USCIS Updates Policy Guidance for Certain Requests for Evidence and Notices of Intent to Deny(merged)

[Loren Y 2,731]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2018/07/11/new-uscis-policy-will-carry-harsh-consequences-for-applicants/amp/

[leroyleviticus 80]

I read this and wasn’t sure if I understood all of it. Would this apply to temporary Green card Holders waiting for their 10-year green cards too? (Former K-1 visa holders). So if the temporary green card expired before the new one was issued, would they go and send a NTA? Sorry if this is a stupid question... if anyone could clarify, that would be great!!! Thanks

[Ben&Zian 4,397]

~Moved to General Immigration-Related Discussion~

 

....And...?

Edited July 11, 2018 by Ben&Zian

[Russ&Caro 1,548]

Looks like we'll need a whole lot more Immigration Attorneys in this country to handle the increase in NTA's. One of the more interesting aspects of this memo is USCIS issuing NTA's directly without ICE involvement. I wonder if USCIS employees have a performance metric that relates to NTA's. If so, without the ICE hurdle, that could cause an increase in NTA's all by itself.

[ThomasNC1988 762]

I guess my thing is if you are denied your immigration benefit it is time for you to go home. I think that is the point. This is just away to make sure that is happening I guess.

[Carpe Vinum 2,308]

"In addition, the immigration court backlog is already over 700,000 cases as of May 2018." 

 

Wow.....

[RLA 323]

20 minutes ago, ThomasNC1988 said:

I guess my thing is if you are denied your immigration benefit it is time for you to go home.

The problem with the new policy, according to the article, is that you don’t just have to go home.  An NTA actually obliges you to stay in the US until your hearing.  And during that time you’re in a legal limbo and not allowed to work.  The problem with the new policy is that you almost automatically incur a re-entry ban once your application is denied.  That seems unreasonably harsh to me.  Having an application denied should normally not bar you from being able to come as a visitor or to apply again later. 

Edited July 11, 2018 by RLA

[mdma11 121]

4 minutes ago, RLA said:

The problem with the new policy, according to the article, is that you don’t just have to go home.  An NTA actually obliges you to stay in the US until your hearing.  And during that time you’re in a legal limbo and not allowed to work.  The problem with the new policy is that you almost automatically incur a re-entry ban once your application is denied.  That seems unreasonably harsh to me.  Having an application denied should normally not bar you from being able to come as a visitor or to apply again later. 

Exactly! This is another ploy by this administration that falls in line with others to further deter and discourage immigrants from coming to America.

[ThomasNC1988 762]

48 minutes ago, RLA said:

The problem with the new policy, according to the article, is that you don’t just have to go home.  An NTA actually obliges you to stay in the US until your hearing.  And during that time you’re in a legal limbo and not allowed to work.  The problem with the new policy is that you almost automatically incur a re-entry ban once your application is denied.  That seems unreasonably harsh to me.  Having an application denied should normally not bar you from being able to come as a visitor or to apply again later. 

You are right they need someway to make a voluntary departure much easier after a denied application. Makes no sense to say you have to leave but you also have to stay.

[RLA 323]

2 hours ago, mdma11 said:

This is another ploy by this administration that falls in line with others to further deter and discourage immigrants from coming to America.

I guess some people will be deterred by the new rule and the increased uncertainty that it brings, but those will be people from places like Norway.  People from the sh*thole countries will continue to come. 

 

I think that the new rule is more a result of incompetence than malice.  Trump wants to clamp down on people staying in the country illegally, which I admit is a sensible goal.  The new rule is probably meant to help with that, to get people out of the country sooner, except that I can't see how it's going to achieve that.  NTAs don't prevent people from going underground.  You'd have to arrest applicants as soon as they're denied.  The new rule is mostly just going to affect the people who follow the rules, not the ones who're willing to break them. 

[Loren Y 2,731]

7 hours ago, RLA said:

I guess some people will be deterred by the new rule and the increased uncertainty that it brings, but those will be people from places like Norway.  People from the sh*thole countries will continue to come. 

 

I think that the new rule is more a result of incompetence than malice.  Trump wants to clamp down on people staying in the country illegally, which I admit is a sensible goal.  The new rule is probably meant to help with that, to get people out of the country sooner, except that I can't see how it's going to achieve that.  NTAs don't prevent people from going underground.  You'd have to arrest applicants as soon as they're denied.  The new rule is mostly just going to affect the people who follow the rules, not the ones who're willing to break them. 

Exactly the same argument when everyone wants to ban all the guns from the United States. Really , So I should turn in all my guns because everyone knows the criminals will turn theirs in to... NOT.

[TBoneTX 43,001]

The lawyer who was interviewed has an obvious vested interest in opposing the rules that she discusses.

[Russ&Caro 1,548]

13 hours ago, Loren Y said:

Exactly the same argument when everyone wants to ban all the guns from the United States. Really , So I should turn in all my guns because everyone knows the criminals will turn theirs in to... NOT.

I have met a lot of people in America in my 58 years here, thousands really. I have not met one of them who wanted to ban all guns in the US. Likewise, not one Democratic President or nominee has ever advocated for a total ban on guns. I don't understand why this is an argument that people make. You must run in some strange circles that everyone you know wants to ban all guns.

[2018JNJ 141]

" To the contrary, top USCIS officials work around-the-clock to come up with creative ways to make life as difficult as possible for those who submit applications to work or live in the United States."

 

From the top of the article...starts off with an opinion..thus is an editorial/opinion piece and not to be taken seriously..ie not worth reading past that point.

 

jj

[Mallick 37]

Will spouse visa be affected too? By this new rule?