blahblahblog

2 minutes ago, aaron2020 said:

A 5 year bar is for expedited removal at the POE.  

 

"Possible that someone is lying."  Where are you getting that from?  Pretty big jump when OP said she was expeditely removed at the POE. 

Ah, got it. As I said, didn't know there was a trigger for 5-years under 212(a)(7). Turns out, I was wrong.

2 minutes ago, geowrian said:

The bar wouldn't be for 212(a)(7) specifically. That was the cause for being denied entry. The 5 year bar would be due to an expedited removal and fall under INA 212(a)(9)(A).

Although that point is kinda moot now given the potential misrep bar.

My point is that the OP's source of delusion is lack of understanding of the code and how it relates to the case. The denied entry was under 212(a)(7). He seems to think that the bar is under 212(a)(7) and thinks that 212(k) applies to her. I am explaining that that part of the code has absolutely nothing to do with a 5 year bar. Before they run to file an I-601, they should find out the specific reason why she's under the 5 year bar. There is a chance that the guy at CBP told her he was placing her under a bar to scare her, but didn't make any finding of misrepresentation and she's actually not subject to any bar. It's also possible that someone is lying and she had an order of removal on her which is the origin of the 5 year bar (I thought there was 3 and 10yr bars, didn't know there was a 5 year bar).

1 hour ago, MarcusZoe said:

Really? What have I said that makes you think I don't believe you?  If you read everything I have written, nowhere do "I" say she doesn't need a waiver.  Only, that from the research I have done, the waiver is done at the port of entry.  If you know it is otherwise, please point me to the information.

There seems to be a massive misunderstanding on your part about the law. The 212(a)(7) is about immigrants at port of entry that lack proper documentation (either a passport or an immigration visa). The 212(k) waiver is for people that have an immigration visa but don't have the passport on them. Denial of entry under 212(a)(7) shouldn't trigger any 5-year bar. If you have a piece of paper saying that she's under a 5-year bar under 212(a)(7), get a lawyer.

Wow, OP here, can't believe time ran so fast. The ROC window here opens only in February next year though.

Got approved as well, in case someone is interested.

Join this thread if you're a Houston filer and let us know when you applied and if you had your interview scheduled. I filed in June and haven't heard anything yet (got the EAD/AP already).

Ewww that was an ugly picture I sent! lol but thanks Piano, that means I don't have to wait longer to color my hair

Yelli, do you know how long is it taking for interviews in Houston?

Do you have any friends that work in the sector that you guys are looking for. I found out that having cover letters and resumes checked by someone used to the american job culture helps a lot. If you're not getting interviews or call backs, you should work on your resumes and cover letters.

Here's the thing. The 14th amendment started out during the 'reconstruction' period. A difficult time after the Civil War, in which the southern states had to agree to the amendment to get back in the good graces again. They weren't happy about it at all. You know why? Because this amendment sprang out of the notion of what to do with the newly freed slaves, their children, children's children etc. Now, the slaves were not 'legal immigrants' (we didn't really have any sort of real immigration system for ages after this amendment even), they were men and women dragged to the United States in chains. With the concept of freedom finally declared for all men regardless of race, the government had to figure out what to do to put a final stop to any further abuse and ensure African Americans and their future generations were indeed citizens of this land. This is exactly why the 14th upended Dredd Scott. The language is broad, and purposefully so. There could be no misunderstanding here and yet it had to be reaching enough to end the stupidity. The subject later came to apply to Native Americans, and also to those immigrants coming through Ellis Island (imagine how many of these immigrants were also attacked and insisted their children didn't *deserve* to be citizens?) Subject to jurisdiction thereof, also means a person who does not hold an allegiance to another country (this is why it ruled out diplomats of other nations etc and it got tricky later on defining how Native Americans fit into this criteria).

To me the law is clear that it does not mean or ever imply that if you were simply visiting and your child was born here, that they are automatically a citizen. But it seems clear to me, that if you live, work, and pay taxes here, and that you have resided here for some time - that your children, if born here, are citizens. US does not recognize dual citizenship technically, but at the same time doesn't exactly disallow it. Therefore, unless a person truly renounces a citizenship of another country, there's a lot of us that may be technically violating the terms of the 14th, with regards to the original intent and interpretation of the meaning of 'jurisdiction'. It is why our oath is the way it is framed. While an illegal immigrant may have an allegiance to another country (unless they decide to renounce it), their children born here do not. Almost all of them identify themselves as American, because they are American and are subject to the jurisdiction of America because they are of no other jurisdiction. To me that's part of the spirit of the 14th amendment. People may not like it much. But I suspect people didn't like it back then either. In fact you can find plenty of arguments during the framing of this amendment based on the 'horrible' thought that a Chinese or Gypsy immigrant could potentially become a citizen. US vs Wong Kim Ark pretty much further clarified the direction of how broadly the amendment could be interpreted especially regarding parental status. Trump should stop playing a fool. Any lawyer worth his salt knows this is a losing game.

Here's a giant website on it with an originalist slant, a lot of comments for and against. http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/11/birthright_citizenship The jurisdiction argument has come up before, it either loses or never goes anywhere. I mean really, do we want to suddenly discredit millions of African Americans, Native Americans, and ancestors of immigrants that technically immigrated before there was anything that could be classified as immigration? I know it's a touchy subject to some people, but if you have to look back on a root cause for the reason why this amendment is the way it is -- blame a bunch of people who thought freedom didn't actually mean for everyone.

This ^

To prevent granting citizenship to children of diplomats. Those people have diplomatic immunity and are not subject to the laws of the United States.

No matter what the lulu crazies say about overturning the 14th Amendment without a constitutional amendment, it's not going anywhere. The courts have been consistent on extending birthright citizenship for over 100 years.

Edit to add: the only other method would be get the Supreme Court to overrule the line of decisions regarding the 14th Amendment.

Wrong on the first line, right on the second line, wrong on the third line.

1) The text was written that way to exclude the citizens of Indian nations without excluding the freed slaves. At the time of reconstruction, the Indian nations felt that making them US citizens and thus subject to the laws of US was an act of hostility. Slaves however were subject to US laws. Congress later passed a law making Indians citizens. The "preventing granting citizenship of diplomats" was a supreme court ruling and wasn't a major concern while drafting the 14th ammendment, which was about protecting the rights of former slaves.

3) The thing is that there is no stare decisis to be overturned for sons of illegal aliens. There are several concepts that point in that direction, but it wasn't really tested by the Supreme Court - though it was in several lower courts. Having said that, all were tests of the state laws. If congress passed a federal law they could use the Solicitor General to pretty much bring the case all the way up and test it. It would be a waste of money, but the legal theory is there.

From: http://www.businessinsider.com/bill-oreilly-donald-trump-immigration-deport-birthright-2015-8

It is sad when Bill O'Reilly is the voice of reason and the funny part is he is exactly right.

The SCOTUS has already decided on this issue in United States v. Wong Kim Ark

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that practically everyone born in the United States is a U.S. citizen. This decision established an importantprecedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents around 1871, had been denied re-entry to the United States after a trip abroad, under a law restricting Chinese immigration and prohibiting immigrants from China from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. He challenged the government's refusal to recognize his citizenship, and the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, holding that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment encompassed essentially everyone born in the U.S.—even the U.S.-born children of foreigners—and could not be limited in its effect by an act of Congress.

The constitutional scholars of VJ might be interested in learning that the 14th ammendment has a "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause that qualifies exactly which of the persons born in the US are actually citizens. That clause is the reason why the opinion in US v Ark doesn't provide citizenship to sons of foreign diplomats of sons of foreign invaders. As such it isn't too hard for one to craft a legal theory here under which unauthorized aliens are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" because they weren't lawfully admitted. Alternatively, a bit of rhetorical magic and one could even make them invaders. I am not 100% sure that this argument would fly, and I find the idea of denying citizenship abhorrent in that way. But President Trump and his lawyers could actually test this theory if they wanted by passing a law doing that and employing a good Solicitor General. They could get lucky. I mean, the Supreme allowed the healthcare mandate by transforming a penalty into a tax!

But I doubt he will. Trump is smart and he knows that this is just a hot button to gather more steam and votes from the angry GOP base.

Hello Everyone,

Here is my sad story., I got married in India 2 years ago. I came to US on september 2014 through CR1 visa. Ever since I got here, I have been facing some domestic violence like verbal abuse, physical abuse by my mother in law and husband. Now My husband wants divorce. He already filed for divorce. I was kicked out of the house. I am now staying with my friend. I dont have a job, cant afford an attorney. My husband withdrew the affidavit of support in order to prevent from me suing him for support. He holds back all my important documents such as green card, ssn, passport, driver licence,etc.. Literally I am now abandoned by my husband and family. What should I do for securing my green card status? Any precautionary actions? Is that possible for my husband to do or say anything to USCIS to deport me? Can I apply for duplicate green card, ssn card, driver licence, passport if they are destroyed by my husband? When can i remove the condition to get the permanent green card? what are all the proofs or evidences needed for condition removal? since He withdrew the affidavit of support , Does it affect anywhere in condition removal process? My marriage is a legitimate marriage.

Thank you.

This type of behavior unfortunately happens too often in Indian cultures - happened with a cousin of mine and it was a nightmare. But she got through it and now is a very happy person. What you need to do is decide if you want to stay in the US or if you want to go back home. If you want to stay, you have to take care of yourself. Your husband cannot withdraw his support but if you leave for India for good, then his obligation is over, so if you may want to stay in the US until the divorce is settled. You are also entitled to stay here in the US at least until September 2016 and you cannot be deported at all.

Go to the police and file a report that your husband is keeping your documents - that is stealing. Document as much as you can all the incidences of physical abuse by your husband and mother in law. If you have police reports or hospital records, that is best. If you have no document, write down things in a diary and save it to have a (very weak) evidence of current state of mind, and write down all the names of people with whom you spoke about the abuse (friends, neighbors, doctors, family). Make sure that you can stay with your friend for a little longer while you fix your situation.

Get a job, any job. It will help you a lot to get your mind out of this and make you stronger. Try to get a good family lawyer to dispute the divorce terms. Depending on the laws you may be able to get alimony, but you want a good lawyer to protect your rights. If you can't pay, see if you can borrow from your family or someone else. If you really can't pay, try to get a pro bono lawyer through woman's shelters or Catholic Charities.

Also get in the VAWA thread and see if they have any suggestions to document abuse and what the abuse gives you.

This may be helpful: http://www.***removed***/greencard/adjustmentofstatus/changing-employer.html(Link doesn't work, so just google AC21)

It's a piece of legislation that allows people to move jobs while the I-140 is pending, when they move from H1-B and they work on similar positions. I don't think that specifically applies to you, but there you go.

The new company could also hire him under the H1-B visa and then start the GC process themselves. And yes, the company would need a lawyer (and expect to spend around 10-20K wit lawyer + application fees).

Thank you, we're still not going anytime soon. Maybe til beginning of next year but I applied for the AP just in case. Either way I can't wait!

Hopefully we'll have green cards by then!

Just got notice of approval for EAD/AP!

Oh wow that was fast! Congrats! Only if the rest of our applications would move as fast as yours

Has anyone else heard anything new on their case? Been over a month since biometrics and still nothing here -sigh-

Nope. But at this point, no news is good news (no RFE!).

The lawyer would actually get an Advisory Opinion through the website anyway so that would be a waste of money. If you can't print in your computer, go to a Kinko's and print it there. If you believe you're not subject to 212(e) you don't have to get the advisory opinion, though it's nice to have in case of RFEs down the road.

Stupidity, no. Ignorance yes. If he says things then he says things. The fact of the matter is that he doesn't need to say anything. If he does, then it's up to the judge to take him at his word or not. But the fact is that he doesn't need to say a word.

Be strong and choose what's best.

The impending divorce has no bearing in your abandoned GC. Immigration law isn't about justice or fairness, it's about regulating who can come into the country. It's a dry and brutal bureaucracy that keeps new couples separated several months and families separated for years. If you get to an IJ and are able to pull his heart strings, he would still not be able to help you in any way because you abandoned your GC and your husband will not sponsor you to get a new one. In life, bad things happened and I'm sorry to say, they happened to you. You must accept this.

You could try a hail mary and use your GC to get in the country but, as Sandra said, chances are you may even end up detained while waiting for a hearing and deported. If you want to go down this route, make sure you get a very good lawyer that specializes in this sort of cases. Be prepared to pay a bunch of money, hear from several lawyers that your case is hopeless and come out with nothing. You could also give up on the GC, get to the US with your VWP, get a family lawyer, settle/negotiate/litigate your divorce and maybe even try to get a job offer in the field you want to work. I think this is a better use of your energy, time and money.

I agree that you should get legal representation during divorce proceedings and focus on that, not on the Green Card. While he can get a divorce for whatever reason, the benefits post divorce (alimony, partition of property) may hinge on the reasons for divorce. If he claims she abandoned him, he may be able to avoid paying alimony, for example.

Received my EAD/AP combo card yesterday! 40 days only, still feels unreal!

Nice! I think you're the first in this thread. I saw you expedited it! Glad to hear you'll be able to get back to work! And hopefully all our Houston cases will move fast!

Thanks. I checked and it says that the last case that was processed was from June 2014 .. does that mean it's going to take me about a year to get an interview?? ... makes no sense..

Yikes. If by any chance you didn't apply for the EAD/AP, you should. It's free and if it's going to take a year, you will for sure need it.

Yay! Your case moved real fast, specially with the RFE!

Go to the USCIS "processing times" link and check out the Dallas Service center time for the I-485.

Yes, but I don't know the details.

Well, John Tyler was expelled by the Whig party for being too constitutionalist. Is that old enough?

Looking at the video posted by Texas, the stop itself seemed BS.

Honest question: how long does it take for pot to get out of your system? I mean, if she had THC on her, is it possible she was driving high?

You said that the party changed membership. It didn't. It just evolved. But if you seek precedent for a party expelling someone because they find the views abhorrent: http://time.com/3666653/rnc-dave-agema-republican/

You probably read my parenthesis about it Byrd apologizing for his views.