Folinskyinla

Hi:

Several comments.

I see what your lawyer was trying to accomplish.

Please note that there are often different strategies that may be pursued towards an immigration goal and the choice may be a judgment call. Lets put it this way, the LAWYERS have chat boards to figure this out. And it is not all uncommon to see three of the "best" lawyers to suggest three different strategies.

There are times where an attorney makes a true boneheaded mistake. However, there are many more times where the only "mistake" is there only in hindsight -- it didn't work.

Also, it is quite common for government practices and policies to change overnight without advance notice. The whole employment based visa fiasco from last summer is a prime example.

On the "ties" to the UK, it should be noted that the the US/UK treaty authorizing E-2 classification is unique -- it is open only to UK citizens who are "inhabitants" of the UK or Gibraltar.

Yes, the VWP does allow a person who has been denied a visa to enter, but it must be DISCLOSED on the rear of the I-94W -- check the right box with a "yes." And then you must be prepared to explain why -- you may want to stand in front of a mirror to 15 minutes a day for a week before rehearsing a short explanation.

I don't do E-2's. I do consult with another attorney who is expert in the area if I think an E-2 might be appropriate for a client and then make a referral if necessary. Pursuant to Rule 9 of the site rules, the following is an E-MAIL ADDRESS and NOT a web-url. It is NOT a referral to myself but to another lawyer. Please feel free to contact [email protected].

I want to make perfectly clear that the foregoing paragraph is intended to comply with the interpretation of Site Rule 9.


Good luck.

Sue

I've responded to one of your posts about this last month. If you are posting a link to another site in order to help another member there is no problem with that. Rule 9 says: You are clearly not doing that so there is no problem.

Folinskyinla

Thank you. I was not sure if the referral to "own website" was an example or meant as definition. [I need not go into rules of statutory construction -- this problem happens all the time in law].

BTW, many commercial websites have informational articles -- outside of the law, an example would be some of the DIY home-repair articles from Home Depot or Lowe's. I note that you advised Mr. Ortega of Rule 9 -- I think he was within the "spirit" of rule 9 in that he was giving a list of Immigration Lawyers in London -- although it included himself and was from his site, it DID give information valuable to members.

Sue

It was because he posted a link to his own site which was removed and that was why he was directed to the site rules. The link to the other site was left.

Folinskyinla

Hi:

I understand that perfectly. I have read the rule, and it appears a tad vague [probably inadvertently]. You and the other powers-that-be might want to revisit the rule a little bit. A lot of immigration law firm websites have excellent descriptions of the system which I think that would be of benefit to posters. For example, if my good friend Alice Hunter was to join British Expats, it strikes me as being within the spirit of the purpose of the rule for her to post a link to http://www.yardum-hunter.com/Main/VisaOptions.asp . In contrast, a post to her "look at me" page would NOT be appropriate. http://www.yardum-hunter.com/Main/AboutUs.asp .

I have known Alice for years and I know that she is personally concerned about the dealings of those without lawyers in their dealings with the Government.

Paul

It seems you didn't understand the rule correctly. [probably inadvertently] The rule is perfectly clear to any reasonable person. You can not post links to your own site, nor to sites in which you have a commercial interest. If your 'good friend Alice Hunter' posted the links in your example (and owned the site) then they would be removed.

Folinskyinla

Hi:

Thank you for the clarification. As you know, I was confused by the past practice of the moderators to eliminate reference to ANY commercial site, whether or not it belonged to the poster. A literal reading of the first sentence of Rule 9 would allow for this if the second sentence is considered to be an example of what is prohibited rather than part of the definition.

Again, thanks for the clarification. It is appreciated.