Folinskyinla

Section 216 is what creates the "conditional" marital status and gives the procedure for removing the condition. Section 216(a)(1) states that the condition shall apply to "alien spouses" as defined in subsection (g)(1) as of the time of obtaining the status as an LPR alien.

Section 216(g)(1) defines the term "alien spouse" to immediate relative and K-1 spouses [and also "FB-2" -- but that is moot due to backlogs] and also requires a two year period between date of marriage and grant of LPR status.

Apparently, the OP is saying that CIS is saying that they "follow" section 216, but they have been advised by their lawyers that they are within "their rights" to ignore the section, please go away.

The pure chutzpah of that contact representative is something else. There is a lot of case law that says the Government is REQUIRED to follow the statute. However, the Government often has contempt for the law.

Hypertweeky

Thanks for the explanation Mr.F

Can they really ignore section 216?. If the USCIS is a goverment office.. aren't they supposed to follow the statute??.
What a mess!!, Poor Margaret

JohnCindy

Thanks Mr. "F" for the explaination. Just when you think you have this K-1 visa thing almost figured out........... another number comes into the equation!

Our prayers are with you Margaret. Take care and let us know what happens for we who are a way down the list of things to do yet.

Cindy & John

Folinskyinla

Hi:

One advantage of a lawyer -- **I** can go "you are wrong, can I see your supervisor?" and on up the chain of command.

Andrew DeFaria

Folinskyinla wrote:

    > Hi:
    > One advantage of a lawyer -- **I** can go "you are wrong, can I see
    > your supervisor?" and on up the chain of command.

Oh anybody can do that!

Rete

That is what the DAO in New York City told Jim as well when she stamped his passport three days after our second wedding anniversary. "K-1 recipients cannot get unconditional status regardless of how long they wait."

I knew it was bull but we did not pursue it because Matt Udall had found out for us that our adjustment actually was approved a month before our anniversary.

Rete

Folinskyinla

Hi Andy:

If anybody could do that, they wouldn't be asking questions on this NG. I happen to know the contents of the Act and can say -- oh, here is a copy of the Act -- and then show them they are wrong. My friend frank winston in San Francisco shoves a copy of the Act at them and then says "show me". I guess I'm a nicer guy.

idawmn

It was the Supervisor who I spoke to after the information officer, who would be next in line?

Andrew DeFaria

Folinskyinla wrote:

    >> Oh anybody can do that!
    > Hi Andy:
    > If anybody could do that, they wouldn't be asking questions on this NG.

Are you somehow denying that non lawyer type people cannot say "You are
wrong, can I see your supervisor?". Cause I could have sworn that I, a
lowly peon of a non-lawyer, caught myself saying just that on occasion! :-)

    > I happen to know the contents of the Act and can say -- oh, here is a
    > copy of the Act -- and then show them they are wrong.

Or are you saying that they (not necessarily anybody nor everybody but
they) cannot say that merely because they have not "done their homework"
or that they are incapible of doing there homework? Last I checked the
INA is publicly accessible. Understand it all and call on it with
authority? Perhaps not. But gain access to it and study the areas
relevent to your situation - not at all undoable.

    > My friend frank winston in San Francisco shoves a copy of the Act at
    > them and then says "show me". I guess I'm a nicer guy.

Whether you shove it in their face or call it out as scripture or simply
say "It's in there - look it up" anybody can utter the words that you
uttered above.

Now being successful and persuasive based on your statue as a lawyer,
that's debatable. But it does not mean that a non lawyer cannot know the
law, question the decision and bring to their attention the words in the
law to support their own argument.

--
The trouble with doing something right the first time is that nobody
appreciates how difficult it was.

Michael D. Young

[email protected] (Margaret) wrote in message news:<[email protected]. com>...
    > Here is an update to my case on trying to get the 10 year card.
    >
    > I arrived 15 minutes after the BCIS office opened. No lineups and was
    > able to speak to an immigration officer within 5 minutes.
    >
    > I tried to plead my case with information I had copied off of here
    > that people had posted quoting information on the Immigration site.
    > The information officer then had her Supervisor come and talk to me.
    >
    > She said that apprently K1s follow under Section 216.
    >
    > She said there has been conflict with regards to the law amongst
    > offices in these cases where approval for permanent residency came
    > after a 2nd wedding anniversary. At one time there had been talk of
    > having the law changed where it would be clarified that a person
    > having gotten their approval after their 2nd anniversary date would be
    > given an automatic 10 year card however no law has come about so the
    > procedure of their office is to issue the 2 year conditional card
    > based on Section 216 whether or not you had gotten approval before or
    > after your 2nd anniversary date. They had also checked with their
    > lawyer previously on this and he said they were within their rights to
    > do so. She did also say that she had heard of cases where people were
    > given an automatic 10 year card after their second anniversary in
    > other offices (based on approval date after) however once again they
    > themselves will not go that route until it is written in stone.
    >
    > My husband and I went through Section 216 and cannot see any clause
    > stating that us who have passed our 2nd wedding anniversary dates are
    > given automatic 10 year cards. I guess she speaks the truth?
    >
    > Darn it!

Well not 100% sure it will do any good, but you could try pleading you
case through:

http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/contactus

or sending an e-mail to: [email protected]

Those are two of the things I did when our daughter hadn't been
mentioned on my wife's I-797 from our I-751 petition or received her
own notice and I'm pleased to say she received her own one year
extension notice today. My wife received her notice on May 25th.

I also went to the Baltimore CIS office and sent a couple letters to
Vermont and I really don't know if any of the things I did helped or
they were just slow as hell to send the notice.

idawmn

Thanks for the links. Anything is worth a try. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Hypertweeky

I like that!!

Hypertweeky

Sure you are!!

Ray

Well I am in total shock ...talk about changing horses mid stream A situation made for, and a good test for the Ombudsman

Role of the Ombudsman

Assist individuals and employers in resolving problems with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS);

Identify areas in which individuals and employers have problems in dealing with USCIS; and

Propose changes in the administrative practices of USCIS in an effort to mitigate problems.

http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display...9&content=3732

idawmn

Just to let you know I shipped out an email to this Ombudsman this morning with details from beginning to end. I will let you know if I ever receive a response.

Thank you all very much for your support and your advice.