Rete

http://britishexpats.com/forum/showt...t=100004&pp=15

Folinskyinla

Hi:

Mea culpa -- any suggestions on the "proper" way to do this would be appreciated.

Noorah101

You're doing it now.

Rene

J Moreno

Rete <[email protected]> wrote:

    > http://britishexpats.com/forum/showt...t=100004&pp=15

Having read it I think that both F and Paulgani miss the boat a bit
(although F comes close to it when he says that it's not a planning
tool).

The 30/60 rule comes in after you're hosed. It doesn't really matter
what it means legally or procedurally, because if you're invoking it
things have gone wrong, you've been denied, and it should be the job of
your lawyer to be arguing that it means you should be approved. If
you're hosed and your attorney hasn't heard of it, then sure go ahead
and mention it to him (or if you think that shows a lack of
knowledge/experience look for a new one), but it's nothing a normal
petitioner should ever have to deal with.

Unless someone has already been denied, about the only time it should
be brought up is if someone was saying they were planning to come here
without an appropriate visa (K1 or dual or immigration visa) and
getting married and not adjusting status: then it'd be good to mention
that if they changed their mind after getting married, and decided to
stay, how their circumstances fit into the 30/60 day rule might effect
their case (on the other hand, exactly HOW it might do so might vary
from officer to officer).

--
J. Moreno

Matthew Udall

While at a national AILA conference a few years ago, I recall one of the experts on the panel discussing the rule. She mentioned how its not an INS (back then, it was called the INS) rule and instead a rule the Consul applies in certain situations. She said that while its not an INS rule and not binding on them, if appropriate an attorney could always mention to the INS officer the Consulate’s rule and see if the officer find it to be persuasive.

Two points: If someone is currently “outside” the U.S. and they plan to come in with non-immigrant intent and then change their mind, that is not changing one’s mind at all. That’s fooling themselves in to believing they are not committing an illegal act at the POE. So if you mention this to them while they are outside the U.S. (and mention the 30/60 rule) then you’ve just tainted them and they have lost their innocence (I just noticed you said “Not” adjusting status… I missed that at first but I still think that would taint them nonetheless).

Two, it’s not a rule that the CIS officer has to apply at all. These officers are not stupid, and if I were an officer and I was interviewing someone that entered with a tourist visa and then married on the 61st day (or soon thereafter), to me that would be a huge red flag that this person knew exactly what they were doing all along and I’d start looking for any additional “adverse factor” so I could hang them out to dry.

Officers are funny that way… some don’t appreciate being lied too.

J Moreno

[Matthew's text shifted around a bit to make more readable]

Matthew Udall <member3997@british_expats.com> wrote:

    > > Rete <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > > > http://britishexpats.com/forum/showt...t=100004&pp=15
    > >
    > > Having read it I think that both F and Paulgani miss the boat a bit
    > > (although F comes close to it when he says that it's not a planning
    > > tool).
    > >
    > > The 30/60 rule comes in after you're hosed. It doesn't really matter
    > > what it means legally or procedurally, because if you're invoking it
    > > things have gone wrong, you've been denied, and it should be the job
    > > of your lawyer to be arguing that it means you should be approved.
    > > If you're hosed and your attorney hasn't heard of it, then sure go
    > > ahead and mention it to him (or if you think that shows a lack of
    > > knowledge/experience look for a new one), but it's nothing a normal
    > > petitioner should ever have to deal with.

    > While at a national AILA conference a few years ago, I recall one of the
    > experts on the panel discussing the rule. She mentioned how its not an
    > INS (back then, it was called the INS) rule and instead a rule the
    > Consul applies in certain situations. She said that while its not an INS
    > rule and not binding on them, if appropriate an attorney could always
    > mention to the INS officer the Consulate�s rule and see if the officer
    > find it to be persuasive.

Exactly -- it's a branch to try to grab when you're going under. It's
not a get out of jail free card (or in immigration terms, get a green
card), it's just one more argument that you can make when things are
going against you (and not necessarily a very convincing argument at
that).

If you're planning things, you should plan them so that things don't go
against you.

    > > Unless someone has already been denied, about the only time it should
    > > be brought up is if someone was saying they were planning to come here
    > > without an appropriate visa (K1 or dual or immigration visa) and
    > > getting married and not adjusting status: then it'd be good to mention
    > > that if they changed their mind after getting married, and decided to
    > > stay, how their circumstances fit into the 30/60 day rule might effect
    > > their case
    >
    > Two points: If someone is currently �outside� the U.S. and they plan
    > to come in with non-immigrant intent and then change their mind, that is
    > not changing one�s mind at all. That�s fooling themselves in to
    > believing they are not committing an illegal act at the POE. So if you
    > mention this to them while they are outside the U.S. (and mention the
    > 30/60 rule) then you�ve just tainted them and they have lost their
    > innocence (I just noticed you said �Not� adjusting status� I
    > missed that at first but I still think that would taint them
    > nonetheless).

Possibly. But I (and I think most people, almost certainly everyone
that comes to this group asking questions before running into trouble)
like to plan in order to make things turn out the best, not just hope
that they do.

That this risks you're not being believed because you know what you're
doing when dealing with the unexpected (a spur of the moment
wedding/plea/baby), is an acceptable consequence.

    > > (on the other hand, exactly HOW it might do so might vary from
    > > officer to officer).
    > Two, it�s not a rule that the CIS officer has to apply at all.

What crime does a CIS officer commit if he doesn't apply a rule?

What crime does a CIS officer commit if he approves an alien for PR
when the alien doesn't meet the requirements (say doesn't have a i-864,
or doesn't meet the income limits).

What crime does a CIS officer commit if he denies an alien PR status
when the alien has met the requirements?

(Assuming no fraud/bribery/blackmail is going on)?

    > These officers are not stupid, and if I were an officer and I was
    > interviewing someone that entered with a tourist visa and then
    > married on the 61st day (or soon thereafter), to me that would be a
    > huge red flag that this person knew exactly what they were doing all
    > along and I�d start looking for any additional �adverse factor� so I
    > could hang them out to dry.
    >
    > Officers are funny that way� some don�t appreciate being lied too.

That just adds another couple of variables to the calculations you
make, it doesn't fundamentally change things.

--
J. Moreno