Jump to content
Janelle2002

Supreme Court Considers Visa Case For Foreign Spouses

 Share

97 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Ecuador
Timeline

That's right.

06-04-2007 = TSC stamps postal return-receipt for I-129f.

06-11-2007 = NOA1 date (unknown to me).

07-20-2007 = Phoned Immigration Officer; got WAC#; where's NOA1?

09-25-2007 = Touch (first-ever).

09-28-2007 = NOA1, 23 days after their 45-day promise to send it (grrrr).

10-20 & 11-14-2007 = Phoned ImmOffs; "still pending."

12-11-2007 = 180 days; file is "between workstations, may be early Jan."; touches 12/11 & 12/12.

12-18-2007 = Call; file is with Division 9 ofcr. (bckgrnd check); e-prompt to shake it; touch.

12-19-2007 = NOA2 by e-mail & web, dated 12-18-07 (187 days; 201 per VJ); in mail 12/24/07.

01-09-2008 = File from USCIS to NVC, 1-4-08; NVC creates file, 1/15/08; to consulate 1/16/08.

01-23-2008 = Consulate gets file; outdated Packet 4 mailed to fiancee 1/27/08; rec'd 3/3/08.

04-29-2008 = Fiancee's 4-min. consular interview, 8:30 a.m.; much evidence brought but not allowed to be presented (consul: "More proof! Second interview! Bring your fiance!").

05-05-2008 = Infuriating $12 call to non-English-speaking consulate appointment-setter.

05-06-2008 = Better $12 call to English-speaker; "joint" interview date 6/30/08 (my selection).

06-30-2008 = Stokes Interrogations w/Ecuadorian (not USC); "wait 2 weeks; we'll mail her."

07-2008 = Daily calls to DOS: "currently processing"; 8/05 = Phoned consulate, got Section Chief; wrote him.

08-07-08 = E-mail from consulate, promising to issue visa "as soon as we get her passport" (on 8/12, per DHL).

08-27-08 = Phoned consulate (they "couldn't find" our file); visa DHL'd 8/28; in hand 9/1; through POE on 10/9 with NO hassles(!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Other Timeline

The DOJ will be arguing before the SCOTUS the opposite of what we want.

Everyone is already settled on their position. What is not fully known is whether the case will succeed. Let's just say that nearly all previous challenges were tossed out without even getting a sip of coffee or tea. Just thrown out.

It's my feeling that the fabric of the awful "doctrine" is woven deeply within the national security of the United States. The courts are afraid to mess with it, because if they open the door and some consular office lets someone in who engages in terrorism, kills, or rapes, or breaks moral laws, that they will have it thrown right back in their face.

However, there is little said that it's the USCIS that approves petitions. Consulates do NOT have the authority to reject or readjudicate unless they have NEW and compelling information. However, the courts cannot compel them to produce it, because of this doctrine.

Yes, it needs to change. To what, and how? This stuff is very complicated and very few immigration lawyers can explain it or even know about it.

From Marc Ellis' website:

I. The Burden a Consular Officer Must Meet to Recommend Revocation of an Approved Family Petition

There is a heavy burden a consular officer must meet before he or she can recommend an DHS-approved petition be revoked. In employment-based IV cases, a consular officer has the authority to invalidate labor certifications, if so instructed by the Department of State after obtaining an advisory opinion from the Bureau of Consular Affairs.

In family cases though, the power of consulates is more limited. DHS has the sole statutory authority to approve or revoke a family-based immigrant visa petition. And a DHS approval is a prima facie presentation of eligibility under the Act.

A good restatement of the standards governing petition returns by consulate is found in a February 2004 cable R 251642Z FEB 04, excerpted below, sent to all consulates.

… “6. In adjudicating visa cases involving petitions, posts should bear in mind three important factors: A. the consular officer's role in the petition process is to determine if there is substantial evidence relevant to petition validity not previously considered by DHS, and not to merely readjudicate the petition; B. the memo supporting the petition return must clearly show the factual and concrete reasons for recommending revocation (observations made by the consular officer cannot be conclusive, speculative, equivocal or irrelevant) and; C. consular officers must provide to the applicant in writing as full an explanation as possible of the legal and factual basis for the visa denial and petition return. Post must maintain a copy of the returned petition, other evidence relevant to the case, and a copy of the written notification of the denial.

No readjudication of petitions

7. In general, an approved petition will be considered by consular officers as prima facie evidence that the requirements for classification - which are examined in the petition process - have been met. Where Congress has placed responsibility and authority with DHS to determine whether the requirements for status which are examined in the petition process have been met, consular officers do not have the authority to question the approval of petitions without specific evidence, generally unavailable to DHS at the time of petition approval, that the beneficiary may not be entitled to status (see 9 FAM 41.53, Note 2, 41.54 Note 3.2-2, 41.55 Note 8, 41.56 Note 10, 41.57 Note 6, and 42.43 Note 2) due to fraud, changes in circumstances or clear error on the part of DHS in approving the petition. Conoffs should not assume that a petition should be revoked simply because they would have reached a different decision if adjudicating the petition. …”

http://www.ilw.com/articles/2006,0323-ellis.shtm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Country: Vietnam
Timeline

I agree with you. The recipient is not considered a U.S. citizen so there is no protections under our laws. We know that we are affected though and it has a huge impact on our lives. I am bothered by the consulates not being able to be reviewed. What is the remedy you think we should have? Who is going to review their decisions that is not biased?

Everyone is already settled on their position. What is not fully known is whether the case will succeed. Let's just say that nearly all previous challenges were tossed out without even getting a sip of coffee or tea. Just thrown out.

It's my feeling that the fabric of the awful "doctrine" is woven deeply within the national security of the United States. The courts are afraid to mess with it, because if they open the door and some consular office lets someone in who engages in terrorism, kills, or rapes, or breaks moral laws, that they will have it thrown right back in their face.

However, there is little said that it's the USCIS that approves petitions. Consulates do NOT have the authority to reject or readjudicate unless they have NEW and compelling information. However, the courts cannot compel them to produce it, because of this doctrine.

Yes, it needs to change. To what, and how? This stuff is very complicated and very few immigration lawyers can explain it or even know about it.

From Marc Ellis' website:

http://www.ilw.com/articles/2006,0323-ellis.shtm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Country: Vietnam
Timeline

See if the justices have their own seperate emails. Find out who are the friends of the court are.

But they are part of the current argument in this case.

Who do you believe we should email to show support for this case?

Give me a list please?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you. The recipient is not considered a U.S. citizen so there is no protections under our laws. We know that we are affected though and it has a huge impact on our lives. I am bothered by the consulates not being able to be reviewed. What is the remedy you think we should have? Who is going to review their decisions that is not biased?

We need to put our voices out here and be heard!! This pending case gives us the perfect opportunity!

One person emailing the court is not compelling enough

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See if the justices have their own seperate emails. Find out who are the friends of the court are.

I am sure they are not going to give out the Justice's separate emails to the public. <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Other Timeline

We need to put our voices out here and be heard!! This pending case gives us the perfect opportunity!

One person emailing the court is not compelling enough

The only people we as Americans screwed by immigration can influence are: ? I don't think anyone really gives a S--H--I--T about us. When TV news, congressman and Senators think and deal with immigration, they are thinking of the 20 million illegal noisemakers already here. They would commit political suicide to stand up and speak out for us.

When is the last time you actually heard or read a prime time or page one news headline like:

"Thousands of American Citizen Spouses Visas Rejected while Illegals Stream Across the Border"

What we see instead on non left news is:

"Thousands of Illegals Stream Across the Border"

What you will see on MSNBC, CNN, and the rest is:

Poor undocumented people starving and thirsty. They should be able stay.

I have never seen a headline story that sticks that addresses the plight of legal immigration. The only comment you will hear is: "Awwww, yes. I know. Our immigration system is broken. I feel so sorry for you"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Find out who are the friends of the court are.

I was about to say -- who filed amicus briefs? Here you go: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/kerry-v-din/

larissa-lima-says-who-is-against-the-que

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Timeline

If DoJ is on the side of the Doctrine, e-mailing them will do no good.

I have no idea of whom to e-mail except for the Supreme Court, which is probably the best anyway.

Unless it is an Amicus Brief, the court won't even see it.

The lawyer above beat me to it.

Edited by I AM NOT THAT GUY
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Other Timeline

Unless it is an Amicus Brief, the court won't even see it. And properly formatted, double spaced with line numbers.

The lawyer above beat me to it.

There are lots of documents to be found on this case from Janelle's first post and link.

It's here:

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/kerry-v-din/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those are the ones. Bear in mind that you should probably read the briefs -- even just to skim them -- to make sure that the organizations actually concur with your thoughts on this topic. While all these briefs are in support of the respondent's position, they may or may not support YOUR position.

While I don't appreciate some of the bigoted rhetoric here, I do support ditching the doctrine. It just isn't fit for purpose.

larissa-lima-says-who-is-against-the-que

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Other Timeline

There are indeed several Christian groups involved which can provide heartburn to left wing bigots. The addition of groups like CAIRE, and CIOGC also is to be expected as most folks are not actually radical islamists. That's supposed to be part of the background screening process to root out the left and right wing terrorists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Other Country: Australia
Timeline

I was about to say -- who filed amicus briefs? Here you go: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/kerry-v-din/

Wow. Working hard FOUR days this month.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
- Back to Top -

Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...