Denied entry to the US

[Londonergirl 133]

12 minutes ago, Boiler said:

If she can afford the legal fees and find a Lawyer who will sue why not?

But I asked on what terms? 

[Italian_in_NYC 259]

28 minutes ago, Londonergirl said:

What is she going to sue the lawyer for? On what terms? 

He or she gave extremely bad professional advice which caused tangible damages (emotional for sure, since now there is a family which is being split between two countries).

I can't quantify the emotional damages (definitely in the tens of thousands of dollars, at least). The monetary damages are at least the legal fees that she paid for that bad advice and possibly other troubles, lost wages, etc etc.

Professionals carry malpractice insurance for this very reason.

[Londonergirl 133]

11 minutes ago, Italian_in_NYC said:

He or she gave extremely bad professional advice which caused tangible damages (emotional for sure, since now there is a family which is being split between two countries).

I can't quantify the emotional damages (definitely in the tens of thousands of dollars, at least). The monetary damages are at least the legal fees that she paid for that bad advice and possibly other troubles, lost wages, etc etc.

Professionals carry malpractice insurance for this very reason.

What was the bad advice that the lawyer gave? If I read the whole thing correctly, all the lawyer had said was that he/she advised applying after 2 years of marriage and it would be more smoothly and she would receive an unconditional GC rather than a conditional one? 
Did the lawyer say that she was absolutely not allowed to apply before 2 years? I cant find that... Please let me know if I missed to read it somewhere.....

Also, was it the lawyer's fault that she was denied to enter the US? Did the lawyer tell her that it was OK to spend more time in the US than Canada?

Edited January 31, 2018 by Londonergirl

[Italian_in_NYC 259]

Just now, Londonergirl said:

What was the bad advice that the lawyer gave? If I read the whole thing correctly, all the lawyer had said was that he/she advised applying after 2 years of marriage and it would be more smoothly and she would receive an unconditional GC rather than a conditional one? 
Did the lawyer say that she was absolutely not allowed to apply before 2 years? I cant find that... Please let me know if I missed to read it somewhere.....
 

First of all, I only know one side of the story, so I base my opinion on that.

The lawyer advised to wait to apply for an immigrant visa and go back and forth from Canada with her infant child (or while expecting), clearly in violation with her tourist/visitor status (although no visa is necessary for Canadians). Of course she got caught. Now she wasted one year, likely can't step foot in the US until she receives her immigrant visa (where she will have to disclose that she got denied entry into the US before, and that's usually not a plus). All of this while she is raising a 1-year old without the father who can't enter Canada.

[Londonergirl 133]

2 minutes ago, Italian_in_NYC said:

First of all, I only know one side of the story, so I base my opinion on that.

The lawyer advised to wait to apply for an immigrant visa and go back and forth from Canada with her infant child (or while expecting), clearly in violation with her tourist/visitor status (although no visa is necessary for Canadians). Of course she got caught. Now she wasted one year, likely can't step foot in the US until she receives her immigrant visa (where she will have to disclose that she got denied entry into the US before, and that's usually not a plus). All of this while she is raising a 1-year old without the father who can't enter Canada.

Where does it say that the lawyer had adviced her to travel back and forth from Canada? Also, where does it state that the lawyer had advised her to spend more time in the US than in Canada? I can not find that anywhere that the lawyer has adviced her to do that. 
All I can find is that the lawyer advised her to apply after 2 years. I cant see anywhere that the lawyer had said that she couldn't apply before 2 years. Only that it was advised to apply after 2 years. 

[Italian_in_NYC 259]

1 minute ago, Londonergirl said:

Where does it say that the lawyer had adviced her to travel back and forth from Canada? Also, where does it state that the lawyer had advised her to spend more time in the US than in Canada? I can not find that anywhere that the lawyer has adviced her to do that. 
All I can find is that the lawyer advised her to apply after 2 years. I cant see anywhere that the lawyer had said that she couldn't apply before 2 years. Only that it was advised to apply after 2 years. 

I said I only heard one side.

Having said that, why would you advise postponing (for 2 years, not 2 months) a process while you are raising a newborn? To save a few hundred bucks (and a couple hours of work) for the ROC?

He should at least warned her not to travel to the US as a visitor unless for a short stay, and even that would have posed a risk of being denied entry (married, with an infant baby, traveling to stay with her American husband).

The more I think about it, the more the damages.

[Londonergirl 133]

2 minutes ago, Italian_in_NYC said:

I said I only heard one side.

Having said that, why would you advise postponing (for 2 years, not 2 months) a process while you are raising a newborn? To save a few hundred bucks (and a couple hours of work) for the ROC?

He should at least warned her not to travel to the US as a visitor unless for a short stay, and even that would have posed a risk of being denied entry (married, with an infant baby, traveling to stay with her American husband).

The more I think about it, the more the damages.

Exactly! You don't know the whole story behind this. How do you know what the lawyer has said and not said to her? The information written here is very vague. To advice, someone to sue someone really isn't clever at all, especially if you don't know the whole story.
Where does it say that the lawyer has said to her that she can absolutely not apply before 2 years? It just said that he recommended her to wait 2 years. 
How do you know that the lawyer didn't tell her that she shouldn't spend more time in the US than Canada? 

[Italian_in_NYC 259]

1 minute ago, Londonergirl said:

Exactly! You don't know the whole story behind this. How do you know what the lawyer has said and not said to her? The information written here is very vague. To advice, someone to sue someone really isn't clever at all, especially if you don't know the whole story.
Where does it say that the lawyer has said to her that she can absolutely not apply before 2 years? It just said that he recommended her to wait 2 years. 
How do you know that the lawyer didn't tell her that she shouldn't spend more time in the US than Canada? 

I'm not the OP's lawyer, so mine is not legal advice.

This is a public forum, not a Court of law, I can only comment on what I read.

If that were the whole story, then a lawsuit is the bare minimum (and a slam dunk win). Obviously, if that were not the case, well... the OP will use her own judgment.

[Londonergirl 133]

3 minutes ago, Italian_in_NYC said:

I'm not the OP's lawyer, so mine is not legal advice.

This is a public forum, not a Court of law, I can only comment on what I read.

If that were the whole story, then a lawsuit is the bare minimum (and a slam dunk win). Obviously, if that were not the case, well... the OP will use her own judgment.

But nowhere did the OP write that the lawyer had told her that she was allowed to stay more in the US than in Canada? 
What I am saying is that there is way to vague information to advice someone to sue someone.... 

[Boiler 43,770]

 

44 minutes ago, Italian_in_NYC said:

He or she gave extremely bad professional advice which caused tangible damages (emotional for sure, since now there is a family which is being split between two countries).

I can't quantify the emotional damages (definitely in the tens of thousands of dollars, at least). The monetary damages are at least the legal fees that she paid for that bad advice and possibly other troubles, lost wages, etc etc.

Professionals carry malpractice insurance for this very reason.

You misunderstand the purpose of PI Insurance, of course the legal advice could be from a  Canadian lawyer.

 

Not sure how she could have been working with that travel pattern and a I year old.

 

Also wonder if this was evidenced.

 

 

[NurseRatchet 0]

What was the point of waiting 2 years anyways? What’s the problem with a conditional residency other than having to apply to remove conditions after 2 years. Should’ve applied and took the conditional one. Now you’re screwed, you’ll have to apply from Canada and wait until it’s approved before you can enter again. 

[geowrian 22,336]

The biggest liability issue I can see with the lawyer’s advice, assuming they either specialize in US immigration or presented themselves as such, is that they said she needed to wait until the 2 year anniversary to apply to avoid ROC. That’s not a legal opinion to be argued but factually incorrect.

[Londonergirl 133]

25 minutes ago, geowrian said:

The biggest liability issue I can see with the lawyer’s advice, assuming they either specialize in US immigration or presented themselves as such, is that they said she needed to wait until the 2 year anniversary to apply to avoid ROC. That’s not a legal opinion to be argued but factually incorrect.

The lawyer didn't say that she needed to wait. It said that she was adviced by the lawyer to wait. That doesn't mean that she couldn't apply anyway. 

[geowrian 22,336]

14 minutes ago, Londonergirl said:

The lawyer didn't say that she needed to wait. It said that she was adviced by the lawyer to wait. That doesn't mean that she couldn't apply anyway. 

Unless I misread the OP, the lawyer did advise that she needed to wait if she wanted to avoid ROC. The fact is she did not need to do so to avoid ROC.

[broppy 204]

3 hours ago, Londonergirl said:

Sue a lawyer for giving bad advice...? Are you serious?

Welcome to America. Sue anyone for giving bad advice. Seriously. (Anyone except me, of course).