|
Ten Foot Pole!
Recently referred to on this website.
What is the 'ten foot pole'? Would you touch it? With your's? Or someone else's? Answers please????? CB |
Re: Ten Foot Pole!
Originally posted by CaliforniaBride Recently referred to on this website. What is the 'ten foot pole'? Would you touch it? With your's? Or someone else's? Answers please????? CB Admission as a tourist then getting married and applying for adjustment of status based on that marriage. A scenario just LOADED with issues. |
Re: Ten Foot Pole!
My understanding is that this term is usually used to act as a big warning to anyone tempted to bypass the visa petition waiting time by abusing the Visa Waiver Program.
The VWP is intended for tourists only. If you don't have a valid visa and you enter the US intending to get married and remain in the country then you're clearly *not* a tourist and you're taking a very big risk. Lying to the officers at the Point Of Entry is about as bad as it gets, and you run the risk of immediate deportation and triggering a lengthy (or even lifelong) ban. Even if you do manage to get into the country on the VWP and subsequently marry you will have to face Adjustment of Status two years later. If you cannot successfully prove that you entered the US without the intention to marry then once again you will risk deportation and ban. Not good, is it? So risky in fact that people are advised to not touch it with so much as a Ten Foot Pole! If, however, you were joking, then No, I would not eat green eggs and ham, I would not eat them, Sam I am. :) |
Re: Ten Foot Pole!
Originally posted by mrpink My understanding is that this term is usually used to act as a big warning to anyone tempted to bypass the visa petition waiting time by abusing the Visa Waiver Program. The VWP is intended for tourists only. If you don't have a valid visa and you enter the US intending to get married and remain in the country then you're clearly *not* a tourist and you're taking a very big risk. Lying to the officers at the Point Of Entry is about as bad as it gets, and you run the risk of immediate deportation and triggering a lengthy (or even lifelong) ban. Even if you do manage to get into the country on the VWP and subsequently marry you will have to face Adjustment of Status two years later. If you cannot successfully prove that you entered the US without the intention to marry then once again you will risk deportation and ban. Not good, is it? So risky in fact that people are advised to not touch it with so much as a Ten Foot Pole! If, however, you were joking, then No, I would not eat green eggs and ham, I would not eat them, Sam I am. :) Made me smile. Thanks for the explanation too. It's a lot clearer now. Not in a box, or with a fox, in a house or with a mouse, not here, there or anywhere, if it's not truthfull then just don't dare! CB |
Re: Ten Foot Pole!
Just out of curiousity, but does anyone have any idea of what percentage of people actually do get denied AOS and/or deported/banned when adjusting status from VWP?? Might change the minds of people considering this option if they had an idea what the success/failure rate was.
Alie |
Re: Ten Foot Pole!
Originally posted by mrpink Not good, is it? So risky in fact that people are advised to not touch it with so much as a Ten Foot Pole! NG participants are/were threatened by legal repercussions for discussing the act, "intent" and what is or is not typically or always forgiven by the US government when an AOS is based on marriage to a USC. The safest course of action in a public discussion is to state that it is illegal to enter on the VWP/tourist entry with the preconceived intent to adjust status after marrying a USC. That doesn't do much for people in the US who need information, but we're Keeping Our Borders Safe(tm). |
Re: Ten Foot Pole!
Originally posted by Alie&Steve Just out of curiousity, but does anyone have any idea of what percentage of people actually do get denied AOS and/or deported/banned when adjusting status from VWP?? Might change the minds of people considering this option if they had an idea what the success/failure rate was. Alie |
Re: Ten Foot Pole!
Originally posted by meauxna Actually, the use of that phrase originated here as the topic itself, not the act. NG participants are/were threatened by legal repercussions for discussing the act, "intent" and what is or is not typically or always forgiven by the US government when an AOS is based on marriage to a USC. The safest course of action in a public discussion is to state that it is illegal to enter on the VWP/tourist entry with the preconceived intent to adjust status after marrying a USC. That doesn't do much for people in the US who need information, but we're Keeping Our Borders Safe(tm). |
Re: Ten Foot Pole!
It's a scare tactic. But if you read sites and newgroups -- plenty of people use VWP to get married and have adjusted no problem. They just claim they were vacationing and got married on a whim. The IS can't really say squat. I think you have to do it *after* 30 days of being here, otherwise they can use some internal memo that automatically denies it if it's within 30 days.
-= nav =- |
Re: Ten Foot Pole!
Originally posted by Hebapotamus42 So this means that the USCIS does in fact read this newsgroup. :scared: That's not what it meant at all. |
Re: Ten Foot Pole!
If the BCIS is so intent on people NOT entering on a visitor's VISA and then getting married, they need to speed up the waiting time for a Fiance VISA. It is very hard to take your loved one back to the airport without any idea of how long it will be until you see them again or even if they will be allowed back in the next time they visit. I can see how anyone would be tempted to take the option. Why is it those of us who want to follow the immigration laws are made to pay with long separations and uncertainty?!? I am so discouraged by the stories I have read on the internet about the backlog and obstacles that are thrown in the way. I have so far to go.
~Mystie |
Re: Ten Foot Pole!
I believe the 3 paragraphs below which I wrote several months back
accurately addresses the issue, though I don't think it is INS anymore at the POE, but USCIS or BICE, or (doesn't anyone know?) I do find it curious that attorneys who claim to be bothered by the posting of incorrect information never seem inclined to question such statements (for example in this thread) such as: "Even if you do manage to get into the country on the VWP and subsequently marry you will have to face Adjustment of Status two years later. If you cannot successfully prove that you entered the US without the intention to marry then once again you will risk deportation and ban." It appears some incorrect postings bother them more than other incorrect postings. Funny how the incorrect postings that can help them drum up business don't seem to bother them quite as much as the ones that could cost them business. Paulgani ***************** It is illegal to enter the U.S. as a tourist (via. B1/B2, Visa Waiver, or Canadian Waiver), with a preconceived intent to immigrate by marrying and filing for AOS. It is NOT illegal to enter the U.S. as a tourist if your intent is to depart the U.S. after a temporary visit, but you change your mind and decide to marry and file AOS AFTER your arrival in the U.S. An INS official will attempt to determine your intent at the Port of Entry. Should you be determined to have "immigrant intent", you *will* be denied entry to the U.S., and you *could* be subjected to Expedited Removal, which entails a 5 year ban to reentry. Note, there is NO appeal of the POE official's decision. Should you successfully enter the U.S., you will be permitted to AOS, *regardless of your original intent* at the POE. Case law binds the INS to grant AOS if having "preconceived intent to immigrate" at entry is the only negative equity in your application. However, if it is determined that you made "material misrepresentations" at the POE in order to achieve an entry, you will be denied AOS. ***************** "meauxna" <member1851@british_expats.com> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > NG participants are/were threatened by legal repercussions for > discussing the act, "intent" and what is or is not typically or always > forgiven by the US government when an AOS is based on marriage to a USC. > The safest course of action in a public discussion is to state that it > is illegal to enter on the VWP/tourist entry with the preconceived > intent to adjust status after marrying a USC. > That doesn't do much for people in the US who need information, but > we're Keeping Our Borders Safe(tm). > -- > Posted via http://britishexpats.com |
Re: Ten Foot Pole!
supernav wrote:
> It's a scare tactic. But if you read sites and newgroups -- plenty of > people use VWP to get married and have adjusted no problem. They just > claim they were vacationing and got married on a whim. The IS can't > really say squat. I think you have to do it *after* 30 days of being > here, otherwise they can use some internal memo that automatically > denies it if it's within 30 days. They can say a lot more than "squat". There are other factors to consider if you get married while here on VWP and it doesn't matter if you wait 30 days. |
Re: Ten Foot Pole!
Paul,
Thank you for correcting my omission, I should indeed have specified the pre-conceived intent to marry and *stay* as being ill advised. I believe I did mention that in my second paragraph, but that particular detail was absent in the subsequent comment. My intention here was not so much to advise on the detail of immigration law as to enlighten the original poster to the relevance of the term Ten Foot Pole in the context of this forum. Mr Pink |
Re: Ten Foot Pole!
Originally posted by Paul Gani I believe the 3 paragraphs below which I wrote several months back accurately addresses the issue, though I don't think it is INS anymore at the POE, but USCIS or BICE, or (doesn't anyone know?) I do find it curious that attorneys who claim to be bothered by the posting of incorrect information never seem inclined to question such statements (for example in this thread) such as: "Even if you do manage to get into the country on the VWP and subsequently marry you will have to face Adjustment of Status two years later. If you cannot successfully prove that you entered the US without the intention to marry then once again you will risk deportation and ban." It appears some incorrect postings bother them more than other incorrect postings. Funny how the incorrect postings that can help them drum up business don't seem to bother them quite as much as the ones that could cost them business. Paulgani ***************** It is illegal to enter the U.S. as a tourist (via. B1/B2, Visa Waiver, or Canadian Waiver), with a preconceived intent to immigrate by marrying and filing for AOS. It is NOT illegal to enter the U.S. as a tourist if your intent is to depart the U.S. after a temporary visit, but you change your mind and decide to marry and file AOS AFTER your arrival in the U.S. An INS official will attempt to determine your intent at the Port of Entry. Should you be determined to have "immigrant intent", you *will* be denied entry to the U.S., and you *could* be subjected to Expedited Removal, which entails a 5 year ban to reentry. Note, there is NO appeal of the POE official's decision. Should you successfully enter the U.S., you will be permitted to AOS, *regardless of your original intent* at the POE. Case law binds the INS to grant AOS if having "preconceived intent to immigrate" at entry is the only negative equity in your application. However, if it is determined that you made "material misrepresentations" at the POE in order to achieve an entry, you will be denied AOS. ***************** "meauxna" <member1851@british_expats.com> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > NG participants are/were threatened by legal repercussions for > discussing the act, "intent" and what is or is not typically or always > forgiven by the US government when an AOS is based on marriage to a USC. > The safest course of action in a public discussion is to state that it > is illegal to enter on the VWP/tourist entry with the preconceived > intent to adjust status after marrying a USC. > That doesn't do much for people in the US who need information, but > we're Keeping Our Borders Safe(tm). > -- > Posted via http://britishexpats.com At the POE, it is no longer INS and it is not ICE nor is it CIS -- it is CBP. I will admit the TO's are quite a bit screwed up at the moment. When I was in quartermaster school back in the pre-computer army, I learned all about TOE's and PLL's and such things -- and it is a total FUBAR in any case. Please note that the attorneys here are not obligated to respond to ANYTHING. On the "ten foot pole" -- MY concern is misuse of the information to violate the law. That is MY personal ten-foot pole -- I don't want to encourage people on how to PLAN this. On DHS being compelled to follow case authority -- that is true. It is so true, that appellate authorities find it necessary to repeat it over and over again -- now why do they find it necessary -- because the DHS often does NOT follow "binding" authority. Of course, the courts only get to reiterate this principle for those forturnate enough with a lawyer who has the keys to the courthouse, so to speak. No such keys exist at a POE anymore. Also, on "binding authority" -- the Supremes in Roe v. Wade made a ruling on abortion rights THIRTY YEARS ago. Yet the issue keeps coming up the Supremes over and over again. "Binding authority" ain't all that binding at times. I participate in this board to let the DIY community know the pitfalls and risks. However, I like to protect my own rear end while doing this. |
Re: Ten Foot Pole!
Heb,
How do you figure that? Regards, JEff Originally posted by Hebapotamus42 So this means that the USCIS does in fact read this newsgroup. :scared: |
Re: Ten Foot Pole!
"mrpink" <member4021@british_expats.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]... > Thank you for correcting my omission, I should indeed have specified the > pre-conceived intent to marry and *stay* as being ill advised. I > believe I did mention that in my second paragraph, but that particular > detail was absent in the subsequent comment. You still don't get it. Adding "and stay" to: "...you will have to face Adjustment of Status... If you cannot successfully prove that you entered the US without the intention to marry then once again you will risk deportation and ban." does not change the fact that your statement is incorrect. Read: http://k1.exit.com/touristletter.html which refers to: http://k1.exit.com/cavazos.pdf You should take note that in the original case, the alien married one day after entry as a tourist, freely admitted to entering with the intent to marry and immigrate, but the BIA issued a binding precendent decision that AOS should be granted anyway. Thus, your contention that you must prove at AOS that you "entered the US without the intention to (immigrate)" is incorrect, and has been incorrect for over 20 years. You did accurately represent the risks at entry in your second paragraph, however, upon a successful, if illegal, entry, there is no issue of having to prove your original intent. Paulgani |
Re: Ten Foot Pole!
"Folinskyinla" <member4043@british_expats.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]... > On DHS being compelled to follow case authority -- that is true. It is > so true, that appellate authorities find it necessary to repeat it over > and over again -- now why do they find it necessary -- because the DHS > often does NOT follow "binding" authority. Of course, the courts only > get to reiterate this principle for those forturnate enough with a > lawyer who has the keys to the courthouse, so to speak. No such keys > exist at a POE anymore. > Also, on "binding authority" -- the Supremes in Roe v. Wade made a > ruling on abortion rights THIRTY YEARS ago. Yet the issue keeps coming > up the Supremes over and over again. "Binding authority" ain't all that > binding at times. I don't see your point. Even if they made intent issues statutory law, like they did with overstays and unauthorized employment, Congress could still choose to change the law at any time. Case law or statutory law, if it is the current law, it's worth mentioning and repeating. Heck, I see you espousing case law from the 70's, and you even enjoy giving new (AUSA's?) a tough time in Immigration Court when they appear to be clueless about case law predating their birth! Paulgani |
Re: Ten Foot Pole!
Originally posted by jeffreyhy Heb, How do you figure that? Regards, JEff That's the conclusion I came to from Meauxna's post. It might not be what she meant, but being paranoid it's what I understood. Originally posted by meauxna Actually, the use of that phrase originated here as the topic itself, not the act. NG participants are/were threatened by legal repercussions for discussing the act, "intent" and what is or is not typically or always forgiven by the US government when an AOS is based on marriage to a USC. The safest course of action in a public discussion is to state that it is illegal to enter on the VWP/tourist entry with the preconceived intent to adjust status after marrying a USC. That doesn't do much for people in the US who need information, but we're Keeping Our Borders Safe(tm). |
Re: Ten Foot Pole!
Originally posted by Alie&Steve Just out of curiousity, but does anyone have any idea of what percentage of people actually do get denied AOS and/or deported/banned when adjusting status from VWP?? Might change the minds of people considering this option if they had an idea what the success/failure rate was. Alie |
Re: Ten Foot Pole!
Further prrof that BCIS reads this NG!!
Re: Ten Foot Pole! Group: alt.visa.us.marriage-based Date: Tue, Dec 2, 2003, 11:05pm (EST+5) From: member1851@british_expats.com (meauxna) Originally posted by mrpink Not good, is it? So risky in fact that people are advised to not touch it with so much as a Ten Foot Pole! Actually, the use of that phrase originated here as the topic itself, not the act. NG participants are/were threatened by legal repercussions for discussing the act, "intent" and what is or is not typically or always forgiven by the US government when an AOS is based on marriage to a USC. The safest course of action in a public discussion is to state that it is illegal to enter on the VWP/tourist entry with the preconceived intent to adjust status after marrying a USC. That doesn't do much for people in the US who need information, but we're Keeping Our Borders Safe(tm). -- Posted via http://britishexpats.com |
Re: Ten Foot Pole!
In these anti-immigrant times, I would not put it past them........
BCIS if you are reading, APPROVE Herb and Michelle!! Re: Ten Foot Pole! Group: alt.visa.us.marriage-based Date: Tue, Dec 2, 2003, 11:55pm (EST+5) From: member1851@british_expats.com (meauxna) Originally posted by Hebapotamus42 So this means that the USCIS does in fact read this newsgroup. scared: hiya Heba, That's not what it meant at all. -- Posted via http://britishexpats.com |
Re: Ten Foot Pole!
Originally posted by Paul Gani "Folinskyinla" <member4043@british_expats.com> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On DHS being compelled to follow case authority -- that is true. It is > so true, that appellate authorities find it necessary to repeat it over > and over again -- now why do they find it necessary -- because the DHS > often does NOT follow "binding" authority. Of course, the courts only > get to reiterate this principle for those forturnate enough with a > lawyer who has the keys to the courthouse, so to speak. No such keys > exist at a POE anymore. > Also, on "binding authority" -- the Supremes in Roe v. Wade made a > ruling on abortion rights THIRTY YEARS ago. Yet the issue keeps coming > up the Supremes over and over again. "Binding authority" ain't all that > binding at times. I don't see your point. Even if they made intent issues statutory law, like they did with overstays and unauthorized employment, Congress could still choose to change the law at any time. Case law or statutory law, if it is the current law, it's worth mentioning and repeating. Heck, I see you espousing case law from the 70's, and you even enjoy giving new (AUSA's?) a tough time in Immigration Court when they appear to be clueless about case law predating their birth! Paulgani I have no doubt believing that you "don't see my point." You have a habit of being blind -- and often in a very authoritative way which I find dangerous because it can mislead those who don't know better. I don't mind debating and arguing with other lawyers -- it can be fun. However, most people here want to get through the gauntlet with minimal trouble and risk. They don't want to be the point of a legal intellectual exercise. And my participation in this NG is aimed at facilitating that simple desire and seeking to exorcise misinformation that frustrates that goal. The very simple point that you seem to miss is that "preconcieved intent" is ILLEGAL. You attempt entry on many non-immigrant visas with pre-conceived intent to remain and the crap CAN and often DOES hit the fan quite hard. REPEAT, PCI is ILLEGAL and gets one turned away. And there is no case law that says otherwise. And my statements here are perfectly consistent with the case law of which you have made clear you are aware of. My good friend Matt Udall and I have a friendly disagrement over "unauthorized practice of law." I'm not going there -- but I DO get steamed about IMCOMPETENT practice of law. When I speak here, I happen to know what the hell I'm talking about. You don't and insist on demonstrating it -- but in a fashion that has every appearance of knowledable discourse. |
Re: Ten Foot Pole!
>REPEAT, PCI is ILLEGAL and gets one turned away. And there is
>no case law that says otherwise. There is. Someone just posted it above: --quote-- http://k1.exit.com/cavazos.pdf You should take note that in the original case, the alien married one day after entry as a tourist, freely admitted to entering with the intent to marry and immigrate, but the BIA issued a binding precendent decision that AOS should be granted anyway. --end quote-- voila! -= nav =- |
Re: Ten Foot Pole!
maryanne kehoe wrote:
> Further prrof that BCIS reads this NG!! I fail to see how this is proof at all. > Re: Ten Foot Pole! > Group: alt.visa.us.marriage-based Date: Tue, Dec 2, 2003, 11:05pm > (EST+5) From: member1851@british_expats.com (meauxna) > Originally posted by mrpink Not good, is it? So risky in fact that > people are advised to not touch it with so much as a Ten Foot Pole! > Actually, the use of that phrase originated here as the topic itself, > not the act. > NG participants are/were threatened by legal repercussions for > discussing the act, "intent" and what is or is not typically or always > forgiven by the US government when an AOS is based on marriage to a USC. > The safest course of action in a public discussion is to state that it > is illegal to enter on the VWP/tourist entry with the preconceived > intent to adjust status after marrying a USC. > That doesn't do much for people in the US who need information, but > we're Keeping Our Borders Safe(tm). -- Go ahead and take risks....just be sure that everything will turn out OK. |
Re: Ten Foot Pole!
"Folinskyinla" <member4043@british_expats.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]... > The very simple point that you seem to miss is that "preconcieved > intent" is ILLEGAL. You attempt entry on many non-immigrant visas with > pre-conceived intent to remain and the crap CAN and often DOES hit the > fan quite hard. > REPEAT, PCI is ILLEGAL and gets one turned away. And there is no case > law that says otherwise. You seem to miss the point. I know it is illegal. It has not escaped me. Duh! What was the very first sentence in my 3 paragraph description?: "It is illegal to enter the U.S. as a tourist (via. B1/B2, Visa Waiver, or Canadian Waiver), with a preconceived intent to immigrate..." I find it *quite* frustrating that you lawyers think it is perfectly acceptable to mislead people who have *already* entered as a tourist (with or without intent) that there is any more than a nominal risk in staying and filing AOS. In any "risk/benefit analysis", once the entry has been done, except in the case of misrep at POE cases, the R/B says to stay and AOS. Hell, even in misrep of POE cases, one doesn't unbreak the law by departing and going K route. If you misrepped about being employed, you're still lifetime banned if discovered. Departing may reduce the chances of DHS/DOS finding out since they are not as likely to open that line of questioning. However, if they do find out, I'd rather be waivering to try to stay in, rather than waivering to try to get in. > And my statements here are perfectly consistent with the case law of > which you have made clear you are aware of. Yes, and I can ALSO make statements which are perfectly consistent with case law, and yet mislead. > My good friend Matt Udall and I have a friendly disagrement over > "unauthorized practice of law." I don't see a particular person's case being discussed here - only theory. > I'm not going there -- but I DO get > steamed about IMCOMPETENT practice of law. I don't see a particular person's case being discussed here - only theory. > When I speak here, I happen > to know what the hell I'm talking about. You don't and insist on > demonstrating it -- but in a fashion that has every appearance of > knowledable discourse. If I make an incorrect factual statement, feel free to correct me. Otherwise, I don't see how my otherwise "consistent with the law" statements about AOS with intent are anymore misleading that your and Udall's statements which imply serious risks whenever someone already in the U.S. inquires about staying and AOSing. Would I annoy you if I started spouting about the Cuban Adjustment Act? Hey Cubans, come hither, come now! Make it onto dry land, and the law says you can stay! I have a feeling you'd rather talk about the dangers of leaky boats. Paulgani |
Re: Ten Foot Pole!
Heb,
False conclusion, I believe. Meauxna is referring to charges of unlicensed practice of law, charges coming from the legal community - not from the CIS. Regards, JEff Originally posted by Hebapotamus42 Jeff, That's the conclusion I came to from Meauxna's post. It might not be what she meant, but being paranoid it's what I understood. |
Re: Ten Foot Pole!
Originally posted by Paul Gani except in the case of misrep at POE cases Elaine |
Re: Ten Foot Pole!
Originally posted by supernav >REPEAT, PCI is ILLEGAL and gets one turned away. And there is >no case law that says otherwise. There is. Someone just posted it above: --quote-- http://k1.exit.com/cavazos.pdf You should take note that in the original case, the alien married one day after entry as a tourist, freely admitted to entering with the intent to marry and immigrate, but the BIA issued a binding precendent decision that AOS should be granted anyway. --end quote-- voila! -= nav =- Hi: If you are going to say Cavazos is NOT good law and then say there is a case that contradicts Cavazos, then TELL me aoubt it! In Cavazos, the context was applying for adjustment of status after that pre-concived intent -- and the Board clearly described it as a negative discretionary factor -- by implication, becuase it WAS ILLEGAL. Why don't you "shepardize" Cavazos and you will find Ibrahim. You say there is a case which contradicts what I said -- cite it and I'll discuss it. Cavazos and Ibrahim are still good law and Gani knows it. And those case CONFIRM what I said. Either you did not read Cavazos or, more likely, you were not able to plug it into context of the entire immigration system. |
Re: Ten Foot Pole!
Originally posted by Paul Gani I find it *quite* frustrating that you lawyers think it is perfectly acceptable to mislead people who have *already* entered as a tourist (with or without intent) that there is any more than a nominal risk in staying and filing AOS. In any "risk/benefit analysis", once the entry has been done, except in the case of misrep at POE cases, the R/B says to stay and AOS. Hell, even in misrep of POE cases, one doesn't unbreak the law by departing and going K route. If you misrepped about being employed, you're still lifetime banned if discovered. Departing may reduce the chances of DHS/DOS finding out since they are not as likely to open that line of questioning. However, if they do find out, I'd rather be waivering to try to stay in, rather than waivering to try to get in. If I make an incorrect factual statement, feel free to correct me. Otherwise, I don't see how my otherwise "consistent with the law" statements about AOS with intent are anymore misleading that your and Udall's statements which imply serious risks whenever someone already in the U.S. inquires about staying and AOSing. Would I annoy you if I started spouting about the Cuban Adjustment Act? Hey Cubans, come hither, come now! Make it onto dry land, and the law says you can stay! I have a feeling you'd rather talk about the dangers of leaky boats. Paulgani You are again blind, miss the point and also mistate what Matt and I have been saying all along. There IS a distinction between a person inside the United States and person outside. And we don't "mislead" -- as lawyers, our "ten-foot pole" is that we are not allowed to advice on how to break the law -- and the question of "what if I just come here on tourist visa and then marry" takes a lawyer into that minefield of recommending a violation of the law to ultimatley obtain a benefit. Your referecne to the Cuban Adjustment Act is very well taken. You're damn straight I would scream bloody murder if you discussed the benefits of the Cuban Adjustment Act for people in the US on how to bring their relatives IN Cuba here. I don't think you would mention the litigation that arose from Mariel, the at-sea inderdiction, criminal conspiracy laws, forfeiture laws, etc etc. I am not the one misleading anybody -- however after all the "discussions" you have had with lawyers on the NG's over the years, you are the one who is misleading -- you have been stripped of the innocence of your lack of legal training. |
Re: Ten Foot Pole!
Originally posted by HunterGreen But isn't this what all the fuss is about? The alien has to prove they didn't misrepresent themselves at the POE, and that is where the risks are being taken, the brown stuff can hit the fan, and whatnot? (Note the question marks). Elaine The law is kind of weird on this. And I've had my share of battles with the government on the issue. The burden IS on the alien as you say. However, a fraud finding must be supported by evidence which will be subjected to close scrutiny. I have found that DHS officers have trouble understanding this subtle point. |
Re: Ten Foot Pole!
Folinskyinla wrote:
> And we don't "mislead" -- as lawyers, our "ten-foot pole" is that we > are not allowed to advice on how to break the law -- and the question > of "what if I just come here on tourist visa and then marry" takes a > lawyer into that minefield of recommending a violation of the law to > ultimatley obtain a benefit. What "minefield"?!? The client asks "what if I just come here on tourist visa and then marry" and the lawyer response "ah, that would be illegal" - end of "minefield". -- Double your drive space - delete Windows! |
Re: Ten Foot Pole!
"Folinskyinla" <member4043@british_expats.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]... > You are again blind, miss the point and also mistate what Matt and I > have been saying all along. Ever get the feeling that we're talking on different frequencies? You seem to be making multiple accusations of my beliefs and understandings which are simply not true. I know about Cavazos and Ibrahim. Indeed I introduced them to this newsgroup. Of course I know it is valid law - I'm the one who wrote the letter to the Baltimore District Director and received his letter confirming its current validity. I certainly know that the mere act of entering with pre-conceived intent is illegal. Besides being explictly mentioned in my original post in this thread (the very *first* sentence), it is quite explictly stated in my two essays. I'm quite aware of entry risks issues - again, I even wrote an essay on it. I'm certainly quite aware that you can't advise people to enter with pre-conceived intent just because Cavazos says they can AOS afterwards. This is of course your "ten foot pole" dilemma. What you DON'T seem to get is that I also DO NOT promote or advise this. It is NOT promoted in my post in this thread, nor is it promoted in my essays. And you have NEVER seen a post of mine telling someone who is outside the U.S. that they should enter as a tourist and AOS. And OF COURSE I know that you can advise someone who is ALREADY in the U.S. to stay and AOS. I KNOW it is quite different than advising someone outside the U.S. You don't have "ten foot pole" issues if they've ALREADY broken the law. Finally, of course I know I have no legal training. Besides repeating it constantly, it's right on top my essays, and I have NEVER represented myself otherwise. I know your pet peeve. You don't anyone in this newsgroup advising people to enter as tourists with pre-conceived intent. I don't make posts advising this, so WHAT'S YOUR PROBLEM? Let me tell you MY pet peeve. It is when someone is IN the U.S., inquires about AOS, and gets a response like "you have to prove to the USCIS that you didn't plan to marry and stay or else they will ban and deport you". I know, and you know, that intent is not an issue. The issue, regardless of intent, is what statements were made at the POE and/or the visa app. It's MY pet peeve that you don't seem interested in correcting that information, or worse, you seem to be complicit in propagating that misinformation. For example, I bring up Cavazos and Ibrahim, and you start making statements suggesting that they could be overturned at any time. Yes, your statements are factually correct. But you don't consider that misleading? If I make factually correct statements about Cavazos and Ibrahim, but completely neglect to mention anything about entry risks and the illegality of preconceived intent, do you think I'm being misleading? I think you are deluded into believing that tourist AOS is a fringe subject, best to not be discussed in a public forum because it is so complex. Bullshit! It is one of the prime subjects of this newsgroup, and will come up again and again regardless of whether you like it or not. The INS Statistical Yearbook bears out that year after year, more people AOS on non-immigrant visas than on K or IVs. It's not a subject that will ever go away, and I personally think that MORE and BETTER information on this subject is good for this newsgroup. There's probably a Cuban immigration forum somewhere out there. I have little doubt that the Cuban Adjustment Act is frequently discussed, including case law relating to dry land/wet feet. I don't think there is anything wrong with that, and there is likewise nothing wrong with discussions about Cavazos and Ibrahim. I wouldn't choose to tell people where to find a leaky boat to Florida, nor do I advise people to enter with intent... BUT... I would be infuriated if someone tried to quell my right to have discussions of the Cuban Adjustment Act. I feel the same way about Cavazos and Ibrahim. Paulgani |
Re: Ten Foot Pole!
Originally posted by Paulgani Ever get the feeling that we're talking on different frequencies? That is precisely what I said. We agree on something. Different analogy, but were are in agreement. |
Re: Ten Foot Pole!
Originally posted by Paul Gani I don't see how my otherwise "consistent with the law" statements about AOS with intent are anymore misleading that your and Udall's statements which imply serious risks whenever someone already in the U.S. inquires about staying and AOSing. I do see newbies (and even some more long time members) however quite often getting this point wrong. Perhaps you expect me to correct every incorrect posting that is made on the group by every member. I’ll make you a deal and will try my best to do so (but of course, I’m being sarcastic as I don’t have time for that) if you will correct every poster that spouts off with your bogus 30/60 day rule nonsense. And of course, I’m going to have to temper my postings with the fact that I’m not about to go around instructing others currently outside the U.S. to commit an illegal act at the POE. You on the other hand are free to do that all you want. |
Re: Ten Foot Pole!
Originally posted by Paulgani I would be infuriated if someone tried to quell my right to have discussions of the Cuban Adjustment Act. I feel the same way about Cavazos and Ibrahim. Paulgani I’m not sure why you would go out of your way to hurt a stranger like that, but apparently you seem to consider this to be your right to do so. Happy hunting, and I hope you don’t hurt too many people. |
Re: Ten Foot Pole!
Originally posted by Andrew Defaria Folinskyinla wrote: > And we don't "mislead" -- as lawyers, our "ten-foot pole" is that we > are not allowed to advice on how to break the law -- and the question > of "what if I just come here on tourist visa and then marry" takes a > lawyer into that minefield of recommending a violation of the law to > ultimatley obtain a benefit. What "minefield"?!? The client asks "what if I just come here on tourist visa and then marry" and the lawyer response "ah, that would be illegal" - end of "minefield". -- Double your drive space - delete Windows! I wish it were that simple. Take a gander at http://www.findlaw.com/cacases/index.html The interesting point on that page is that the sample name given as an example is the mother of cases on professional liability with knowledge of liklihood of future illegal conduct with obliations of silence. Google that name. Although that case did not involve the obligations of lawyers, it is applicable to us. Its a scary area for professionals [and religous priests] who have strong duties of confidentiality. And by no ways a simple one. |
Re: Ten Foot Pole!
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1"> <title></title> </head> <body> Folinskyinla wrote:<br> <blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">Ori ginally posted by Andrew Defaria <br> <br> <blockquote type="cite">Folinskyinla wrote:<br> </blockquote> <blockquote type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite">And we don't "mislead" -- as lawyers, our "ten-foot pole" is that we are not allowed to advice on how to break the law -- and the question of "what if I just come here on tourist visa and then marry" takes a lawyer into that minefield of recommending a violation of the law to ultimatley obtain a benefit.<!----> </blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote type="cite">What "minefield"?!? The client asks "what if I just come here on tourist visa and then marry" and the lawyer response "ah, that would be illegal" - end of "minefield".</blockquote> I wish it were that simple. Take a gander at<br> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.findlaw.com/cacases/index.html">http://www.findlaw.com/cacases/index.html</a><br> </blockquote> Could you be a bit more specific? All I see is a web site that allows me to search for things. What do I search for?<br> <blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">The interesting point on that page is that the sample name given as an example is the mother of cases on professional liability with knowledge of liklihood of future illegal conduct with obliations of silence.<br> </blockquote> Sorry, don't see that at all at that page.<br> <blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">Goo gle that name.<br> </blockquote> Which name?<br> <blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">Alt hough that case did not involve the obligations of lawyers, it is applicable to us.<br> <br> Its a scary area for professionals [and religous priests] who have strong duties of confidentiality. And by no ways a simple one.<br> </blockquote> Lacking any proper pointers I'm still confused. Let me ask this: What exactly would happen if the question of "what if I just come here on tourist visa and then marry" is asked and the lawyer simply responds "That would be illegal"?<br> <br> </body> </html> |
Re: Ten Foot Pole!
Originally posted by Paul Gani You still don't get it. Adding "and stay" to: "...you will have to face Adjustment of Status... If you cannot successfully prove that you entered the US without the intention to marry then once again you will risk deportation and ban." does not change the fact that your statement is incorrect. (blah blah blah) Paulgani Now, if you were a lawyer qualified to talk with authority on such matters I would bow to your professional experience, and step back to allow you to enlighten us all with your years of training and expertise. Unfortunately it seems that you do not have any legal training, which means that your comments and opinions are no more valid than my own. The professional immigration lawyers who honour us with their contributions on this forum maintain a courtesy and respect for each other, and being gentlemen they extend this courtesy and respect even to the numerous amateur hobbyists who pontificate with such conviction. In maintaining their professional integrity they would never resort to calling any contributor to this forum an arrogant prick. I am pleased to say that I am bound by no such conventions. I have no doubt you will ensure that you have the last word on this subject and any other in which you involve yourself, so I am stepping out of this conversation . Have a nice day! Mr Pink |
Re: Ten Foot Pole!
"Matthew Udall" <member3997@british_expats.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]... > And of course, I'm going to have to temper my postings with the fact > that I'm not about to go around instructing others currently outside the > U.S. to commit an illegal act at the POE. You on the other hand are free > to do that all you want. It seems I can't talk about Cavazos and Ibrahim without you believing that I'm trying to teach someone how to enter with intent. Just as I can't seem to believe that you can post about entry risks without trying to scare people and drum up K business for yourself. It's quite a shame that these subjects can't be discussed in open, balanced manner, with a tilt towards an accurate education of the subject, not with any goal of attempting to steer people in one direction or the other. Really a shame. Paulgani |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 2:36 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.