Reconsideration of petition
Oct 18th 2003, 1:50 pm
#16
Just Joined
Joined: Jul 2003
Location: KS
Posts: 23
Re: Reconsideration of petition
Thanks for your reply. There was no finding on the false claim as we took voluntary departure before we had a merit hearing on that issue. I was just caught off guard when I saw the charge sheet in the file because I had seen the INS Counsel pull it from his file and hand it over to our attorney.
After my initial shock wore off it dawned on me that the FOIA material came from EOIR so it was still in the Judge's file. The attorney that was with us at court is no longer with the firm, but I'm contacting them on Monday to see what their thoughts are.
Actually our K3 paperwork was just sent off two days ago. We had kept hoping that the security clearance would come through "any day now" so we kept trying to wait it out. But once my Senator's office was told it will probably be a two year wait we opted to file. Of course our attorney thinks it will probably end up in a lengthy security check too, but we'll never know unless we try.
Thanks again for your thoughts!
T.
After my initial shock wore off it dawned on me that the FOIA material came from EOIR so it was still in the Judge's file. The attorney that was with us at court is no longer with the firm, but I'm contacting them on Monday to see what their thoughts are.
Actually our K3 paperwork was just sent off two days ago. We had kept hoping that the security clearance would come through "any day now" so we kept trying to wait it out. But once my Senator's office was told it will probably be a two year wait we opted to file. Of course our attorney thinks it will probably end up in a lengthy security check too, but we'll never know unless we try.
Thanks again for your thoughts!
T.
Oct 19th 2003, 10:35 am
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Reconsideration of petition
T Atta <member@british_expats.com> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Thanks for your reply. There was no finding on the false claim as we
> took voluntary departure before we had a merit hearing on that issue. I
> was just caught off guard when I saw the charge sheet in the file
> because I had seen the INS Counsel pull it from his file and hand it
> over to our attorney.
>
Be aware, a finding of inadmissibility does NOT have to be adjudicated
by an administrative body (e.g., if a visa applicant confesses to a
ConOff that he was going to America to get on the dole, the ConOff
could make a finding of public charge, regardless if no court hearing
on the merits determined that).
The vast majority of findings of inadmissibility are made either at
Consulates, borders, BCIS offices, etc., not at some BIA/EOIR hearing.
There are simply not the resources (nor legal requirements) that a
"judge" determine such matters.
If the ConOff (or a BCIS official down the road) were to ever see a
document that alleged your spouse made false claim to citizenship they
would surely follow-up on it (i.e., if the claim is illegal voting,
they might inquire with the voting board if "John Doe" ever acquired a
voter registration card and to see if the application theretofor
signed by your spouse made a claim to US citizenship).
In other words, it's best that that document (and its underlying
facts) never reach any aforementioned officials (just don't commit
fraud in the process).
>
> After my initial shock wore off it dawned on me that the FOIA material
> came from EOIR so it was still in the Judge's file. The attorney that
> was with us at court is no longer with the firm, but I'm contacting them
> on Monday to see what their thoughts are.
>
It was probably a file copy.
>
> Actually our K3 paperwork was just sent off two days ago. We had kept
> hoping that the security clearance would come through "any day now" so
> we kept trying to wait it out. But once my Senator's office was told it
> will probably be a two year wait we opted to file. Of course our
> attorney thinks it will probably end up in a lengthy security check too,
> but we'll never know unless we try.
>
For $110 worth a go!
>
> Thanks again for your thoughts!
>
> T.
My pleasure.
> Thanks for your reply. There was no finding on the false claim as we
> took voluntary departure before we had a merit hearing on that issue. I
> was just caught off guard when I saw the charge sheet in the file
> because I had seen the INS Counsel pull it from his file and hand it
> over to our attorney.
>
Be aware, a finding of inadmissibility does NOT have to be adjudicated
by an administrative body (e.g., if a visa applicant confesses to a
ConOff that he was going to America to get on the dole, the ConOff
could make a finding of public charge, regardless if no court hearing
on the merits determined that).
The vast majority of findings of inadmissibility are made either at
Consulates, borders, BCIS offices, etc., not at some BIA/EOIR hearing.
There are simply not the resources (nor legal requirements) that a
"judge" determine such matters.
If the ConOff (or a BCIS official down the road) were to ever see a
document that alleged your spouse made false claim to citizenship they
would surely follow-up on it (i.e., if the claim is illegal voting,
they might inquire with the voting board if "John Doe" ever acquired a
voter registration card and to see if the application theretofor
signed by your spouse made a claim to US citizenship).
In other words, it's best that that document (and its underlying
facts) never reach any aforementioned officials (just don't commit
fraud in the process).
>
> After my initial shock wore off it dawned on me that the FOIA material
> came from EOIR so it was still in the Judge's file. The attorney that
> was with us at court is no longer with the firm, but I'm contacting them
> on Monday to see what their thoughts are.
>
It was probably a file copy.
>
> Actually our K3 paperwork was just sent off two days ago. We had kept
> hoping that the security clearance would come through "any day now" so
> we kept trying to wait it out. But once my Senator's office was told it
> will probably be a two year wait we opted to file. Of course our
> attorney thinks it will probably end up in a lengthy security check too,
> but we'll never know unless we try.
>
For $110 worth a go!
>
> Thanks again for your thoughts!
>
> T.
My pleasure.
Oct 20th 2003, 9:43 am
#18
Forum Regular
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 56
Re: Reconsideration of petition
Reading folinskyinla and francisc's discussion, can the latter sue the US Gov't for mishandling the case? I mean they are toying with people's lives - what differs them from terrorists? Using an official position to separate families is a form of terrorising the affected individuals!
Oct 21st 2003, 9:41 am
#19
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Reconsideration of petition
fcdeliu <member@british_expats.com> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Is [FTA] that "forgiving the alien?"
Probably more like ƒµç£!
> Is [FTA] that "forgiving the alien?"
Probably more like ƒµç£!
Oct 23rd 2003, 10:21 am
#20
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Reconsideration of petition
The immigration bureaucrats (whose paid function is to destroy
people's lives - a real noble profession) will always ****
nonimmigrants (whilst forgetting their potato-famished roots in
Dublin).
The Irish, Italian, and Chinese were discriminated against, then the
Jews, then the Latinos and now the Eastern Europeans, Asians and Arabs
- it's a cycle of ignorance.
DYK - there have been specific: statutes that discriminated against
Chinese (rights to naturalisation), Supreme Court decisions against,
Japanese (intermittent camps), administration policy against Jews
(repelling asylum seekers during WWII), etc.
America has ALWAYS been an intolerant nation, nothing new!
people's lives - a real noble profession) will always ****
nonimmigrants (whilst forgetting their potato-famished roots in
Dublin).
The Irish, Italian, and Chinese were discriminated against, then the
Jews, then the Latinos and now the Eastern Europeans, Asians and Arabs
- it's a cycle of ignorance.
DYK - there have been specific: statutes that discriminated against
Chinese (rights to naturalisation), Supreme Court decisions against,
Japanese (intermittent camps), administration policy against Jews
(repelling asylum seekers during WWII), etc.
America has ALWAYS been an intolerant nation, nothing new!
Oct 24th 2003, 10:42 am
#21
Forum Regular
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 56
Re: Stuart's response?
(folinskyinla - fall-in-sky-in-la, I believe), I believe it is your turn, I am curious as to your reply.
> There are some glitches apparent from your fact pattern. When was the
> final order of deportation entered? Was there a grant of voluntary
> departure? Was there an application for asylum during that time? There
> are a few things that don't hang right here.
>
The in absentia final order was 9/96 (prior to April 1, 1997 else the
5-year, no-waiver bar for non-attendance would have kicked in) and an
asylum application preceded it. Maybe I'm blind to it, but I don't
see how any of these facts could be an issue, if so let me know, I can
at least see the ConOff's argument.
We tried an AOS later (I was not an attorney then, had no clue of the
draconian INA, we would not have even bothered, it was too late to
reopen the deportation hearings and we had no good cause to do so).
>
> My brother is an attorney who has been at it three years longer than I
> have -- but not in immigration -- he often mutters in response to my
> "war stories" "I don't believe it!" or lately "The Ashcroft rule".
> Personally I adapt an old Army phrase of "FTA" where the "A" stands for
> "Alien" rather than "Army."
>
I did crime work in the past, my clients were not viewed too favorably
by the man either, but I think 'aliens' get just as a harsh a look
(not sure which term of art is worse, an 'alien' or an 'accused,
convict,' etc.).
>
> But I digress.
>
>
>
> In dealing with the consulate, it pays to remember that, unlike when you
> are in the United States, neither you nor she have any "rights."
>
Yeah, but I would have hoped that have to act with a modicum of common
sense, they wouldn't even allow me (as both counsel with a properly
filed G-28 [I believe] and spouse) be present at her interview.
>
> BTW, no offense meant, but attorneys are often the "clients from Hell".
> At least they understand the phrase "no gurantees, shit happens."
It's sad, but on two occassions in Australia I corrected DIMIA
officials about their handling of our visa (once they said I had to
take a health check when I didn't and once they wanted to limit my
wife's work rights when they couldn't). You know what they did? They
admitted their error, rectified it, and thanked me for the tip, I
swear. They didn't think I was an arrogant, know-it-all, they just
used their good sense (and good faith) - and I was an 'alien' to them,
but it was not in their nature to be pricks, I guess.
Too bad Australia changed their points test else I would be an Aussie
who would have used 8 USC § 1481 long ago; I cannot even fathom ever
working at the bar and swearing to uphold a Constitution that I
frankly have come to loathe.
Anyway, we are on year 7 of my wife's attempts to secure a green card
(with another 8-years of a bar to look forward to, that'll make any
client one from hell!)
Cheers mate,
Frank [/QUOTE]
> There are some glitches apparent from your fact pattern. When was the
> final order of deportation entered? Was there a grant of voluntary
> departure? Was there an application for asylum during that time? There
> are a few things that don't hang right here.
>
The in absentia final order was 9/96 (prior to April 1, 1997 else the
5-year, no-waiver bar for non-attendance would have kicked in) and an
asylum application preceded it. Maybe I'm blind to it, but I don't
see how any of these facts could be an issue, if so let me know, I can
at least see the ConOff's argument.
We tried an AOS later (I was not an attorney then, had no clue of the
draconian INA, we would not have even bothered, it was too late to
reopen the deportation hearings and we had no good cause to do so).
>
> My brother is an attorney who has been at it three years longer than I
> have -- but not in immigration -- he often mutters in response to my
> "war stories" "I don't believe it!" or lately "The Ashcroft rule".
> Personally I adapt an old Army phrase of "FTA" where the "A" stands for
> "Alien" rather than "Army."
>
I did crime work in the past, my clients were not viewed too favorably
by the man either, but I think 'aliens' get just as a harsh a look
(not sure which term of art is worse, an 'alien' or an 'accused,
convict,' etc.).
>
> But I digress.
>
>
>
> In dealing with the consulate, it pays to remember that, unlike when you
> are in the United States, neither you nor she have any "rights."
>
Yeah, but I would have hoped that have to act with a modicum of common
sense, they wouldn't even allow me (as both counsel with a properly
filed G-28 [I believe] and spouse) be present at her interview.
>
> BTW, no offense meant, but attorneys are often the "clients from Hell".
> At least they understand the phrase "no gurantees, shit happens."
It's sad, but on two occassions in Australia I corrected DIMIA
officials about their handling of our visa (once they said I had to
take a health check when I didn't and once they wanted to limit my
wife's work rights when they couldn't). You know what they did? They
admitted their error, rectified it, and thanked me for the tip, I
swear. They didn't think I was an arrogant, know-it-all, they just
used their good sense (and good faith) - and I was an 'alien' to them,
but it was not in their nature to be pricks, I guess.
Too bad Australia changed their points test else I would be an Aussie
who would have used 8 USC § 1481 long ago; I cannot even fathom ever
working at the bar and swearing to uphold a Constitution that I
frankly have come to loathe.
Anyway, we are on year 7 of my wife's attempts to secure a green card
(with another 8-years of a bar to look forward to, that'll make any
client one from hell!)
Cheers mate,
Frank [/QUOTE]
