Chris Parker

    > Are you hard of hearing (or reading) ??
    >
    > There IS a process more involved that just picking up another form and
    > filing...... you said so yourself..... "appeals", "renewing your application
    > before a judge"...whatever....

The only "process" that exists is a "motion to reopen/reconsider,"
which must be filed with INS within 30 days of a denial and must
include new information which shows the original decision was
incorrect. Deportation/removal is something INS must decide to
initiate based on the evidence in its record; often they do not do
that even after denying an AOS unless there is an excessive amount of
evidence showing beyond a resonable doubt that the individual entered
the U.S. illegally and/or committed visa fraud or marriage fraud.
Abandonment cases give them little or no evidence at all about the
individual.

    > AND....these guys should get a lawyer.......

Usually that is a good idea if you get any kind of notice from INS
purporting to order you to leave the U.S. immediately.

    > If they were foolish enough to show up to an AOS interview without a
    > supportable I-864, they can not handle this, from here on out...... That is,
    > if they are serious about the wife staying here.

Actually, you make a good point. People who know they are ineligble
for adjustment (due to public charge, criminal record, etc.) are best
advised to skip the adjustment interview and just refile after the
abandonment decision becomes final. Of course, I am not a lawyer and
this is not legal advice, and most lawyers would argue against that
strategy as both unethical and possibly fraud.

This fact is the strongest reason that exists why INS is doing the
American public a disservice by taking years to render a decision on
adjustment applications; people who are committing fraud, have
criminal records, or are otherwise ineligible for adjustment should
not be allowed to live & work in the U.S. undetected for years until
the bureaucracy gets around to looking at them (if the individual
decides to give them that chance). Right now, that's exactly the way
things are, and it helps no one except those who don't belong here to
stay here.

In the new INS, I would argue that fingerprints should be taken
immediately upon applying for adjustment, same day work permits should
be issued for all applicants, advance parole should be eliminated as
unnecessary, and all adjustment applications must be completed within
6 months. This is both Congress's and the President's vision for the
future of immigration services. Will it happen under the Department
of Homeland Security?


CP

Chris Parker

    > Ahh, I see now. If they deny us and say "Get out" then we file through the
    > court. If they just deny and take no removal actions , we can still refile
    > like a normal AOS?

Yes, this is correct.

This is why, like I said in the beginning, INS does not have the final
word on the future of your wife in the U.S. The immigration court
does, if the INS trial attorneys even decide to file her case with the
court after adjustment denial.


CP

Tjw & Acw

Thanks for the answers,

I'm one of these guys that if he doesn't understand something he asks
questions. And you've been patient and kept it to layman's terms. Thanks
again.

--
TJW & ACW
---------------------------------------

--------------------------------------
"Chris Parker" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > > Ahh, I see now. If they deny us and say "Get out" then we file through
the
    > > court. If they just deny and take no removal actions , we can still
refile
    > > like a normal AOS?
    > Yes, this is correct.
    > This is why, like I said in the beginning, INS does not have the final
    > word on the future of your wife in the U.S. The immigration court
    > does, if the INS trial attorneys even decide to file her case with the
    > court after adjustment denial.
    > CP

Mrtravel

TJW & ACW wrote:
    >
    > > It is not as rare as you believe it to be. However, knowing you and
    > > your wife and your story, I don't feel that you will be denied>
    >
    > As you said, it's not rare, but rare for a couple whose case is legit.
    > Mainly I'm going on articles I've read and from what I've spoken with INS
    > agents about. The biggest reason they'll deport a new mother is, as I said
    > before, there was something illegal from the get go-- biggest one being
    > women who enter the US pregnant and use the baby as the reason to get a
    > greencard.

How could that happen? The child could not sponsor the mother for a
green card until the child was 21.
So, I don't understand the part about using the baby to get a greencard.

    > And you're right my father being the cosponsor clears up a lot
    > of headaches for us; plus the hope that I can get back to work soon, get
    > some money saved, etc...Even if we feel short on the 125%, if I'm working
    > and showing that I can keep us off the public-welfare, they'll be forgiving
    > on the 125% thing, so long as it's not a large sum of difference; again this
    > is going on what the INS agents I've spoken with have told me.

And long as your father qualifies as a cosponser, they don't care if you
make the 125 percent.
That's a bit different than saying they are forgiving because you are
working and trying to keep you off welfare.

    > Plus the
    > big thing they look at is whether my wife is actually trying to be part of
    > the community and the like (that's the reason I'm hoping the photos I took
    > when she was helping with Tornado reliefe efforts will come out.)

I don't understand what working on a relief effort in Canada has to do
with US immigration and being a part of the community in the US.

Tjw & Acw

I'm just relaying information supplied to me by INS agents and people who've
been through the process.

    >How could that happen? The child could not sponsor the mother for a green
card until the child was 21.So, I don't understand the part about using the
baby to get a greencard.>

They have the baby on US soal then claim that the baby is a USC and file for
a hardship case, claiming that since the baby is USC they can't go back to
their home country cause the baby wouldn't be admitted into the mother's
home country. One INS agent even told me that they'veh had women do this,
then claim the father is a USC, but has abandoned them or some version
thereof, in an attempt to get "mercy" from the USA. Basically it happens
with illegal immigrants who have thought it out ahead of time. They know
that there is a legal way to immigrate, but they're using any thing they can
in an attempt to gurantee they'll allowed to stay. Of course this is fraud,
so I can see why the INS comes down on them with a sledge-hammer when it
happens.


    > And long as your father qualifies as a cosponser, they don't care if you
make the 125 percent. That's a bit different than saying they are forgiving
because you are working and trying to keep you off welfare.

Even if I didn't have my father as a cosponsor, they would "forgive" a small
amount of difference, so long as it wasn't a big amount. Say 2 or 3k cool,
11 or 12k, not. That sort of thing. It's rare, exteremly rare from what
I've been told, but it happens, so long as yo can prove you're not a future
welfare case and that your financial situation isn't getting worse instead
of better; the example I was given, is the idea of someone who goes in
making 1K less at the time they filed the papers, then when the interview
comes due, they're 6K short, obviously, with that track record they're a
risk for being future welfare reciepents. Where as if you were 6k short
when you filed (and didn't have with a cosponsor) and went into the
interview only 2k shorter, then the interviewer might be forgiving. Again
it all comes down to the interviwer and how flexible he/she is on the rules.

    > I don't understand what working on a relief effort in Canada has to do
with US immigration and being a part of the community in the US.

Working on Tornado relief her in TN, not Canada. We were hauling food,
etc...to Red Cross/FEMA staging areas that were hit by the Tornado. At the
time it happened, INS was the farthest thing from my mind-- after all this
is were my family lives-- but a old business contact wanted me to take
pictures while I was up there in case he needed them for the even news,
since my camera goes where I go 99% of the time anyway, it was nothing for
me to grab a couple of shots between unloading and sorting.


TJW & ACW
---------------------------------------

--------------------------------------




--
TJW & ACW
---------------------------------------

--------------------------------------
"mrtravel" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > TJW & ACW wrote:
    > >
    > > > It is not as rare as you believe it to be. However, knowing you and
    > > > your wife and your story, I don't feel that you will be denied>
    > >
    > > As you said, it's not rare, but rare for a couple whose case is legit.
    > > Mainly I'm going on articles I've read and from what I've spoken with
INS
    > > agents about. The biggest reason they'll deport a new mother is, as I
said
    > > before, there was something illegal from the get go-- biggest one being
    > > women who enter the US pregnant and use the baby as the reason to get a
    > > greencard.
    > How could that happen? The child could not sponsor the mother for a
    > green card until the child was 21.
    > So, I don't understand the part about using the baby to get a greencard.
    > > And you're right my father being the cosponsor clears up a lot
    > > of headaches for us; plus the hope that I can get back to work soon, get
    > > some money saved, etc...Even if we feel short on the 125%, if I'm
working
    > > and showing that I can keep us off the public-welfare, they'll be
forgiving
    > > on the 125% thing, so long as it's not a large sum of difference; again
this
    > > is going on what the INS agents I've spoken with have told me.
    > And long as your father qualifies as a cosponser, they don't care if you
    > make the 125 percent.
    > That's a bit different than saying they are forgiving because you are
    > working and trying to keep you off welfare.
    > > Plus the
    > > big thing they look at is whether my wife is actually trying to be part
of
    > > the community and the like (that's the reason I'm hoping the photos I
took
    > > when she was helping with Tornado reliefe efforts will come out.)
    > I don't understand what working on a relief effort in Canada has to do
    > with US immigration and being a part of the community in the US.

Mrtravel

TJW & ACW wrote:
    >
    > Even if I didn't have my father as a cosponsor, they would "forgive" a small
    > amount of difference, so long as it wasn't a big amount. Say 2 or 3k cool,
    > 11 or 12k, not. That sort of thing. It's rare, exteremly rare from what
    > I've been told, but it happens, so long as yo can prove you're not a future
    > welfare case and that your financial situation isn't getting worse instead
    > of better; the example I was given, is the idea of someone who goes in
    > making 1K less at the time they filed the papers, then when the interview
    > comes due, they're 6K short, obviously, with that track record they're a
    > risk for being future welfare reciepents. Where as if you were 6k short
    > when you filed (and didn't have with a cosponsor) and went into the
    > interview only 2k shorter, then the interviewer might be forgiving. Again
    > it all comes down to the interviwer and how flexible he/she is on the rules.

Given this information, why were you originally denied due to lack of
meeting the 125 percent level?
My understanding is the 125 percent is mandated by law.

    >
    > > I don't understand what working on a relief effort in Canada has to do
    > with US immigration and being a part of the community in the US.
    >
    > Working on Tornado relief her in TN, not Canada.

I read Tornado as Toronto.

Tjw & Acw

We weren't denied. I was asking the question cause someone had mentioned to
me that they had heard about refiling after denial and I got curious as to
the hows and whys of it.

--
TJW & ACW
---------------------------------------

--------------------------------------
"mrtravel" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > TJW & ACW wrote:
    > >
    > > Even if I didn't have my father as a cosponsor, they would "forgive" a
small
    > > amount of difference, so long as it wasn't a big amount. Say 2 or 3k
cool,
    > > 11 or 12k, not. That sort of thing. It's rare, exteremly rare from what
    > > I've been told, but it happens, so long as yo can prove you're not a
future
    > > welfare case and that your financial situation isn't getting worse
instead
    > > of better; the example I was given, is the idea of someone who goes in
    > > making 1K less at the time they filed the papers, then when the
interview
    > > comes due, they're 6K short, obviously, with that track record they're a
    > > risk for being future welfare reciepents. Where as if you were 6k short
    > > when you filed (and didn't have with a cosponsor) and went into the
    > > interview only 2k shorter, then the interviewer might be forgiving.
Again
    > > it all comes down to the interviwer and how flexible he/she is on the
rules.
    > Given this information, why were you originally denied due to lack of
    > meeting the 125 percent level?
    > My understanding is the 125 percent is mandated by law.
    > >
    > > > I don't understand what working on a relief effort in Canada has to do
    > > with US immigration and being a part of the community in the US.
    > >
    > > Working on Tornado relief her in TN, not Canada.
    > I read Tornado as Toronto.