lovenlife

What else am I to do but try and figure this out till I find someone that can represent us that understands that K-2's do not age out? It maybe obvious to you and countless others out there but I can’t seem to find an attorney in Washington DC metro area to understand it. I just want to get my son adjusted as he should have been ages ago.

Folinskyinla

Hi:

Have you contacted Bruce Hake in Damascus, MD? Feel free to drop my name.

Girona40

I have spoken with Mr. Hake via e-mail. He told me that he does not handle this type of case and suggested I return to ILW.com and search lawyers that work on family cases. ILW referred a question I posed on one of their "free - ask the lawyer" sessions to Mr. Hake. So once again we were going round in circles.

bionomique

How about broadening your radius? I realise that having a competent attorney nearby may be ideal, but having one that knows what to do is more important. Good luck!

Folinskyinla

Hi:

There are lots of immigration lawyers in DC and its environs, including Baltimore. I have a feeling that the OP and her hubby have e-mailed every last one.

bionomique

There's no way, with loads of immigration lawyers to approach, that they should be striking out then! Even if they haven't tried everyone, if they aren't getting even a nibble from many, perhaps it's a case of needing more concise presentation. Any pointers?

Folinskyinla

Hi:

Who have you consulted with IN PERSON???

Jonathan McNeil Wong

lovenlife wrote:
    >>Hi:
    >>Please stop this -- you are analyzing this to death. These section
    >>have NOTHING to do with your issue.
    >>In the venerable "Rainford" and "Gabryelski" cases, a doctrine
    >>articulated that the way around certain grounds of deportation that
    >>did not have a corresponding ground of inadmissability was to file a
    >>NEW adjustment! This was recently affirmed in "Azurin." All those
    >>sections you quote mean is that your CR wife cannot file for a new
    >>adjustment -- she must either remove the condtion or leave.
    >>On "son & daughters" -- you are correct that the term is NOT defined
    >>while "child" is defined in excruciating detail. Your wife's "son"
    >>has been her son since the day he was born. He was your wife's
    >>"child" but then he grew up. But he still was and is her "son."
    >
    >
    > What else am I to do but try and figure this out till I find someone
    > that can represent us that understands that K-2's do not age out? It
    > maybe obvious to you and countless others out there but I can’t seem
    > to find an attorney in Washington DC metro area to understand it. I
    > just want to get my son adjusted as he should have been ages ago.
    >

Please read Stuart's posts more carefully. He did not say that K-2s do
not age out (that would not be a correct statement IMHO).

He makes a different legal point. He does _not_ attempt to apply any
legal reasoning specifically to your case because he's not your lawyer.

Bruce Hake, aka the author of the "Hake Hardship Scale", would be a good
person to consult if he is local to you.

--
Above intended as general commentary, not specific legal
advice. Your mileage may vary.

================================================== =============
Jonathan McNeil Wong Voice: 510-451-0544
Donahue Gallagher Woods LLP Facsimile: 510-832-1486
P.O. Box 12979 URL: http://www.donahue.com
Oakland, CA 94604-2979 E-mail: [email protected]
================================================== =============

lovenlife

In Person 2 over the phone 3, via email several. I would rather not use names in a puplic forum, I can if you like send you a PM with the details.

scatty

Hi

What does your own attorney have to say about all this?

Regards Sue

lovenlife

Last I heard they were still looking into it, I plan to follow up with them tomorrow.

Folinskyinla

Hi Jonathan:

Actually, this is the one time I have given specfic advice -- becasue it is a pure question of law. However, in disucsions with colleagues here in LA, I get one of two responses to my statement -- either "Of course" or "Really?".

I think what we have is what the LOS DD Jane Arrellano calls "a training issue" [after I asked her if she remembered "stateside criteria" and her response was "that goes way back to when I was a GS-4 clerk." I then showed her an N-400 denial based upon refusal of applicant to disclose his 1980 "arrest" -- which was just part of the "VAC-56" letter processing for an IV in Vancouver. Jane response was "training issue."]

Unfortunately, I now realize that we have a "training issue" for BOTH CIS and the private bar.

Furthermore, in this particular case, Girona40 and Lovenlife are so concerned about the son, that they are raging like a bull in a china shop. They are contacting way too many people rather than keeping focused on the prize. I am afraid that they may cause a bad "policy memo" to issue.

Also, [no offense meant to posters], they might very well be high maintenance clients to any attorney they hire. I would recommend that Lovenlife be the contact person rather than Girona40.

lovenlife

Well that is indeed offensive, to my wife and my self. To many it may seem our problem isn’t some major issue, to us it is. I’d fight like hell to keep our family together, and we shouldn’t have to be doing any of this if the USCIS did their job to begin with.

What would you have us do? Sit on our butts and do nothing, how can we focus on the prize when no one seems to know how get in the race for this prize? Your recommendation came back with that our son is covered by the CSPA, yup a training issue for sure, see this is the problem. So I’ll just let the experts do this for me? Thank god some of these people aren’t doctors, I’m sure I would be missing something I really need, like my liver.

I see no reason to continue posting here.

Folinskyinla

Hi:

It is a MAJOR issue all right. And no, I'm not suggesting you sit on your butts. What you had was ONE CIS office who didn't know the law. The focus for YOU is to get that green card for your wife's son -- nothing more, nothing less.

As far as I am concerned you had a molehill standing in your way -- and you are busy creating a mountain that the potential not only to hurt your step-son, but just might take many people with it.

I have since learned that although the law is clear, not many people seem to know this. I guess the issue doesn't arise all that often

To make myself clear -- the "age-out" applies to the I-129F visa petition, issuance of the K-2 visa, and entry as a K-2 non-immigrant. That is ALL the Immigration & Nationality Act requires in regards to age of your wife's children. Period, end. Once there is entry on the K-2, the ONLY substantive qualification is that your wife married you within the statutory 90 days. His age has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the ADJUSTMENT.

The thing is that the MORE people say there is an age-out on K-2 adjustments, it can take on an imprimatur of "law."

You don't want the law changed -- you want a green card for your wife's son. Don't forget that.

lovenlife

Ok last post,

I agree, but trying to find one, just one lawyer out here has been impossible. I have basically stated exactly what you have said and no one seems to under stand this. No one, in one ear out the other they talk of the CSPA that does|does not cover your son, when did I file the I-130 for him, there is a 2 year limit (k-3 and 4’s) etc. I does my head in. I can’t even get my original lawyer to look at it, he’s of the mind that since a child is defined under sec 101(b) he’s an age out as well. I feel like beating my head against a brick wall. The author of “K-visas: The Hybrid Visas� in the AILA 2005-06 Immigration and Nationality Law Handbook has spoiled your contention for us as well, Ms Provatas statements falls in line with the Williams memo in regard to the handling of K-2’s and age out, so every lawyer that reads it seems to take this a authority. So how can we get our hand on the prize? I feel like I’m playing power ball. <shakes head, walks off disgusted>