Matthew Udall

Hi Ray,
Oh, I have a good idea where that came from, and I did not see him mention anything about working a certain number of quarters in a qualifying job.

It was "very" common in this news group, to see misinformation passed on by very respected members (who celebrate birthdays just like everybody else) that the obligations under the I-864 would be extinguished by the mere passage of 10 years. The quarters worked never seemed to make it into the explanation/legal advice, nor the other ways in which the obligations under the I-864 could be extinguished.

I harped about this for a while (especially to the respected participant in particular who probably did more to spread this inaccurate information to the DIY immigration community than any other person) and I don't see this spread as much as it used to be, however my questioning where he got this from was my assumption that he too fell victim of that person's bogus advice that she spread here in this group (notice I did not name any names).

LucyMO

Geez, people, don't throw stones. I basically summed up the information posted in numerous posts throughout this particular forum. I didn't say it was impossible for him to remove conditions.

LucyMO

Guess what, I have also heard of a few people who successfully waived Home Residency Requirement, but also of many who didn't. Similar circumstances for both sides.

So, everything depends in this world.

Matthew Udall

I was just asking on what you based your "close to zero" legal conclusion? If what you are providing is simply a summary of inaccurate legal advice that had been rendered in this group in the past, than passing this on and perpetuating a myth, IMHO, is not doing anybody any favors.

Ray

Matt.. that really sounds like a petulant child whining..that is not you surely .... We both know of course they are massive error made on all types of forums and we are lucky that you and Mr F clear some of them up on this one... and we are grateful, but sniping at one person by a professional person is just not right.

Matthew Udall

I was pointing out that my assumption (all he mentioned was the passing of time) was based upon him hearing inaccurate information in the group, and I happen to be aware of the history of how that happened. Plus, I did not mention any names.

My reply was a reply to "you" when you voiced your assumption that he knew about it being working quarters but just failed to specify that in his posting. Since I know of the history of this particular bit of misinformation spread on this site, I mentioned that to you to show why I was asking him where he got that information (and why I made a different assumption than the one you made).

We also see another posting in this thread whereby someone says she was just passing along (mis) information that she got right here in this site.

Ranjini

That's a very profound statement, Tweeks. So very true At the same time, one should not give up on a marriage without trying everything possible to make things work. At the end of the day, when all else has failed, your consolation will be that you tried. A marriage is always worth saving IMHO, especially when there are children involved .....

AnnaV

Hello, Mr. Udall,

I don't think misinformation is exclusive to this group. I still have friends and relatives asking me what in heck I'm doing all this (dealing with Immigration) for when I get automatic American citizenship upon marrying an American citizen. There are also other websites that post outdated or plain wrong information. Besides, the OP is a newbie, I believe. Unless he diligently went through the old posts and actually missed the corrections to the wrong info that were floating around, it's a little of a stretch to conclude that he necessarily must have picked up his bad information from the person we all know you were alluding to.

As for the other person who said she summarized the thoughts from other threads, that does not necessarily reflect on the overall quality of information that is found in this newsgroup. I think that this newsgroup is self-correcting, in a sense. If there is wrong information, most times someone steps up (often Mr. Folinsky does, too) to correct the misapprehension. It's an open group, and anyone can post anything they want, inadvertently wrong advice or intentionally wrong information included. It's always been caveat emptor.

I had to get that off my chest. I didn't want the perception that somehow the information that can be gleaned from this newsgroup is always incorrect (I know you didn't say "always," but I did say "perception") be too engrained in the new people's minds.

Ray

True but you did mention Birthday so everybody knew who you meant!

My assumption there was he had read somewhere half of the story..as this was his first day here...chances are it did not come from here
Yes mis-information does happen here..and lets be honest the USCIS themselves are pretty renown for that as well
But I have to say something your fellow professional often says:
Be nice...
and I will stop calling you surely

ajs1066

Exactly as I assumed. It also seems that if I were to initiate the divorce I might as well pack my bags and go back to England. This is a grey area, definitely.

LucyMO

No, no, never give up without a fight! Unless you don't care about staying in the U.S. It all depends on your circumstances, your willingness to win, your wife's determination to help you, etc.

It took my friend 7 years to get a waiver of HRR (which is completely unrelated to your case in terms of circumstances, but does relate in terms of chances and fighting for what you believe is the best for you and your family), and she finally got it. And that's important. So, if you care to stay - fight. Not literally, of course, although sometimes it seems like it real.

Good luck!

Brit3964

One extra point worth noting (as I understand it), you can file for I-751 if separated but the INS can't adjudicate it until you are divorced.

Matthew Udall

Hi Anna,
I agree with you that inaccurate information is found in other places besides this group. I'll bet your Mother taught you, just as every Mother teaches her child, a little something about the sum of two wrongs.

He may have been a newbie (I wouldn't know) but his citation of the mere passage of time (in this case 9 years) fits right in with the incorrect information that I mentioned was propagated in this group. And this group is a pretty popular and heavily visited place, and it doesn't take a stretch of the imagination at all to conclude that information gleaned on this site gets incorporated into other sites that are spun off, created by visitors to this group. How often do we see in other sites and postings, people who "still" buy into the 30 60 day rule nonsense that was propagated on this group?

Sure, that is what people say, however actually reading the posts yields a much different result. People "do" rely on the information they find here, they often "don't" confirm things from other sources, and heaven forbid if they even hint about wanting to hire an attorney for even a consultation!

And I'm still curious why the guy only mentioned the mere passage of time as eliminating the obligations under the I-864, and where he got that information. Those are legitimate questions. I notice there has not been a posting from him once those questions were asked.

Matthew Udall

And is there any harm by "not" mentioning the name? I have mentioned that name in the past when having to correct her "over and over and over and over" again on the exact same issue, and I also said that I haven't noticed her giving this same inaccurate advice over and over again any longer.

When someone gains a reputation as a legal advisor (evidenced by people seeking out that person's advice by name), they create a more dangerous situation (to the DIY immigration community) when they give out bad/inaccurate legal advice. So if you think you know who I was talking about, good as that helps illustrate the point I'm making in this paragraph.


I too assume he only had part of the story, and is why I asked him why he only listed the mere passage of time and asked where he got that incorrect information. Bob accesses these posts via usenet, and many people take information they get from usenet (whether or not its accurate) to make their own spin off sites. Whether he got that information directly from one of her archived old usenet posts or from a spin off site that someone created from her incorrect information makes little difference, and there is a good chance that the bogus information (no matter how many other people passed that on in the chain that lead to Bob) originated on this usenet group.

And of course, "that is why I asked my question in the first place".

And your point? If someone is laboring under misinformation, the results for them are the same regardless of where they get the incorrect information. I didn't know I was not being "nice" by asking Bob these questions, and then answering "your" questions when you asked them.

Ray

Hi Matt.. got to jump in there...so you would say the following is total crap then. Ithink it is...
"To determne pre-conceived intent they use the 30/60/90 day rule-basicaly this measn that if you marry within 30 days fo enterng on a tourist visa there is a irrebuttable presumption of preconcoed intent/visa fraud, between 30 and 60 days fraud is presumed but can be overcome by evidence that you ahd no rpeconcieved intent-bewteen 60 and 90 days there has to be specific indiceses of preconceievd intent/fraud".