Luan

Hi,
Sorry if this question had already been asked before, but can anybody give
me some advices for my case:

I am 3 months away before my 2-years conditional green card expired.
My wife just filled for divorce 2 months ago.
In California, it takes 6 months for a marriage to be terminated, but by
that time my 2-years conditional green card would have already expired.
I read on the INS website:
"If you and your spouse are unable to apply to remove the conditions on your
residence because of divorce or annulment proceedings, you may not apply for
a waiver of the requirement to file a joint petition, based on the "good
faith" exception. You may not file for the waiver until after your marriage
has been terminated."

What can I do ?
I have all the joint account statemant from the bank, pictures, health
insurance from my employer to prove it was a real marriage.

Thanks a lot.

Folinskyinla

Hi:

If your wife will cooperate, file a JOINT petition and when the dissolution if final, file a new WAIVER petition. Been there, done that.

Otherwise, you might want to consider filing an "abused spouse" petition if you can do so in good faith [even with a stretch of the term "abused"].

Third, the legal status of a CPR beyond the 2 years before the CIS has formally terminated status is actually a gray area. When the dissolution becomes final, then file the I-751. The gap will not hurt you. Even if the ICE-men were to show up on day 1 after the two year period [which is extremely unlikely], almost every Immigration Judge in the country will give you a continuance of the proceedings for events to take place.

Andrew Defaria

Folinskyinla wrote:

    > Otherwise, you might want to consider filing an "abused spouse"
    > petition if you can do so in good faith [even with a stretch of the
    > term "abused"].

Why would you advocate stretching the term "abused" to take advantage of
such a provision (abused spouse)? To me that would be highly unethical.
If there was abuse then file it. If not then don't. This provision
should not be abused (no pun intended) to cover things that are not
really abuse. I hate the way such things further "victimhood" mentality,
assign blame to the blameless and further current stereotypes of men
beating women (even though in this backward case the person, a man,
would need to prove abuse by a woman - which is already hard to do due
to current stereotypes).
--
And when I get real, real bored, I like to drive downtown and get a
great parking spot, then sit in my car and count how many people ask me
if I'm leaving.

Folinskyinla

Hi:

Point well taken. For your information, some of the rules that apply to me as an attorney practicing in California:

[QUOTE]

Rule 3-200. Prohibited Objectives of Employment

A member shall not seek, accept, or continue employment if the member knows or should know that he objective of such employment is: ...(B) to present a claim or defense in litigation that is not warranted under existing law, unless it can be supported by a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reveral of such existing law.

Rule 3-210 -- Advising the Violation of Law

A member shall not advise the violation of any law, rule, or ruling of tribunal unless the member beleives in good faith that such law, rule, or ruling is invalid. A member may take appropriate steps to test the validity of any law, rule, or ruling of a tribunal.

[END QUOTE]

The term "abuse" is a fuzzy one -- it is not clear-cut as you might think. It is quite ethical to make an argument in good faith even if you believe that the chances of success are nil.

By way of example, there is a famous case here in Los Angeles where an attorney made a "nothing to lose" argument regarding "extreme hardship" before the most "liberal" immigration judge then sitting on the bench here in Los Angeles. The attorney took the argument up the Board of Immigration Appeals and lost. That attorney then felt that he could not in good faith pursue the matter at the court of appeals. The alien then hired a second attorney who took the case. That attorney assigned it to his young associate who wrote a powerful brief, but she felt that the argument was not in good faith and refused to sign her own brief! So the boss signed it. By and by, the Court of Appeals stated case not suitable for oral argument, which is usually a bad sign for the appealing party. The Court of Appeals then came out with PUBLISHED precedent case [98% of cases are not formally published] REVERSING the adverse decision.

jeffreyhy

Andrew,

He said "stretch", not over-step. Isn't it a legitimate function of an attorney to probe the boundaries of the law in the search for justice for the client?

If there is more than 1 way to argue a case, wouldn't it be prudent to use the arguement that is the most likely to be successful, or that is most likely to lead to the desired outcome with the least amount of time and effort?

Yes, I'm sure that you do!

Regards, JEff

Andrew Defaria

Folinskyinla wrote:

    > Originally posted by Andrew Defaria
    >> Folinskyinla wrote:
    >>> Otherwise, you might want to consider filing an "abused spouse"
    >>> petition if you can do so in good faith [even with a stretch of
    >> the
    >>> term "abused"].
    >> Why would you advocate stretching the term "abused" to take
    >> advantage of
    >> such a provision (abused spouse)? To me that would be highly
    >> unethical.
    >> If there was abuse then file it. If not then don't. This provision
    >> should not be abused (no pun intended) to cover things that are not
    >> really abuse. I hate the way such things further "victimhood"
    >> mentality,
    >> assign blame to the blameless and further current stereotypes of men
    >> beating women (even though in this backward case the person, a man,
    >> would need to prove abuse by a woman - which is already hard to do due
    >> to current stereotypes).
    >> --
    >> And when I get real, real bored, I like to drive downtown and get a
    >> great parking spot, then sit in my car and count how many
    >> people ask me
    >> if I'm leaving.
    > Hi:
    > Point well taken. For your information, some of the rules that apply to
    > me as an attorney practicing in California:
    >> Rule 3-200. Prohibited Objectives of Employment
    >> A member shall not seek, accept, or continue employment if the
    >> member knows or should know that he objective of such employment is:
    >> ...(B) to present a claim or defense in litigation that is not
    >> warranted under existing law, unless it can be supported by a good
    >> faith argument for an extension, modification, or reveral of such
    >> existing law.
    >> Rule 3-210 -- Advising the Violation of Law
    >> A member shall not advise the violation of any law, rule, or ruling of
    >> tribunal unless the member beleives in good faith that such law, rule,
    >> or ruling is invalid. A member may take appropriate steps to test the
    >> validity of any law, rule, or ruling of a tribunal.
    >> [END QUOTE]
    >> The term "abuse" is a fuzzy one -- it is not clear-cut as you might
    >> think. It is quite ethical to make an argument in good faith even if
    >> you believe that the chances of success are nil.
What I am advocating is to *not* make the term any fuzzier by engaging
in using or abusing the term "abuse" in a lighthearted fashion or merely
to gain advantage or an immigration benefit by abusing such a term.
Doing so weakens the law, can cause unnecessary hardship and violation
of another person's rights (the US citizen mind you!) and in general
does no good for anybody else except the claimant in a very selfish and
untruthful manner (IOW it's unethical).

On the contrary you seem to be advocating playing with the fringes for
the benefit of this immigrant (unless you happen to know a lot more
about the circumstances of this guy than you are letting on to). IOW
claim abuse if it's abuse - otherwise do not.

    >> By way of example, there is a famous case here in Los Angeles where an
    >> attorney made a "nothing to lose" argument regarding "extreme
    >> hardship" before the most "liberal" immigration judge then sitting on
    >> the bench here in Los Angeles. The attorney took the argument up the
    >> Board of Immigration Appeals and lost. That attorney then felt that
    >> he could not in good faith pursue the matter at the court of appeals.
    >> The alien then hired a second attorney who took the case. That
    >> attorney assigned it to his young associate who wrote a powerful
    >> brief, but she felt that the argument was not in good faith and
    >> refused to sign her own brief! So the boss signed it. By and by, the
    >> Court of Appeals stated case not suitable for oral argument, which is
    >> usually a bad sign for the appealing party. The Court of Appeals then
    >> came out with PUBLISHED precedent case [98% of cases are not formally
    >> published] REVERSING the adverse decision.
In any event let's not be advocating abusing the term abuse for anything
other than it was originally intended for. There is enough confusion
regarding such terms already.

--
There cannot be a crisis today; my schedule is already full.

Andrew Defaria

jeffreyhy wrote:

    > He said "stretch", not over-step. Isn't it a legitimate function of an
    > attorney to probe the boundaries of the law in the search for justice
    > for the client?

Not at the expense of ethics, IMHO. What about the accused? Why should
they have to face their name being marred with such an ugly untruth at
their expense so that the client gets the benefit when it's such a
stretch of truth? One could say if the one spouse accidentally hit the
thumb of the other spouse with a hammer when hanging a picture together
that abuse has occurred. That's a stretch isn't it? But is it abuse? No.

    > If there is more than 1 way to argue a case, wouldn't it be prudent to
    > use the arguement that is the most likely to be successful, or that is
    > most likely to lead to the desired outcome with the least amount of
    > time and effort?

Again, not at the cost of ethics. Sure there are many ways to argue
cases and win. However to stoop to (almost) lying, untruths and
deception is not a way that I would welcome - would you? Think about if
they were arguing against you?

    >> --
    >> And when I get real, real bored, I like to drive downtown and get a
    >> great parking spot, then sit in my car and count how manypeople ask
    >> me if I'm leaving.
    > Yes, I'm sure that you do!

As you well know (or perhaps you don't) my tag lines are just a
collection of funny lines that I have collected and one is pulled out at
random when I post. The one above is a Steve Wright joke. Don't know why
you attribute what he said to me...

--
DOS Tip #17: Add DEVICE=FNGRCROS.SYS to CONFIG.SYS