Go Back  British Expats > Living & Moving Abroad > USA > The Trailer Park
Reload this Page >

OT: Current Comments to Old 30/60 Day Thread

OT: Current Comments to Old 30/60 Day Thread

Old Mar 10th 2006, 9:09 pm
  #1  
Concierge
Thread Starter
 
Rete's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 43,139
Rete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond repute
Default OT: Current Comments to Old 30/60 Day Thread

http://britishexpats.com/forum/showt...t=100004&pp=15
Rete is offline  
Old Mar 10th 2006, 11:12 pm
  #2  
Account Closed
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,266
Folinskyinla is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Re: OT: Current Comments to Old 30/60 Day Thread

Hi:

Mea culpa -- any suggestions on the "proper" way to do this would be appreciated.
Folinskyinla is offline  
Old Mar 10th 2006, 11:32 pm
  #3  
MODERATOR
 
Noorah101's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2003
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Posts: 57,897
Noorah101 has a reputation beyond reputeNoorah101 has a reputation beyond reputeNoorah101 has a reputation beyond reputeNoorah101 has a reputation beyond reputeNoorah101 has a reputation beyond reputeNoorah101 has a reputation beyond reputeNoorah101 has a reputation beyond reputeNoorah101 has a reputation beyond reputeNoorah101 has a reputation beyond reputeNoorah101 has a reputation beyond reputeNoorah101 has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: OT: Current Comments to Old 30/60 Day Thread

Originally Posted by Folinskyinla
Hi:

Mea culpa -- any suggestions on the "proper" way to do this would be appreciated.
You're doing it now.

Rene
Noorah101 is offline  
Old Mar 11th 2006, 1:36 am
  #4  
J Moreno
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: OT: Current Comments to Old 30/60 Day Thread

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
 
Old Mar 11th 2006, 3:06 am
  #5  
Banned
 
Matthew Udall's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 3,825
Matthew Udall has a reputation beyond reputeMatthew Udall has a reputation beyond reputeMatthew Udall has a reputation beyond reputeMatthew Udall has a reputation beyond reputeMatthew Udall has a reputation beyond reputeMatthew Udall has a reputation beyond reputeMatthew Udall has a reputation beyond reputeMatthew Udall has a reputation beyond reputeMatthew Udall has a reputation beyond reputeMatthew Udall has a reputation beyond reputeMatthew Udall has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: OT: Current Comments to Old 30/60 Day Thread

Originally Posted by J Moreno
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.

Originally Posted by J Moreno
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
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.
Matthew Udall is offline  
Old Mar 11th 2006, 7:00 pm
  #6  
J Moreno
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: OT: Current Comments to Old 30/60 Day Thread

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

Matthew Udall <[email protected]_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 Consulates 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 ones mind at all. Thats 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 youve 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, its 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 Id start looking for any additional adverse factor so I
    > could hang them out to dry.
    >
    > Officers are funny that way some dont appreciate being lied too.

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

--
J. Moreno
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.