Ian, that is not my website.

Odd though, how the main site is under construction, but yet you have knowledge of documents in folders buried within. So it's either your site, or you know whose it is. Either way, you seem to want to flog it.

Ian

The grammar and spelling in U.S. immigration law in general (and the Immigration and Nationality Act, in particular) are far not the same as in the textbook of English grammar and dictionaries. INA has its own rules of spelling and composition of expressions and sentences. If you follow the rules of English, all INA grammar/spelling is "atrocious". And the same is true for any branch of law.

Ian, your logic is incorrect. The link was posted on ILW.com forum.

Dear Ka:

Earlier, I was impressed by one of your statements, talking about how there are statutes, regulations, directives and memos, policy statements, and individual officers' judgements. And each layer of these pronouncements further complicates preparation of cases. Someone with such insight should -- I would hope -- be aware of how complex this system is.

Therefore, I confess to being both puzzled and alarmed by your postings on this thread. You write as someone with apparent experience with US immigration law, and yet you promulgate a Step 1, Step 2, Step 3 rubric that vastly over-simplifies the process. In one of your posts, you even talk about the predictability of approvals. We're talking about complex national policy here, and not baking a cake.

The idea that an L or any other petition "needs extensive docs, but it is simple if you have docs and know how to represent it" leads people to think that it is just about gathering ingredients.

As an immigration attorney, I can certainly acknowledge that some cases are easier than others. However, it is even more true that I have had more than my share of janitorial law practice, cleaning up the mess made by someone else. It is true that people engage an attorney to be able to achieve a certain level of predictability for their desired outcome, but any attorney worth his or her salt will NEVER GO ANY WHERE NEAR a guarantee of an immigration petition or application FOR THE VERY REASON you observed earlier: that even the individual immigration adjudicator can arbitrarily turn your case on its head.

--J

N.B., I will refrain from comment about your even-more puzzling statement that "grammar and spelling in U.S. immigration law in general (and the Immigration and Nationality Act, in particular) are far not the same [sic] as in the textbook of English grammar and dictionaries."

The process includes steps. Steps include sub-steps. The listing of steps is not simplification. It is the essential initial step.

Predictability (evaluation of chances) of outcome of the case has nothing to do with any guarantee of approval. Evaluation of chances (probability of approval) is an essential step to start the case. The outcome of some cases and categories of cases can be predicted better than others. It depends not only on specific petitioner/beneficiary situation but also on the INA eligibility requirements. For example, to evaluate whether or not the person meets the standard of extraordinary ability is more difficult than to evaluate whether or not the person meets the standard of intracompany transferee. And in most cases we can be almost sure whether or not a person is eligible under a family based category. You as an attorney are not allowed to give any guarantees, but you are obligated to inform your client about his chances. You are not allowed to take the case only because the client is willing to pay.

However, this does not lead you to think this way. I think that most of us understand that everything is simple if you know how.

I have no doubt about this. More and more people realize today what is the qualification of most of attorneys.

Attorney is not allowed to give any quarantee. But this does not mean that "any attorney worth his or her salt will NEVER GO ANY WHERE NEAR a guarantee". Many attorneys go to get a client.

It is not completely in hands of a single adjudicator. There is AAO, EOIR, Congression Interest, other instruments.

I am not surprised. I know the language used in attorneys' motions and briefs.

Thank you for your disquisition.
Res ipsa loquitur.

J - Well, there you go mate, no wonder you're poor as a church mouse, if you're spending half your time working as a janitor. More law, less mopping, that's my advice.

I think you may have a point, Charteuse!

Although, actually, I often charge DOUBLE my regular price to do janitorial work, because in addition to cleaning up the mess from the prior attempt -- and having to live with some of the unfortunate admissions made in the earlier paperwork, I still have to submit and advocate for the corrected application.

Sounds reasonable to me. Whenever I've inherited any kind of a job, from work to DIY, I've always spent at least as much time fixing the previous person's botches, cut corners and outright mistakes as I have accomplishing what I set out to do.

I've noticed that this rule holds true in both the UK and the USA and feel confident extrapolating that it's universal.

ka2009 et al, I've edited out that link; my brief research indicated a very much less than savory site that it is attached to. PM me with any questions/problems with that.

Immigration forms should only be downloaded from USCIS.gov for the most up to date version, fee, and submission information. Since this information changes suddenly and without warning, applicants are best off getting their forms there.
There is NO charge for any immigration forms.

I'll remind ka2009 & everyone else to please link your sources and let us know if you want to promote your own site. We have our ways to do so politely.