Rete

Hasn't this subject been covered an infinite number of times in the recent and not so recent past? Perhaps you might want to ask your attorney this question the next time you have to contact him about your marriage-based visa and get one attorney's viewpoint.

IMOO, your first sentence is yes you are right but then again you might be wrong. And for your second sentence, you might be right, however, then again you might be wrong. Intent and circumstances are issues that should be dealt with between attorney and client.

Remember I'm only expressing an opinion.

Rete

I've heard that you are know allowed to file the I-130 at some US Consulates in Canada, however, the I-130 will be sent by them to the MSC/NBC for processing and not dealt with solely at the US Consulate in Canada. Therefore, wouldn't that mean it isn't DCF as we know it where the process is handled outside of the US. Although technically it is direct consular filing as it is filed at the US Consulate.

BTW it was Mr. Folinskyinla who posted this update a while back.

Matthew Udall

Yeah, if they are shipping them to the NBC, than that's not what I would call typical DCF.

When talking to a prospective client and outlining possible options I usually discuss DCF. Tell them its usually not an option for most posts, and they should ask the post if they will allow the I-130 to be filed directly with them (if they were a client, I’d be checking this for them), "and" if the post will keep it and process it in house or will they ship it to the U.S. for processing at a Service Center (or perhaps to a CIS satellite office located abroad).

Rete

I'm correcting my misassumptions. Apparently all can be found here:

http://britishexpats.com/forum/showt...ght=Canada+DCF

on the thread Mr. Folinskyinla started in November.

meauxna

Wasn't 'too long ago'? In internet time, that was ages ago. As in years. Scan just about any given immigration discussion board and you'll find pretty much everyone is in agreement about intent and VWP. People who are going through the petiion + visa process aren't too eager to encourage others to get to the finish line faster.

Why do you feel the need to continue to beat that drum?

I don't understand what you mean.. "off line". I don't know what an average prolific hobbyist is. If you mean to indicate that I am a prolific hobbyist, I still don't know what the average would be, but it would be more clear if you would just come out and say what you mean. I don't meet many people in real life that are looking for immigration information. When I do, I just give them the name of this group as a good resource.

Since to OP is probably all excited about DCF, DCF in Canada details are on the official site here: http://www.amcits.com/immigration.asp

Matthew Udall

I didn’t realize there was such a thing as “internet time” (is that like dog years ;-) and aren’t most postings archived for years to come, still doing damage to those who might stumble across them? I was going to post a link to a prime example where a prolific hobbyist, who seems to be seeking a reputation as a legal advisor, used such eloquent language as, “As A said…. Only you know what your ability to lie is….” You know, that sort of thing (and I think that was an answer to a Canadian with a similar question as the OP), but out of respect I’ll refrain from posting the link.

I’m simply replying to your post where you said something to the effect that nobody online will tell her certain things; which is simply not true. Why does my stating this obvious thing offend you so?

You know; things like PM’s, e-mail, face to face, maybe even non usenet propogated boards (if they assume only a small audience is looking on). Post not being sent to usenet.

meauxna

QUOTE=Matthew Udall I didn’t realize there was such a thing as “internet time” (is that like dog years ;-) and aren’t most postings archived for years to come, still doing damage to those who might stumble across them? I was going to post a link to a prime example where a prolific hobbyist, who seems to be seeking a reputation as a legal advisor, used such eloquent language as, “As A said…. Only you know what your ability to lie is….” You know, that sort of thing (and I think that was an answer to a Canadian with a similar question as the OP), but out of respect I’ll refrain from posting the link.



I’m simply replying to your post where you said something to the effect that nobody online will tell her certain things; which is simply not true. Why does my stating this obvious thing offend you so?



You know; things like PM’s, e-mail, face to face, maybe even non usenet propogated boards (if they assume only a small audience is looking on). Post not being sent to usenet./QUOTE

ha ha, yes internet time is sort of like dog years.. info gets old very quickly (I think I was still a Win95 gal when I started reading this group) & old data is old data. I don't think many would go digging back to find an old post that contradicts multiple current references, just to support the idea that they can AOS from the VWP when it's pre-planned, but who knows what evil lurks in the mind of men, or idiocy? People do some crazy things. But I wouldn't try to use old Win95 tune up tricks from a newsgroup to optimize an XP machine.

So, why by so passive agressive? You're talking about an old position posted by someone who has changed their tune.. you're going back over three or four years now. Why not just come out and say who you are talking about? Because it seems silly to hold such a long grudge?

Now, your beating that old drum doesn't offend me-- I can't see where you get that, but it's not accurate for this group; if it is accurate for other groups that you frequent, remind them more often. I would say that you were long ago successful in convincing this community about your point, and people are cooperative about it. Maybe I don't read as many immigration discussions as you, but I've not seen a post like you describe ever, since the day I started reading up on this. And yes, I used to read the old Doc Steen board as well, so like I say, we're going back over four years now (easy to keep track with my wedding anniversaries.. man, I've already been married a long time!)
I would think you'd be delighted to have seen the first reply to this post say 'go meet with an immigration attorney' (which I think is a good idea, not lip service). You've now translated one word 'online' so that its opposite equals private communication, when in context it is clear that 'offline' meant 'face to face with an attorney'. I've always preferred the old back and forth of discussion groups so that's where I keep my discussions, but since you are not clear who you are talking about, I don't know if you are trying to say that is what I do or what.

I don't mind a little posting gymnastics, and debating a few finer points, but you chopping up posts doesn't mean I'll accept your new definition of what I said. Just as you saying 'out of respect' when I don't feel you mean that sincerely makes it so. Your arguments had a lot more merit when they were expressing a sincere concern for the people involved rather than using a list of old links from your Top Secret Files that have been hoarded to beat up people for the way they used to think <g>. Thank goodness we don't have that policy for old hairdos or fashion.. I've got some I'd *never* be able to live down, know what I mean?

Since you did it here I've got to ask.. why do you not send posts like that to Usenet? I understand when some of the silly OT comments (from all) don't, or the ones that are only about BE.. it's good Usenetiquette or whatever that oldfashioned term is, but you seem to do it in the middle of discussions that could have benefit for others & it made me curious why.

Hypertweeky

I am doing good girlie

I am confused about your post

Even if you are already married and enter the US with a non immigrant option and your intentions are to stay and file for AOS is a 10 foot pole situation too, you can enter the country under the WVP or B2 visa to get married, there is nothing wrong with it, the 10 foot pole subject arises when one has intention to AOS=Migrate, stay for good.

My toes hurt

Matthew Udall

I’m not holding a grudge, who ever said I was? I don’t name the person out of respect. But without naming the person, yes, that post is archived for all the world to read. If it weren’t, it would not be that big of a deal. Here is some language from that old post, and mind you this is “not” the only one like this out there. And as I said before in this thread, what used to go on is quite a different story (and related to your comment that no one will tell others certain things in a news group):

From old post: If she decides to go this way, it is a tricky business ... easier accomplished if she drives as often she will be just waved through the drive-thru. If flying you are questioned and it is easier to trip yourself up and mention a husband, etc.

Give her the pros and cons and let her make the decision for herself. She is the only one who know what her capabilities are for lying or hedging the truth and if she can carry it off. The worse that will happen at that point is she is denied entry to the US and they file the prescribed way. The best is that she makes it through and files while here in the US.

Me again: Not only are people willing to tell others certain things in public forums, but the “worst” case scenario is flat out wrong too. Oh, and this doesn’t come from a “top secret file” ;-), its right on google (I could have posted the link to the actual post, but that would give the person's name and I did it this way out of respect). But you are also correct in that this post was made a long time ago, however it relates to my reply to your comment that people on news groups won’t post certain things.

Ah yes, I remember that site. One good thing was that it was not linked to usenet, so the damaging information on that site, I assume, is not archived for years to come. Can you imagine someone posting a “tourist adjustment” page now, where they flat out tell others to use a non-immigrant option to immigrate, how to fool the officers at the POE about their intent, and give specific untruthful answers to tell the officers in reply to specific questions? And you are correct, things have gotten better since then (thanks in large part to some attorneys who helped spread the light).

Sometimes its like you say, an OT reply. And sometimes I just don’t want my posts to go to usenet. In fact, I usually check the box so most of them don’t go to usenet, whether or not I specifically mention it. In this particular case, I mentioned it out of respect.

[Post not being sent to usenet]

Ray

JeeZ Matt!!! that was said in 2001 .... you brought it up again in 2003
and again now .... that really stuck in your craw....

Matthew Udall

It's just a very memorable example that addresses Mo's comment that the OP is not going to hear what they want to hear in the news group. Obviously this sort of advice has (and will be) given from time to time.

There are a bunch of memorable things from over the years. The 30/60 day fiasco is one, and a problem caused to a member by following another members specific legal advice is another (and if I reference it, I'm just illustrating a point about the danger of UPL and I usually always say "sorry" to the guy for using this fine example).

Hypertweeky

Whoever google's up to find answers to immigration questions is flat out DUMB

Ray

Umm! and did I not point out to you last year.. An Immigration lawyer
still using that one ...

Rete

It would have been fairer to the public in general and to those that search archives for information to have posted the entire thread. Here is it folks.

http://britishexpats.com/forum/showt...ricky+business

As you can see when you read the entire thread (4 plus pages) and my response which Mr. Udall has cut and pasted here out of context that my responses where tongue in cheek and quite sarcastic when taken in its entirety, postwise and threadwise. Also not posted was the first paragraph of that post.

Out of respect for me who was the poster you choose not to include my name "Rete". If would have shown more respect for me if you had posted this correctly rather than misleading the "audience" to come to conclusions about the 'respected' poster you drew attention to.

So as my last paragraph in that 2001 post stated, I will allow this audience to read the old thread in its entirety and draw their own conclusions on how they wish to view my words.

Rete
(Not Rita ... The only people allowed to call me Rita are friends ... I have not given you permission to use my given name in a public forum Mr. Udall.)

PS this is going to Usenet as is your comments. In that way, Usenet posters can look up all of the thread here on BE as guests.

Rete

And some immigration attorneys and USCIS personnel are still telling people that the 10-foot pole issue might or might not be an issue for them. Go figure. Guess what is said behind closed doors don't count ;-)