Folinskyinla

Hi:

Those of you who hang around on this list know that I strongly discourage playing games or circumventing the law at the Port of Entry. My position here happens to be contrary to the economic interest of immigration lawyers in that it avoids the possibility of NEEDING a lawyer.

An interesting BIA case came out last Tuesday regarding the wife of a United States Citizen.

http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/BIAu%20...good%20law.pdf

Circus-of-Power

As a survivor of the legal visa /immigration system, I have no time for anybody who tries to circumvent official channels ... I have an even shorter attention span for any lawyer or politician who thinks that the solution to the USA's immigration woes is a carte blanche pardon for all those who entered without going through the correct procedure .....

ian-mstm

Okay... just to be clear, the appeal in Areguillin was sustained - meaning that the board *did* find her admissable. Is that right? And this was the basis for your appeal... and that too was sustained - meaning that your client was now found eligible to adjust?

Ian

ian-mstm

I agree... but I don't think this is what happened in the case cited.

Ian

Folinskyinla

Hi:

Although not mentioned in last Tuesday's decision, the woman was brought in when she was a minor. When she grew up, she met a US Citizen and they fell in love and were married.

BTW, they had received advice previously to engaged in fraudulent conduct to get the green card. They refrained from doing so. Being honest has made it tough, but she will most likely get that green card without wondering about a hidden fraud in her green card. The other day, there was a posting about that conviction of a woman who had become a US Citizen and an FBI/CIA agent -- part of the investigation showed her marriage fraud from SEVENTEEN years ago.

fatbrit

Then you are part of the problem. No amnesty is no solution.

Folinskyinla

Hi:

"Admissiblity" has nothing to do with it. In order to AOS, one must have been "inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States." It is a jurisdictional issue. As an analogy on this list -- lets say an AmCit marries a UK resident, does the I-130 get filed in London via "DCF" or with a stateside Service Center. It is undisputed that an I-130 can be filed, it is just a question of where and how.

As way of background, Section 245(a) has not been changed since 1961. It should be noted that the term "entry" does not appear in that section. Before 1996 the term "entry" was defined at section 101(a)(13). There was a large body of law around the term "entry." The term was eliminated in 1996 and replaced with the term "admission" which added the need for an "inspection" to have come within its ambit.

DHS has been arguing that, by some unpexplained alchemy, the unchanged AOS requirements were changed by the extensive change in the "entry" doctrine -- a doctrine which had never been part of section 245.

A friend of mine in Texas called me about this case and she expressed the common complaint among immigration lawyers that these days, it is the GOVERNMENT that is lawless.

fatbrit

There has been a general trend in that direction. And immigration is not the only area of their lawlessness.