okalian

This is an article about an interesting case I came across on another forum and thought I should share it with everyone.

--------------
Copyright © 2008, MURTHY LAW FIRM. All Rights Reserved-

Marriage-Based Applicant Eligible for I-485 Approval Even after Divorce Posted Sep 05, 2008

On August 12, 2008, in Choin v. Mukasey, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ordered the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to consider Yelena Choin’s Form I-485 Application for Adjustment of Status based upon marriage, even though she was no longer married to her U.S.-citizen husband. Generally, a foreign national spouse who is filing for permanent residence based upon marriage to a U.S. citizen must still be married at the time of the green card approval. The Court found an exception to this for spouses who enter the U.S. on the K-1 fiancé/e visa. This interpretation is limited to a K-1 fiancé/e of a U.S. citizen. There is a specific section of law that addresses the adjustment of status of K-1s and it is the wording of that section that led to the conclusion reached by the Court.

History of the Case and Decision Approving I-485

S Folinsky

Observation: This site has some rules. Rule 7 in particular.

Query: What is it about the word "copyright" that you do not understand?

Note: This is very old news -- this was already discussed on this forum when it first came out, see here. All three cases went back to the Board of Immigration Appeals. Two were sent back to the Immigration Judge. One is still pending at the Board.

Further note: It turns out that section 245(d) had been considered in the past by the Board in 1991. However, Stockwell, 20 I&N Dec 309 (BIA 1991) involved the other phrase in that section. It seems that the 9th Circuit agreed with Stockwell.

Note: There are twelve circuits. Note that time has passed since the date of the article. You can't be bothered to even update the information. You can't be bothered to find out what has happened since -- for example, what about the Caprio? You don't say. Also, you can't be bothered to look up what is happening in the District Courts, no?

My opinion: on top of your contempt for copyright, you totally ignore that time has passed and the law continues to develop. Yes, the article is "interesting" -- but it is now old as these things go. The immigration forums encourages people to do their research. In my opinion, this should also be up to date research.

This post is in response to a general post of "interest." Concomitantly, this response is also general and does not give any advice whatsoever about any specific case.

ian-mstm

I'm guessing both Murthy and the BE Moderators/Owners would be interestd in this: http://www.dmcacomplaint.org/.

Ian

lostlove

Ok:

Its helpful of you to bring to our attention such novel cases. But this has been already posted by Mr. F a long time ago.

Thanks none the less.

ian-mstm

Thanks nonetheless <--- single word, not 3 separate words!

Ian

lostlove

Excellent Ian, Thanks

okalian

haha wow this has been taken too seriously

I mentioned the name of the source so I'm not stealing anyone's content, ian, chillax I was mistaken to simply avoid plagiarism without avoiding other copyright issues, but it would've been even nicer to tell me to mention the URL, like Rete did. Thanks, Rete!

Mr. Folinsky, thanks for the advice with the updates. But if we were to tell anyone "this is old news" and what not, then almost no one will need to ask questions! There's a gentleman on this forum who just found out recently that he can receive text message and email updates from USCIS, and I was surprised that he didn't know. But what's even more surprising is the fact that several people responded to his post, surprised by the new piece of information. And This is why I post it. Trust me, i can choose to keep it to myself, but without sharing, I would've thought this is still the case. And it seems like you spend so much time writing up your posts, you're obviously too passionate and very knowledgeable, but seriously, take it easy! Here's the link just for you Sorry for the shortcoming on my end, I definitely should've provided it earlier. I'll try to research things more carefully next time to avoid repetitive posts of the same info.

http://www.murthy.com/news/n_divorc.html


On a separate note, please pray for the families of the dead miners.

discoviking

Just a general observation: There is a difference between old news and outdated old news. You would not present a 1925 paper on the benefits of the medical procedure lobotomy as a recent medical breakthrough, would you?

S Folinsky

Comment: I would not go that far. However, recent "breakthroughs" take time to "percolate" and are often severely tested. If you read this thread and the old thread, one might note that my thinking on the issues has changed somewhat.

lostlove

You find this thread so tasty that your still ruminating over it? Dont you have a monday morning manager meeting?

Or you want to be like one of the veteran, self righteous, non moderators who post nothing interesting other than their inherent nitpickery.

OK: I offer my prayers to the mining families. I can relate since I worked in the energy sector, almost missed to get killed once on the high rough seas outside Aberdeen, Scotland.