Another Good Example of Chaotic Immigration News Reporting, from a Local Fox Channel Nonetheless

[vanhiscers87 35]

This news clip popped up on my YouTube feed today, and even though it was just more than 2 minutes long, it was packed with obvious misinformations and inaccuracies.

 

 

First of all the title is wrong, the "mother" wasn't even a Green Card holder yet, so it was not a citizenship interview for sure. When they interviewed the daughter, the daughter said USCIS told them the case was approved before the interview, which is just unheard of.

 

We did get a glimpse of the interview notice (as attached), which was for a I-130 petition, NOT for I-485, so it wasn't even a Green Card interview. They also didn't quite explain why there was such a delay as the petition was filed in 2021, which is way longer than normal for a U.S. citizen's spouse. If the husband just became a U.S. citizen and re-petitioned, why was the "received date" still in 2021? I'm assuming it was because she was an illegal entrant, and they mentioned something about her missing a court appearance at the age of two. Therefore, another piece of info that's missing was if she would have qualified for DACA depending on her age, and if she did, why isn't she on DACA, or tried to use DACA's Advanced Parole to become a legal entrant, which two of people I know have successfully done so during Obama and Biden, and was able to adjust status afterwards.

 

Last but not least, why would the attorney let the daughter go on TV claiming her mother was tricked to attend the interview because the case was approved...

 

Edited Sunday at 10:45 PM by vanhiscers87

[Boiler 46,814]

I had dealings with journalists a few times, came to the conclusion that they have their story and are not interested in inconvenient facts

[PGA 299]

1 hour ago, Boiler said:

I had dealings with journalists a few times, came to the conclusion that they have their story and are not interested in inconvenient facts

Yes, and it seems that the story is that every single visa holder that gets questioned is now "interrogated" and "treated like a criminal."

[TBoneTX 46,859]

"Agenda" reporting.

[Demise 1,406]

So, speaking from experience - they will interview you for a standalone I-130 if you were in removal proceedings previously (or pre-1997 proceedings).

 

Regarding DACA - good question, some googlefu points to Alvarado being 42, so she'd be at the upper end of age eligibility. Still, it's iffy traveling on AP with a prior order. Still, you have to remember that most people aren't really well versed in immigration law, they know half of what their lawyer told them. It's also possible she didn't meet the education requirements or was just concerned about presenting herself to the government, finally there are people who just sleepwalk through life like that.

 

Regarding the re-petition, I think that her husband petitioned for her shortly after becoming an LPR (in F2A), and then filed an amended I-130 after naturalizing, that then moved the petition from F2A to IR.

 

Still, she was whisked away by ICE after an interview where the USCIS officer said that everything looks good and would likely approve the I-130. So it's less that it was approved at the time, more that absent ICE chicanery the whole thing could continue along.

 

I guess the overall game plan was:

1. Attend the standalone interview for I-130 and get approved

2. Use the I-130 to reopen the old proceedings.

3. Get an admin closure to file I-601A

4. Get the I-601A approved.

5. Recalendar and then either terminate or take VD.

6. Attend the consular interview and get the IR1 visa.

 

[Crazy Cat 43,431]

7 minutes ago, Demise said:

1. Attend the standalone interview for I-130 and get approved

2. Use the I-130 to reopen the old proceedings.

3. Get an admin closure to file I-601A

4. Get the I-601A approved.

5. Recalendar and then either terminate or take VD.

6. Attend the consular interview and get the IR1 visa.

Which of those steps provides any period of authorized stay or legal status? #5? 

Edited Monday at 02:58 PM by Crazy Cat

[JeanneAdil 6,877]

Another Fox reporter

Adil was upset to hear about a man who was detained by ICE when returning to USA   at Chicago O'hare 

flagged for past misdemeanor for pot and felony criminal trespass 

Supposedly here for 25 years showed on live TV his green card 

 

I told Adil we did not have all the facts and not to believe all he saw on TV 

I told Adil if man was here that long , he should have applied for naturalization and there must have been a reason he didn't / so who is to really know his criminal background and the REAL story

Edited Monday at 03:08 PM by JeanneAdil

[Boiler 46,814]

5 minutes ago, Crazy Cat said:

Which of those steps provides any period of authorized stay or legal status? #5? 

None

[Demise 1,406]

5 minutes ago, Crazy Cat said:

Which of those steps provides any period of authorized stay or legal status? #5? 

Strictly speaking #5 if you take VD for the period of VD only, otherwise #6.

 

Still, in any case you have to remember that if you've been in US illegally to begin with you have to act accordingly. I originated from the DACA community so the question there wasn't "how do I stay above water" it was "I've already sunk, how do I resurface".

 

There's the law as written (you shouldn't be here to begin with), law as applied (I-601A might not grant you any kind of legal presence, but it exists solely to let you stay in US while the waiver application is pending, I-130 might not grant you anything on its own but it makes getting rid of a final order easier, etc), and the reality - if you are already in a mess like this leaving will just give you two re-entry bans. 

Still, she's done the correct things given the circumstances: got petitioned as soon as legally able to and likely planned to do an I-601A on either F2A or IR since you can do it in either case.

 

Now, I would never recommend that someone enter without inspection or otherwise violate the terms of their visa, but well, it already happened, and you have to act accordingly.

[vanhiscers87 35]

26 minutes ago, Demise said:

So, speaking from experience - they will interview you for a standalone I-130 if you were in removal proceedings previously (or pre-1997 proceedings).

 

Regarding DACA - good question, some googlefu points to Alvarado being 42, so she'd be at the upper end of age eligibility. Still, it's iffy traveling on AP with a prior order. Still, you have to remember that most people aren't really well versed in immigration law, they know half of what their lawyer told them. It's also possible she didn't meet the education requirements or was just concerned about presenting herself to the government, finally there are people who just sleepwalk through life like that.

 

Regarding the re-petition, I think that her husband petitioned for her shortly after becoming an LPR (in F2A), and then filed an amended I-130 after naturalizing, that then moved the petition from F2A to IR.

 

Still, she was whisked away by ICE after an interview where the USCIS officer said that everything looks good and would likely approve the I-130. So it's less that it was approved at the time, more that absent ICE chicanery the whole thing could continue along.

 

I guess the overall game plan was:

1. Attend the standalone interview for I-130 and get approved

2. Use the I-130 to reopen the old proceedings.

3. Get an admin closure to file I-601A

4. Get the I-601A approved.

5. Recalendar and then either terminate or take VD.

6. Attend the consular interview and get the IR1 visa.

 

Thank you for your insights. What you’ve provided is what I look for in a news story like that: I believe news are public services, so they need to be neutral and/or informational, but in reality, they’re hardly either of that, liberal or conservative.

 

Assuming she is 42 and qualify for DACA otherwise, DACA would have also given her authorized stay, correct?

 

I also agree with you on people sleepwalking through life, that’s what I’ve observed after 7+ years in banking customer services, which I’ve mentioned that here before, and immigrants, legal or illegal, who grew up here tend to be less vigilant on their status.

Edited Monday at 03:17 PM by vanhiscers87

[Demise 1,406]

3 minutes ago, vanhiscers87 said:

Thank you for your insights. What you’ve provided is what I look for in a news story like that: I believe news are public services, so they need to be neutral and/or informational, but in reality, they’re hardly either of that, liberal or conservative.

 

Assuming she is 42 and qualify for DACA otherwise, DACA would have also given her authorized stay, correct?

 

I also agree with you on people sleepwalking through life, that’s what I’ve observed after 7+ years in banking customer services, which I’ve mentioned that here before, and immigrants, legal or illegal, who grew up here tend to be less vigilant on their status.

 

Believe me, nothing is more grating than news reporting on something you are actually knowledgeable about. They conflate different terms constantly and rarely know anything about anything. Then again the average viewer of cable TV is a complete moron and their knowledge of immigration is limited to the fact that great grampa showed up at Ellis Island one day.

 

That's also how the current president is able to go on TV and whine about illegal immigration due to a group that is unequivocally not illegal immigrants - you know, all the asylum seekers on the southern border who'd show up at the crossing, present themselves for admission, get paroled in, and remain legal while their asylum cases are working their way through the backlog. Hell, even the parole revocations don't magically make them illegal immigrants because pending asylum still makes you legal.

 

However, yes DACA would've given her authorized stay but not much aside that. 

DACA AP is extremely iffy with an outstanding order, from the cases I've seen that'd normally result in getting detained coming back and you would ultimately get paroled back but you'd also end up also executing your removal order. If it's a normal order then in that case you can file for AOS and include an I-212, with in-absentia order then you've got a problem because the only way to get rid of that 5 year ban is to reopen the removal proceedings. They also won't give you a reopen just to seek an AP prospectively of future AOS.

 

Also, I really don't trust the current administration to abide by grants of DACA. They've kidnapped a guy with an approved withholding of removal to the very country the withholding order said he is not to be deported to.

[vanhiscers87 35]

17 minutes ago, Demise said:

 

Believe me, nothing is more grating than news reporting on something you are actually knowledgeable about. They conflate different terms constantly and rarely know anything about anything. Then again the average viewer of cable TV is a complete moron and their knowledge of immigration is limited to the fact that great grampa showed up at Ellis Island one day.

 

That's also how the current president is able to go on TV and whine about illegal immigration due to a group that is unequivocally not illegal immigrants - you know, all the asylum seekers on the southern border who'd show up at the crossing, present themselves for admission, get paroled in, and remain legal while their asylum cases are working their way through the backlog. Hell, even the parole revocations don't magically make them illegal immigrants because pending asylum still makes you legal.

 

However, yes DACA would've given her authorized stay but not much aside that. 

DACA AP is extremely iffy with an outstanding order, from the cases I've seen that'd normally result in getting detained coming back and you would ultimately get paroled back but you'd also end up also executing your removal order. If it's a normal order then in that case you can file for AOS and include an I-212, with in-absentia order then you've got a problem because the only way to get rid of that 5 year ban is to reopen the removal proceedings. They also won't give you a reopen just to seek an AP prospectively of future AOS.

 

Also, I really don't trust the current administration to abide by grants of DACA. They've kidnapped a guy with an approved withholding of removal to the very country the withholding order said he is not to be deported to.

I’ve worked with 3 DACA recipient colleagues in banking, and 2 of them are Trump supporters. The reason why they as Latinos support Trump is because they believe criminals do get into the country unvetted with lenient border policies, and I trust their judgement because they know how people operates in their community than I do, just like how my colleagues relied on me to spot a fake Chinese passport from fraudsters. I also object to the idea that all Trump supporters are morons; some of them are, but there are a LOT of minorities in banking who are Trump supporters, and almost all of them are smart, productive, and reasonable professionals. Thinking all Trump supporters are morons is how the Democrats lost, while they could have established more reasonable policies to swing those coworkers. In fact, two moronic co-workers I can think of right now are liberals, and one of them got fired for sexual harassment…

 

DACA has always been a program created by executive action, so its unreliability under Trump is given, but I think the sentiment with DACA Trump supporters is that they know so many people that could have done so much with DACA with 8 years of Obama, and 4 years of Biden, but they chose to do nothing.

 

While I understand the legality of migrants crossing the Southern Border and apply for asylum, I do believe asylum applications were never meant to be taken in that kind of volumes. There was a reason why for the longest time asylum applications were free of charge. Asylum has always been infamous for its backlog, so taking in new application like Biden did is just insane, I’ve no better word for it. And yes, it’s not fair for legal immigrants from other continents who can only fly to the U.S., prepped papers before hand, learned English for consular interviews, and once we’re here, funded USCIS so the could process asylum application for free until recent years.

 

Let’s be honest, asylum system was abused as it was before Biden. I’ve recently seen a documentary created by media outlets from Asia about recent Chinese migrants who crossed the southern border. They said in L.A., there are local Chinese news paper that migrants can pay to help them publish articles they “wrote” that criticize the Chinese government, and use that as grounds for asylum. That’s abusive, because they weren’t activists before arriving in the U.S. 

[Boiler 46,814]

4 minutes ago, JeanneAdil said:

Adil was upset to hear the man who was detained by ICE when returning to USA 

flagged for past misdemeanor for pot and felony criminal trespass 

Supposedly here for 25 years showed on live TV his green card 

 

I told Adil we did not have all the facts and not to believe all he saw on TV 

I told Adil if man was here that long , he should have applied for naturalization and there must have been a reason he didn't / so who is to really know his criminal background and the REAL story

 

Not a lot of sympathy for DV and Gang members, but as I understand it the law he was deported under is not impacted by withholding of removal.