lpdiver

I am K-3 so it won't apply I suppose.

Steffi

No, I wasn't using the group then. I only joined this September (after Karen D pointed me this direction when I met her at the doctor's office).
That's such a shame though. I can't believe they would do that. I really, really hope there's something you can do about it somehow. It just seems so harsh that you would turn your entire life around to move here and then your significant other dies unexpectedly shortly after the marriage and you would just be sent on the next plane home.

TuffEnuff

Hi
I just want to let you know that there is hope in her case. All she have to do is file the I-360 as a widow/widower only in the following:

1) Married for at least two years to a u.s. citizen who is now deceased and who was a u.s citizen at the time of death.

2) your citizen spouse's death was less then two years ago;

3) you were not legally separated from you citizen spouse at the time of death

4) you have not remarried

If she meet the the following she can stay.

good luck
Jerome

Marjeta

It kinda makes sense though. Especially for somebody who has been married for only 3 months and did not even have the time to build a life here. The only reason that person immigrated was (supposedly) their spouse. So once they die what is the valid reason for someone to stay here and adjust status? I don't think the fact that "they like it here" is a valid reason.
All your family and everybody you have been close to beside your spouse (and perhaps your parents in law) are in your home country. And as a widow you have the right to move on with your life. But it is not the government's obligation to allow you to stay and move on in the US...
On the other hand, I don't see anything wrong in allowing for someone to stay under these circumstances.

Sad as it is... I can say for myself that IF my husband died, regardless of how long we would have been married, I would most probably return to my home country as he is the ultimate reason for me being here.

Maryanne Kehoe

As to the "hardship" question, what if the lady was from a country where
if she went back her life might be in danger? What then?

In reading this board, there are a lot of "gray" areas of immigration
law that will have to be dealt with by the courts in the coming years.

Kristin

I can tell you the date that Detroit ended the same day interview
process: Dec. 1, 2002. We got married on November 30, 2002.

Missed it by that much, as Maxwell Smart used to say. :-) Kristin

Rete wrote:
    >
    > Yes this was the norm for K-1'ers who were lucky enough to live in the
    > jurisdictions of Dallas, Detroit and Sault Ste. Marie, MI in '98, '99
    > and '00. I forget the exact date when the pilot program was

Mrtravel

maryanne kehoe wrote:

    > As to the "hardship" question, what if the lady was from a country where
    > if she went back her life might be in danger? What then?

If her life is in danger, then she doesn't need to have been married to
a USC in order to claim refugee status.

lpdiver

darn you have my luck DCF in Colombia ended the week before we got married

Matthew Udall

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Andy Platt
In general for someone who has filed or could file for immigration benefits
based on marriage to a US citizen, that US citizen must be alive by the time
the immigration benefit is approved. There is the ability for a spouse to
self-petition based on a deceased US citizen but, unfortunately, this is
*only* available after the 2nd anniversary of the marriage (to be pedantic,
the second anniversary with the spouse surviving). If the person is already
a permanent resident then they remain so after the death of their spouse, no
matter how many days the marriage has been in existence.

(Another travesty of the way the immigration laws apply is that somebody who
got married and managed to get same-day adjustment of status could remain in
the US even if their spouse died a day after the wedding but somebody who's
spouse died one year and 354 days after the wedding but hadn't yet adjusted
status couldn't).

Andy.

--
I'm not really here - it's just your warped imagination.

OK, since we have been talking about UPL in another thread, did Andy just engage in the unauthorized practice of the law with his answer?

jeffreyhy

Matt,

Good example.

I expect that Andy did engage in UPL in making this post.

In making his post, Andy made no claim that he was an attorney or was otherwise qualified to render the advice he gave. Nor did he did suggest that his advice could be depended on. (I have not read all of Andy's posts, but in the many posts that I have read I have never seen him claim to be an attorney or be in anyway qualified to provide information that can be relied on.) He merely offered his opinion in response to a question, posed to the world at large, asking for opinions.

So we agree that Andy has engaged in UPL. What I suspect that we disagree on whether or not the state should care - should Andy's post be considered UPL.

My answer to this is no, Andy's post should not be considered UPL. Andy has not claimed that his opinion is reliable legal advice, and a reader has no reason to expect that it is. A frequent reader may have developed an opinion as to whether Andy is a reliable source of of advice, that is the reader's judgement to make.

Although the State of Kentucky did go after 1 frequent poster a while back, I suspect that none of the 50 states are as concerned about Andy's activities to the extent that Kentucky Bar Association was concerned about that other poster, who did a lot more than just post. I suspect that the 50 state Attorney's General have more serious lawbreakers to pursue than knowledgabe newsgroup posters who are willing to offer information and opinion if they are asked for it.

Maybe if Bequibar sues me I will change my tune.

Regards, JEff

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Matthew Udall

Matthew Udall

Hi JEff,
I don’t think Andy has to claim his opinion is reliable legal advice (at least I did not see that listed as a condition in the information I shared form the article).

Since this is an issue that could potentially expose other immigrants like Andy to charges of criminal violation (violating their state law about practicing law without a license), it might be wise to run his activity by his Attorney General to make sure he’s in the clear. That way (if he gets the green light from his Attorney General… but of course, there might also be Federal officials interested in this too) he might continue to dispense immigration advice with impunity, and more importantly this might set an example to let other LPR’s know it’s OK for them to also play attorney with their computers.

Folinskyinla

Hi:

In law school, US lawyers are taught the difference between "law" and "equity." The "forms of action" in the old English Common Law were quite rigid -- the "law" would therefore fail to provide "justice." To avoid these "unjust" results, an appeal could be made to the King to give "justice." This duty was later delegated to the King's Chancellor in Equity.

So, in the case of injustice, "equity" will give relief when there is no adequate remedy in "law."

In American practice, there has tended to be a merger of "law" and "equity", but differences remain, such as no jury for "equity."

Well, if equitable relief was available, there would be a way to fix this unfortunate widow's circumstance. All that would be necessary would be to allow approval of the I-130 "nunc pro tunc."

However, in a 1991 BIA case in a slightly different context, it was ruled that the law was to be rigidly applied and that no "equitable" relief would be allowed to get around it.

See:

http://www.usdoj.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/vol20/3153.pdf

I have often found this case to be quite irritating and extremely unjust. BTW, this case is what I have in mind when I post on this NG to NEVER trust what the government tells you. THEY can make mistakes, YOU canNOT.

Andy Platt

I consistently state in every single post that I'm not here and it's your
imagination. Whether you trust that or not is up to you.

Seriously, if someone thinks that posting something that can readily be
found on the BCIS website (namely the requirements for self-petitioning on
the death of a spouse) is practicing law, they have a problem! It means that
any single reference to anything on the BCIS webiste (perhaps even it's
existence) is practicing law.

Andy.

--
I'm not really here - it's just your warped imagination.

"jeffreyhy" <member@british_expats.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Matt,
    > Good example.
    > I expect that Andy did engage in UPL in making this post.
    > In making his post, Andy made no claim that he was an attorney or
    > was otherwise qualified to render the advice he gave. Nor did he
    > did suggest that his advice could be depended on. (I have not read
    > all of Andy's posts, but in the many posts that I have read I have
    > never seen him claim to be an attorney or be in anyway qualified to
    > provide information that can be relied on.) He merely offered his
    > opinion in response to a question, posed to the world at large,
    > asking for opinions.
    > So we agree that Andy has engaged in UPL. What I suspect that we
    > disagree on whether or not the state should care - should Andy's post
    > be considered UPL.
    > My answer to this is no, Andy's post should not be considered UPL. Andy
    > has not claimed that his opinion is reliable legal advice, and a reader
    > has no reason to expect that it is. A frequent reader may have
    > developed an opinion as to whether Andy is a reliable source of of
    > advice, that is the reader's judgement to make.
    > Although the State of Kentucky did go after 1 frequent poster a while
    > back, I suspect that none of the 50 states are as concerned about Andy's
    > activities to the extent that Kentucky Bar Association was concerned
    > about that other poster, who did a lot more than just post. I suspect
    > that the 50 state Attorney's General have more serious lawbreakers to
    > pursue than knowledgabe newsgroup posters who are willing to offer
    > information and opinion if they are asked for it.
    > Maybe if Bequibar sues me I will change my tune.
    > Regards, JEff
    > Originally posted by Matthew Udall
    > Originally posted by Andy Platt
    > > In general for someone who has filed or could file for immigration
    > > benefits
    > > based on marriage to a US citizen, that US citizen must be alive by
    > > the time
    > > the immigration benefit is approved. There is the ability for a
    > > spouse to
    > > self-petition based on a deceased US citizen but,
    > > unfortunately, this is
    > > *only* available after the 2nd anniversary of the marriage (to be
    > > pedantic,
    > > the second anniversary with the spouse surviving). If the person
    > > is already
    > > a permanent resident then they remain so after the death of their
    > > spouse, no
    > > matter how many days the marriage has been in existence.
    > >
    > > (Another travesty of the way the immigration laws apply is that
    > > somebody who
    > > got married and managed to get same-day adjustment of status could
    > > remain in
    > > the US even if their spouse died a day after the wedding but
    > > somebody who's
    > > spouse died one year and 354 days after the wedding but hadn't yet
    > > adjusted
    > > status couldn't).
    > >
    > > Andy.
    > >
    > > --
    > > I'm not really here - it's just your warped imagination.
    > >
    > OK, since we have been talking about UPL in another thread, did
    > Andy just engage in the unauthorized practice of the law with his
    > answer?
    > --
    > Posted via http://britishexpats.com

robclews

Aren't we getting a little bit aloof with this nonsense ?

Rob

crh_usa

The widow had actually a student visa before getting married.
I understand she can revert back to her visa since she had not completed her AOS.