyer can't speed up your immigration process. But in either case, if you're not doing things right yourself in the first place, and the professional does it right, it might make it seem like the CPA is saving you money, or the attorney is speeding up your case.

I have asked this before, and will not receive an answer again, I can assure you.

For the defenders of attorneys for immigration procedures...please give ma scenario, an example, a "for instance" where an attorney can do something for a petitioner better or in a way that makes it worthwhile.

I can recall three recent cases.

In one, a Canadian was attempting to adjust status from a tourist visa after an overstay. People here mentioned that he shouldn't leave the US until adjustment was complete, but he went to a relative's wedding in Mexico anyway, thus abandoning his adjustment of status and invoking the ten year bar on admissibility. He already had the adjustment of status interview scheduled and was facing about a one month wait for the interview, with virtually certain straightforward approval. Now, he's looking at remaining out of the US, starting over from square one to file for a new visa, having the visa denied for the ten year ban, and then filing for a waiver. Probably a year and a half wait, with not so good odds of success. I suspect that, if an attorney (or anyone) had initially sat down with him face-to-face and explained exactly why leaving the US with AOS pending was a bad idea, he might have rethought the plan.

In another, an applicant filed for naturalization just under three years after coming in on a CR-1 visa. She read the guides that said you can file 90 days before the three year anniversary of gaining green card status, and filed at that time. But she missed the fact that you must also have completed a full three years married to and living with your US Citizen spouse at the time of filing. Since she came on a CR-1 visa, she and her spouse started living together on the same day she got LPR status. Her application for naturalization was denied. If she'd waited until eligible, she would have succeeded.

In another, an applicant filed for naturalization, but misunderstood that the "file 90 days early" shortcut applies only to the continuous residence requirement, not to the physical presence requirement. Again, the result was a denial, and the need to refile.

None of these people had complicated cases. In fact, I'd argue that none of the cases really needed a lawyer, but the people could have benefitted from a knowledgable person to properly explain the law to them.

If you really understand the laws that apply to your case, and you know that your case is uncomplicated, and if you have the attention to detail needed to avoid an RFE, you probably don't need a lawyer.

But not everyone starts out with that kind of knowledge. I know we didn't. If you're not sure, it's hard to beat a face-to-face consultation with a knowledgeable lawyer who can determine your eligibility, search for potential pitfalls, and plan a strategy. Most cases won't need anything more than that, and many won't even need that much.

That's well put, in the end it's up to every person to judge their own ablities and decide what to do. Not everyone can go to college or change the oil in their car. I know some people on here just filed the 129f and nothing else... If people like this exist doesn't it make sense that some people also need a lawyer? It's true that some 95% of the time a lawyer is a waste of time and money... but sometimes it's the only way for two people to be together. We are only responsible for our OWN case not someone else's. If a person really feels like they need some help (be it vj, a friend that pays attention to detail, or a lawyer) that is their own decision. But in my opinion... a person should seek other kinds of help (like vj or a friend that pays attention to detail) before seeking out a lawyer.

[V-G-1 1]

As Gary so eloquently put it, if you can fill out a Lowes job application, you can fill out the I-129F.

[freetv 7]

As Gary so eloquently put it, if you can fill out a Lowes job application, you can fill out the I-129F.

Lol That's true, only problem is if you forget to check a box at the worst lowes will throw it in the trash and home depo will call. But we don't have two U.S. governments

[daboyz 36]

On a more personal level, I would hate to be the one who said to a stranger 'no dont use a lawyer' not knowing all the facts of the case and they had serious issues. While in this case, like most, it is likely not necessary...this is not true for everybody.

Besides, lets face it, some people need assistance because they have IMBRA issues, overstays, criminal history...etc.... some may just not have the comprehension skills to deal with what is required.

Very elegantly stated by the wise and gracious Kim. It frosts me when people flatly state "you do not need a lawyer!" Instead, dispassionately state the existence of the guides here on VJ, and ask the poster if he/she has potential issues, comprehension difficulties, or fear of paperwork that are out of the ordinary. "Ready, fire, aim" responses are rarely "one size fits all" or even very well-thought-out.

Down off soapbox, si man!

Agreed. We might know the procedures, we might even know the poster's situation well enough to say there's no problem (but we only know as much as the poster posted), but there's no way we know the poster's attention to detail, ability to understand and follow instructions, ability to research questions, etc.

Saying "lots of people have done it without a lawyer" is reasonable. It's a bit of a stretch, but I can't completely disagree with "most people shouldn't need a lawyer", but that's still not the same as "YOU don't need a lawyer".

Should I do my taxes myself? Or hire a quick tax prep place at a strip mall? Or hire a CPA? The tax laws are the same for all of us, but any of those three answers might be right for people with different situations and different talents and abilities.

Can a CPA lower your tax bill? No, the tax law is the same whether you use a CPA or not -- anything the CPA could do, you could do yourself. Just like a lawyer can't speed up your immigration process. But in either case, if you're not doing things right yourself in the first place, and the professional does it right, it might make it seem like the CPA is saving you money, or the attorney is speeding up your case.

I have asked this before, and will not receive an answer again, I can assure you.

For the defenders of attorneys for immigration procedures...please give ma scenario, an example, a "for instance" where an attorney can do something for a petitioner better or in a way that makes it worthwhile.

I can recall three recent cases.

In one, a Canadian was attempting to adjust status from a tourist visa after an overstay. People here mentioned that he shouldn't leave the US until adjustment was complete, but he went to a relative's wedding in Mexico anyway, thus abandoning his adjustment of status and invoking the ten year bar on admissibility. He already had the adjustment of status interview scheduled and was facing about a one month wait for the interview, with virtually certain straightforward approval. Now, he's looking at remaining out of the US, starting over from square one to file for a new visa, having the visa denied for the ten year ban, and then filing for a waiver. Probably a year and a half wait, with not so good odds of success. I suspect that, if an attorney (or anyone) had initially sat down with him face-to-face and explained exactly why leaving the US with AOS pending was a bad idea, he might have rethought the plan.

In another, an applicant filed for naturalization just under three years after coming in on a CR-1 visa. She read the guides that said you can file 90 days before the three year anniversary of gaining green card status, and filed at that time. But she missed the fact that you must also have completed a full three years married to and living with your US Citizen spouse at the time of filing. Since she came on a CR-1 visa, she and her spouse started living together on the same day she got LPR status. Her application for naturalization was denied. If she'd waited until eligible, she would have succeeded.

In another, an applicant filed for naturalization, but misunderstood that the "file 90 days early" shortcut applies only to the continuous residence requirement, not to the physical presence requirement. Again, the result was a denial, and the need to refile.

None of these people had complicated cases. In fact, I'd argue that none of the cases really needed a lawyer, but the people could have benefitted from a knowledgable person to properly explain the law to them.

If you really understand the laws that apply to your case, and you know that your case is uncomplicated, and if you have the attention to detail needed to avoid an RFE, you probably don't need a lawyer.

But not everyone starts out with that kind of knowledge. I know we didn't. If you're not sure, it's hard to beat a face-to-face consultation with a knowledgeable lawyer who can determine your eligibility, search for potential pitfalls, and plan a strategy. Most cases won't need anything more than that, and many won't even need that much.

I would say for each of the above cases, there are 20 more where the lawyer either totally screwed up, or just out right sat on the cases and caused significant delays.

[V-G-1 1]

Hire a lawyer if you have to go to court or research law--let them EARN their legal fees with REAL legal work

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Hire a lawyer if you have to go to court or research law--let them EARN their legal fees with REAL legal work

Hear, Hear! This isn't even a "legal process" in most cases, it is filling out forms, just like a tax return, job application or lisence application. How many plumbers hire an attorney to comply with the licensing requirements? I have four professional registrations in four states and they are far more complicated, plus testing, than the K-1 process and how many engineers hire lawyers to fill out their forms?

It isn't necessary even to understand the law, only to read the forms and comply with it. How many understand tax law and yet most people do their own taxes. How difficult is it to provide documents about your identity and background? That's all it is. Really, that is ALL it is. I need a lawyer to tell me what a birth certificate is? How to copy it? Will a lawyer tell me where I lived 5 years ago? You mean I wouldn't know? There really is nothing tricky, difficult or mystic here. Sure we have lots of questions about paper clips or staples and in the end it doesn't matter, knock yourself out! And 2/3 of the questions are "do I make enough money?" Or "do I count for traveling with my fiancee?" and in the end they would correct the error at the interview. Any of these questions can be answered right here.

Hey, if you have a problem you know it. Then you deserve an attorney. Some guy overstays a visa and wants to wiggle out of it? Pay up, dude! I hope your attorney rips 'ya a new one. But the vast majority of petitioners are no where near needing an attorney.

I will stay with my previous advice. Safe in the knowledge it is posted at the best web site for this topic in the world. If you can read these words, as a rule, you do not need an attorney.