Matthew Udall

Is it nonsense to share information or have a discussion that might help someone from screwing up their future in the U.S?

Andy has been rendering immigration advice for years now. Even if he does so correctly some of the time, it is still arguably the unauthorized practice of the law. If his state has laws making that a crime, than he could be shooting himself in the foot by practicing law without a license. And heaven help him if he ever was in the habit (as were so many in this group) of telling those outside the U.S. to lie their way in past the officers at the POE (that could potentially expose himself to criminal sanctions other than for practicing law without a license).

His posts are there for all to read, archived on the net. Not much Andy can do about that now, but it’s not too late for other visitors or residents in the U.S. who might make the same mistake (Certain USCIS forms specifically ask if someone has committed a crime for which they were not arrested). Judging from the comments whenever the subject of UPL comes up, it is apparently a very common misconception that people can render any legal advice they want without it being UPL. I'm simply saying that may not be the case, and may expose the resident to potential complications in their immigration case.

I doubt many would have a problem with warnings that residents should not commit a wide variety of crimes (in order to not potentially screw up their futures in the U.S.)… they should not steal, drive drunk, practice medicine without a license, fake being a qualified airline pilot, etc. Is UPL different to you just because that one is more “word� oriented, and these words are so easily and eagerly dispensed on this news group by those who might not even be aware that they might be practicing law without a license due to this activity?

Like it or not, some speech is regulated and the utterance of some words can amount to crimes. This discussion just might help others avoid screwing up their futures in the U.S.

And please also keep in mind that I like the news group and I certainly make a distinction between people posting occasional posts about what happened in their case and those who over the course of years have made it a habit (and have earned reputations as advisors as evidenced by others seeking out their advice by name) of dispensing legal advice and recommending courses of action based on immigration law.

Matthew Udall

We all learn information from various sources. There are text books out there about how to achieve immigration benefits, and yes, even the USCIS site publishes some information about that too.

Telling someone to go buy a certain book or to read a certain web page is one thing, however when one renders legal advice to others, that is arguably UPL even though those text books still exist and the USCIS might even still have their web site up and running.

According to your argument, nothing could ever be the practice of law (when someone answers another’s legal questions) if there is an official web site (or perhaps text book) out there containing the same or similar information that the person asking the question “could� have gone to instead to find the answer themselves.

Besides, many of your postings go well past anything found on the USCIS’S site.

warpedbored

Matt
As much as I apprecitate your sharing of knowledge on legal matters involving immigration your recent plethora of postings on the topic of UPL is starting to sound like whining. Surely you have better things to do than complain about someone like Andy sharing the knowledge they have gleanned from personal experience going through the k visa process. I see no reason why our government should make this process so complicated that we should even have to consider getting an attorney. It is supposed to be a method of getting your fiance or wife here from another country not a staple business for lawyers.
Carl

Tracy and Dave

I don't think this would qualify as UPL. Andy is not advising this person on how to go about getting residency or whatnot. From what I can tell, his post is more about why the OP's friend will likely not be helped by the processes USCIS (or whatever we are calling it these days) has set up for similar situations.

He isn't saying, "Here's what USCIS says, but in order to stay in the counrty anyway here's what you should do..."

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Matthew Udall

Matthew Udall

Hi Carl,
This all started the other day in the “lawyer v. no lawyer� thread. I stated the obvious, that when someone comes to this group seeking answers to their immigration questions, they are no longer do-it-yourselfers and instead needed answers to their legal questions… thing is they turned to people playing attorney for their legal answers. That is pretty darn accurate, IMHO (although I suspect some might not like it).

Then someone asked if I could define what dispensing legal advice means. As I didn’t think I could adequately do that, I instead shared some snips from an article written about the subject of UPL and what has been considered as the rendering of legal advice in the past.

Sections of that article show that much of what goes on here in this very group may be construed as the rendering of legal advice.

The subject sort of took off from there and I’ve answered replies about the issue since then (More today than over the past week as I’ve been very busy the past week and did not have time to spend here in the group).

I know that people who come here are already doing their own cases without my help, so my discussing UPL and what effect that may have on an LPR’s future in the U.S. is certainly not going to put any coin in my pocket. And I continue to share general information that might be of interest to the group that might not be available from other sources, despite rude comments made about me or the general distain many display towards attorneys or the law in general.

I believe if I was in charge of immigration to the U.S., I could whip the system into shape (at least on the family side of things as that is my focus) as I have definite ideas on how to make the system work better. Unfortunately the system is not perfect, but even if it was, I’m not sure if trivializing the immigration process is really an adequate way of addressing this problem ("I see no reason why our government should make this process so complicated that we should even have to consider getting an attorney. It is supposed to be a method of getting your fiance or wife here from another country not a staple business for lawyers"). Immigration is controlled by a complex body of law. Until we have open borders, people will have to go through an immigration process so naturally some might find it helpful to have an advocate represent them with the service and Dept. of State.

But I hope the UPL threads are winding down now. I think some good has come from it (if it keeps just one LPR from screwing up his or her future in the U.S. for committing this crime, that its been worth it).

Getting late, time to call it a day and walk home.

crh_usa

From the INS web site.

Any comment on this ?

How can I reinstate a visa petition that was revoked by the death of the original petitioner?
Typically, when the visa petitioner dies, the approved I-130 originally filed by the visa petitioner is automatically revoked. However, following the passage of the Family Sponsor Immigration Act, P.L. 107-150, beneficiaries of these petitions may file for reinstatement so long as they can provide an I-864 Affidavit of Support filed by a “substitute sponsor�.

In order to seek reinstatement of the visa petition, you must submit a statement to the USCIS office where the original visa petition was filed formally requesting reinstatement of the visa petition. The statement should list reasons why your case warrants reinstatement, such as your ties to the United States, or hardship that would occur to you if the request for reinstatement were not granted.

You must also include with your reinstatement request a Form I-864 Affidavit of Support completed by a “substitute sponsor�. A substitute sponsor must be a citizen or national, or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, at least 18 years of age, and resident in the United States. A substitute sponsor must also be related to you as one of the following: spouse, parent, mother-in-law, father-in-law, sibling, child (if at least 18 years of age), son, daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, sister-in-law, brother-in-law, grandparent, or grandchild. This substitute sponsor is filing the I-864 in place of the deceased petitioner, and must meet all of the financial requirements of a sponsor pursuant to INA 213A.

With your reinstatement request you must provide documentary evidence of the death of the original petitioner, plus documentation of the relationship between you and the substitute sponsor. Finally, include a copy of your approved I-130, if available.


What is a “substitute sponsor� and how can I be one?
A substitute sponsor is a sponsor who files an I-864 Affidavit of Support in place of a visa petitioner who has died. In order to be a “substitute sponsor,� you must be related to the intending immigrant in one of the following ways: spouse, parent, mother-in-law, father-in-law, sibling, child (if at least 18 years of age), son, daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, sister-in-law, brother-in-law, grandparent, or grandchild. You must also be a U.S. citizen or national or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, be at least 18 years of age, domiciled in the United States, and meet all of the financial requirements of a sponsor pursuant to INA 213A.

Should the request for reinstatement be approved, and the intending immigrant ultimately obtains permanent residence in the United States, you will assume all of the obligations of a I-864 sponsor.

In order to be a “substitute sponsor,� complete Form I-864 and submit it to the USCIS office where the revoked visa petition (Form I-130) was originally filed, along with a statement from the intending immigrant formally requesting reinstatement (See “How can I reinstate a visa petition that was revoked by the death of the original petitioner?�) and evidence that you are related to the intending immigrant in one of the ways listed above.

Mrt

crh_usa wrote:

    > From the INS web site.

    > Any comment on this ?

    >
    > How can I reinstate a visa petition that was revoked by the death of the
    > original petitioner?

Nothing you posted indicated an I-130 was ever submitted by her husband.
Was it?

What about the part about "ties to the US" and "hardship"
The USCIS definition of hardship doesn't generally rely on financial
hardship.

supernav

Someone already posted a form that you should fill out and fulfill the requirements (as posted) and you should be fine. Why is there still arguing?

If worse case -- file an appeal to the judge. What the argument shoudl be made is:

*IF* the USC was still alive. Considering the circumstances (and this where you provide proof of bona-fide marraige) -- she would've been granted approval and becomea LPR. Since his death was something she couldn't control -- she shouldn't have to suffer the immigration penalties too. And have a lawyer ask the judge to issue an order ("relief" or whatever you call it) to adjust her status in lieu of a living USC.

The judge will look at her situation, and decide whether she would've been a LPR eventually -- and if so -- why should she have to suffer by being removed due to his death. Which would be unjust and unduly harsh on her, having already to deal with the loss of a loved one.

I just kinda doubt the BIA or even IS would go to lengths to deny her claim.

-= nav =-

crh_usa

Yes, a I130 was filed after the wedding.

SanBernardino

Hi, I am not an expert and I have never heard of the subsitute sponsor before you mentioned it. You also asked whether she could return to F-1 status. It is possible she had status both as an F-1 and an adjustee. If she has maintained her student status, then she might be able to continue on her F-1. She would need to have met the conditions for student status such as on-going, Full-time enrollment, etc. There may be other complications, but it may be a possibility.

Mrt

supernav wrote:

    >
    > I just kinda doubt the BIA or even IS would go to lengths to deny
    > her claim.

It has happened in the past. That is why the need to show ties to the
US. In this case, she didn't come to the US to marry him. She was
already here on a student visa, so it's not like she gave up her home
and job in her home country to get married.

SanBernardino

I don't get this. Are you stating this as a reason she should be sent home? The way I see it, she was here on a student visa and it will be a shame and unfair if she were not at the very least allowed to resume that status. If she was legal and in-status at the time of filing for adjustment, she may no longer have that status if it expired or she used EAD/AP while she was adjusting. Under normal process, she would likely be denied a new F-1 because she has shown immigrant intent. So, while she is grieving her husband, she should also be tossed out of the life she has LEGALLY established here? If this were a common means of immigration or source of abuse, I could see the point of rejecting, but why not have some sympathy?! Would you say the same thing if she had a child with him? Her child could stay in their home, but she couldn't stay or or work legally to pay for it? How horrible! It's not as though she set herself up illegally in this situation.

P.S.
I guess this concerns me because when I met my husband four years ago, he was on an F-1. He is now an adjustee. I can't imagine him having to deal with losing his job, our home, his friends, and a life he has grown to love in addition to dealing with my death (forbid!). He has been here for most of his adult life -- 7 years including grad school and marriage. Perhaps he would prefer to go home if he lost me (forbid!) and perhaps not. I think it only fair he would have a choice in the matter after rearranging his entire life accordingly.

Mrt

SanBernardino wrote:

    > Originally posted by Mrt
    >
    >
    >>In this case, she didn't come to the US to marry him. She was
    >
    >
    >>already here on a student visa, so it's not like she gave up her home
    >>and job in her home country to get married.
    >
    >
    > I don't get this. Are you stating this as a reason she should be sent
    > home?

I am saying it is not necesarily a given that she will get green card
status. If it was a "given", there would be no need to show her ties to
the US.

SanBernardino

Oh sorry. In that case, I think it's a good point. I wouldn't go into this thinking she is entitled to anything. She has a lot to prove if there are even any grounds for her to stay.

supernav

>In this case, she didn't come to the US to marry him. She was
>already here on a student visa, so it's not like she gave up her >home and job in her home country to get married.

Actually the student visa folks are the ones that have a MAJOR incentive to marry for a gc. cuz once they get used to the american life -- and once they graduate -- their status is "done". They're told to leave. It's right around here that most start "looking for love" and get married. If you worked at the IS office, you'd see how many F1's conveniently walk in a mere 30 days after their visa expired -- USC spouse in hand. Makes you go "hmmm"!

I think she needs to prove, like everyone else -- that she has a bona-fide marraige. And the judge should look at it and say, that if her husband was still ALIVE -- would she have adjusted. And if so -- she should stay. I think those cases were when the marraige itself was kinda "suspicous" to begin with. Yes even sham marraiges have encountered deaths of USC spouses. That doesn't mean the other spouse should automatically get a GC pronot. Otherwise, they'd be 5-10 USC's murdered a year when things get bad. Yes, a lot of sick people out there who may do just that.

-= nav =-