Ray

I lied ..................

fatbrit

Well...it's better than plagiarising, I suppose.

James Dennett

Folinskyinla wrote:
    >> We will be filing for removal of conditions for my GC at the end of
    >> April and I'm trying to get all the documents ready. The directions
    >> ask for affidavit from at least two people that know us. Did you guys
    >> use some kind of standard form? Does it need to be signed in front of
    >> a notary? We want our apartment complex manager write a letter, and
    >> then my husband's son will write a second letter. Any advice
    >> appreciated.
    >
    > Hi:
    >
    > Sigh. This is an FAQ. Please re-read the instructions -- the use of
    > affidavits is NOT required.

However, the I-751 is poorly written, and does list
under examples of evidence to include:

"Affidavits sworn to or affirmed by at least two
people who have known both of you since your
conditional residence was granted and have personal
knowledge of your marriage and relationship."

Noting the "at least two people", it's unreasonable to
expect that this is optional, even though it is given
only as an example. If it's optional, the "at least
two people" is nonsense -- an affidavit from one person
would clearly also be an example of evidence, in any
reasonable (non-legal) interpretation.

(The "since your conditional residence was granted" is
ambiguous, but that's a side-issue: it could mean either
that they have known you from the first day of your
conditional PR status, or at some time since that day.
These people ought to get some competent legal help,
in my arguably-not-humble but definitely layman's
opinion.)

You're the legal professional, so I'm certainly not
saying that affidavits are required -- but the I-751
instructions are not self-consistent on the matter,
and it seems that the cautious interpretation (in the
absence of advice from an attorney) might be to include
them.

-- James

Folinskyinla

Hi:

Re-read the instructions -- you "must" include a copy of the I-551, ADIT photos. But when it comes to proof of relationship -- it gives "examples" and you need submit as much "as you wish."

I will be the first to say that instructions are not always clear -- there is a series of 9th Circuit cases on the old I-290A form appeals from deportation orders. [BTW, back in 1991, the I-290A was replaced by the EOIR-26 and the I-290A number was assigned to the form which is REQUIRED for a motion to reopen or reconsider before INS and now CIS. However, the form has never been issued. So the regulations require submission of a form which does not exist!].

Elvira

Kafka anyone?

James Dennett

Folinskyinla wrote:
    >> Folinskyinla wrote:
    >>>> We will be filing for removal of conditions for my GC at the end of
    >>>> April and I'm trying to get all the documents ready. The
    >>>> directions
    >>>> ask for affidavit from at least two people that know us. Did you
    >>>> guys
    >>>> use some kind of standard form? Does it need to be signed in front
    >>>> of
    >>>> a notary? We want our apartment complex manager write a letter,
    >>>> and
    >>>> then my husband's son will write a second letter. Any advice
    >>>> appreciated.
    >>> Hi:
    >>> Sigh. This is an FAQ. Please re-read the instructions -- the use
    >>> of
    >>> affidavits is NOT required.
    >> However, the I-751 is poorly written, and does list
    >> under examples of evidence to include:
    >> "Affidavits sworn to or affirmed by at least two
    >> people who have known both of you since your
    >> conditional residence was granted and have personal
    >> knowledge of your marriage and relationship."
    >> Noting the "at least two people", it's unreasonable to
    >> expect that this is optional, even though it is given
    >> only as an example. If it's optional, the "at least
    >> two people" is nonsense -- an affidavit from one person
    >> would clearly also be an example of evidence, in any
    >> reasonable (non-legal) interpretation.
    >> (The "since your conditional residence was granted" is
    >> ambiguous, but that's a side-issue: it could mean either
    >> that they have known you from the first day of your
    >> conditional PR status, or at some time since that day.
    >> These people ought to get some competent legal help,
    >> in my arguably-not-humble but definitely layman's
    >> opinion.)
    >> You're the legal professional, so I'm certainly not
    >> saying that affidavits are required -- but the I-751
    >> instructions are not self-consistent on the matter,
    >> and it seems that the cautious interpretation (in the
    >> absence of advice from an attorney) might be to include
    >> them.
    >> -- James
    >
    > Hi:
    >
    > Re-read the instructions -- you "must" include a copy of the I-551, ADIT
    > photos. But when it comes to proof of relationship -- it gives
    > "examples" and you need submit as much "as you wish."

In truth, I've read those instructions many times, and was
fully aware (and tried to convey above) that they do give
what they call "examples", but the description for
affidavits is *inconsistent* with it being just an example.

Anyway -- it is what it is, the form is lousy, but I'm told
(by you, for example) that many have been successful without
affidavits.

(The "by you" part of the above raises one interesting issue;
even if people choose to trust what you say on a newsgroup,
it's far from trivial to determine if a post claiming to be
from you really *is* from you. Which, I guess, means that
no single post should be considered authoritative.)

    > I will be the first to say that instructions are not always clear --
    > there is a series of 9th Circuit cases on the old I-290A form appeals
    > from deportation orders. [BTW, back in 1991, the I-290A was replaced by
    > the EOIR-26 and the I-290A number was assigned to the form which is
    > REQUIRED for a motion to reopen or reconsider before INS and now CIS.
    > However, the form has never been issued. So the regulations require
    > submission of a form which does not exist!].

The unclear instructions are one part of why we retained
an attorney to help us through the trickier parts of the
process; the bigger issue to me being O2I, "second order
ignorance" -- not knowing what we didn't know.

But I digress.

-- James