Conditional resident, and we separated.
May 15th 2007, 7:32 am
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Conditional resident, and we separated.
> > An attorney who came often on the forum used to say:
>
> > "The correct answer to the question "Do you know what time it is?" is
> > either Yes or No"
>
> What you are saying in the above quoted post merely means that answer
> just the question that has been asked and don't offer information that
> has not been asked for.
>
> The other post of yours implies material misrepresentation.
>
> The two things are totally unrelated.
>
> --
> Posted viahttp://britishexpats.com
The above quoted post means that if you have info that can be
desadvantageous to you, and it is not requested, you don't need to
volunteer it.
>
> > "The correct answer to the question "Do you know what time it is?" is
> > either Yes or No"
>
> What you are saying in the above quoted post merely means that answer
> just the question that has been asked and don't offer information that
> has not been asked for.
>
> The other post of yours implies material misrepresentation.
>
> The two things are totally unrelated.
>
> --
> Posted viahttp://britishexpats.com
The above quoted post means that if you have info that can be
desadvantageous to you, and it is not requested, you don't need to
volunteer it.
May 15th 2007, 7:38 am
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Conditional resident, and we separated.
Do you guys know what happened to Mr. F? Sadly I don't see his posts
much anymore.
He would have been good in pointing out where the line is.
I took what he said to mean that as long as someone hasn't said
something untrue, that person wouldn't have lied (nor misrepresented
himself).
much anymore.
He would have been good in pointing out where the line is.
I took what he said to mean that as long as someone hasn't said
something untrue, that person wouldn't have lied (nor misrepresented
himself).
May 15th 2007, 7:39 am
#18
Forum Regular
Joined: Feb 2005
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Posts: 270
Re: Conditional resident, and we separated.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
The above quoted post means that if you have info that can be desadvantageous to you, and it is not requested, you don't need to volunteer it.
I am done.
May 15th 2007, 7:57 am
#19
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Conditional resident, and we separated.
On May 15, 2:35 pm, Rete <[email protected]> wrote:
> > An attorney who came often on the forum used to say:
>
> > "The correct answer to the question "Do you know what time it is?" is
> > either Yes or No"
>
> And the I-751 explicitly asks if you are still married and living
> together in a harmonious commingled fashion.
>
> Your suggestion as to what you would do is answering the question with a
> "yes" when the true answer is "no"
>
> --
> I'm not an attorney. This disclaimer is valid in NYS!
> Posted viahttp://britishexpats.com
At this point, you probably think that I am being irrational and try
to be annoying. I am not. I am genuinely curious (I would be surprised
that the fact of presenting ourselfves as being harmoniously married,
while the applicants are unhappily married could be considered fraud).
You state that "the I-751 explicitly asks if you are still married and
living together in a harmonious commingled fashion". I searched the
words "harmonious", "commingled" & "fashion" on the I-751 (using the
search function of Adobe), and I didn't find any of those.
The closest sentences I could find were:
"My conditional residence is based on my marriage to a U.S. citizen or
permanent resident,and we are filing this petition together."
and
"the marriage upon which you were granted conditional status was
enteredin ''good faith'' and was not for the purpose of circumventing
immigration laws."
- those seem to be met in the OP's case
Again, I am geniously curious, and look forward to clearing up that
misunderstanding. And ultimately clarifying the situation to the OP.
Thanks a lot,
Olivier
> > An attorney who came often on the forum used to say:
>
> > "The correct answer to the question "Do you know what time it is?" is
> > either Yes or No"
>
> And the I-751 explicitly asks if you are still married and living
> together in a harmonious commingled fashion.
>
> Your suggestion as to what you would do is answering the question with a
> "yes" when the true answer is "no"
>
> --
> I'm not an attorney. This disclaimer is valid in NYS!
> Posted viahttp://britishexpats.com
At this point, you probably think that I am being irrational and try
to be annoying. I am not. I am genuinely curious (I would be surprised
that the fact of presenting ourselfves as being harmoniously married,
while the applicants are unhappily married could be considered fraud).
You state that "the I-751 explicitly asks if you are still married and
living together in a harmonious commingled fashion". I searched the
words "harmonious", "commingled" & "fashion" on the I-751 (using the
search function of Adobe), and I didn't find any of those.
The closest sentences I could find were:
"My conditional residence is based on my marriage to a U.S. citizen or
permanent resident,and we are filing this petition together."
and
"the marriage upon which you were granted conditional status was
enteredin ''good faith'' and was not for the purpose of circumventing
immigration laws."
- those seem to be met in the OP's case
Again, I am geniously curious, and look forward to clearing up that
misunderstanding. And ultimately clarifying the situation to the OP.
Thanks a lot,
Olivier
May 15th 2007, 8:05 am
#20
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Conditional resident, and we separated.
> On May 11, 10:34 am, profligatesniper
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > My wife is American, we met and married abroad, and in 2005 we came
> > to
> > live in US. I got a conditional resident card, which should be
> > renewed
> > around August this year. Unfortunately, things did not work out, and
> > we
> > separated recently. Nobody filed for divorce. We are still friends,
> > and
> > see each other.
> >
> > My question is: how screwed up am I? I would like to stay here,
> > I
> > have already established here, and enjoy living in US. I am sure
> > my
> > wife would be willing to go to the interview with me, to assure
> > that
> > our marriage was in good faith. Should I go alone or with her to
> > the
> > interview? Will I have a hard time? What should I do?
> >
> > Thank you very much for any input.
> >
> > --
>
> If your wife is willing to sign the I-751 ; and willing to show up at
> the interview (if interview there is), then you should be okay.
> Otherwise, you would be better off divorced.
>
> Bring your wife with you to the interview. Say the truth, only the
> truth, but not the whole truth: If I were you, I would try to
> represent ouselves as husband/wifes (who are going thru tough times,
> but intend to remain together), rather than merely friends, as long as
> you can do so without explicitely lying.
Sorry, but I have to agree with others that this is downright a fraud.
The right way to go about is he should get officially divorced and file
I-751 waiver.
--
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > My wife is American, we met and married abroad, and in 2005 we came
> > to
> > live in US. I got a conditional resident card, which should be
> > renewed
> > around August this year. Unfortunately, things did not work out, and
> > we
> > separated recently. Nobody filed for divorce. We are still friends,
> > and
> > see each other.
> >
> > My question is: how screwed up am I? I would like to stay here,
> > I
> > have already established here, and enjoy living in US. I am sure
> > my
> > wife would be willing to go to the interview with me, to assure
> > that
> > our marriage was in good faith. Should I go alone or with her to
> > the
> > interview? Will I have a hard time? What should I do?
> >
> > Thank you very much for any input.
> >
> > --
>
> If your wife is willing to sign the I-751 ; and willing to show up at
> the interview (if interview there is), then you should be okay.
> Otherwise, you would be better off divorced.
>
> Bring your wife with you to the interview. Say the truth, only the
> truth, but not the whole truth: If I were you, I would try to
> represent ouselves as husband/wifes (who are going thru tough times,
> but intend to remain together), rather than merely friends, as long as
> you can do so without explicitely lying.
Sorry, but I have to agree with others that this is downright a fraud.
The right way to go about is he should get officially divorced and file
I-751 waiver.
--
May 15th 2007, 8:17 am
#21
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Conditional resident, and we separated.
I took Mr. F's sentense to mean that it is ok to say some but not all
the truth (I interpret it to mean that you cannot be accused of fraud
for something implicit (the imagination of the person interpreting it
plays a big role in anything implicit).
I took it to mean "You sould say yes or not - in any case unless and
until asked what time it is, you cannot be accused of hiding the fact
that it is 8:30 pm"
To come back to the OP's issue, the I-751 states:
"My conditional residence is based on my marriage to a U.S. citizen
or
permanent resident,and we are filing this petition together."
and
"the marriage upon which you were granted conditional status was
entered in ''good faith'' and was not for the purpose of
circumventing
immigration laws."
- those seem to be met in the OP's case
... So I don't see where the fraud is. The marriage has been entered
in "good faith" and they are still married - that's the only
requirement I saw ; if you saw others please direct me to the original
source.
the truth (I interpret it to mean that you cannot be accused of fraud
for something implicit (the imagination of the person interpreting it
plays a big role in anything implicit).
I took it to mean "You sould say yes or not - in any case unless and
until asked what time it is, you cannot be accused of hiding the fact
that it is 8:30 pm"
To come back to the OP's issue, the I-751 states:
"My conditional residence is based on my marriage to a U.S. citizen
or
permanent resident,and we are filing this petition together."
and
"the marriage upon which you were granted conditional status was
entered in ''good faith'' and was not for the purpose of
circumventing
immigration laws."
- those seem to be met in the OP's case
... So I don't see where the fraud is. The marriage has been entered
in "good faith" and they are still married - that's the only
requirement I saw ; if you saw others please direct me to the original
source.
Last edited by Rete; May 16th 2007 at 1:02 am.
May 15th 2007, 8:38 am
#22
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Conditional resident, and we separated.
> The OP also says that his wife is "willing to go to the interview with
> me, to assure that
> our marriage was in good faith". That's not what the interview is for.
> The interview is for the officer to see that they are *currently* in a
> valid marriage, not one where they entered in good faith and are now
> separated. The "good faith marriage" proof is only needed when the OP
> gets divorced, files the I-751 on his own, and gets called for an
> interview alone.
>
> The scenarios you suggested are quite different, in my opinion.
>
> Rene
>
From: http://www.hooyou.com/marriage/removal.html
I. If the couple is filing a joint petition to remove the conditions
on the alien spouse�s permanent residence, they must submit the
following:
Evidence that the marriage is not to evade the immigration laws
Again, I don't know if you're correct or not, I am just starving to
see your sources.
I think that living in a commingled fashion is fair game.
I think that living in an harmonious fashion is not fair game - and if
it is included in the law at least 25% of approved I-751 out there
would defacto be fraudulous: there are unhappilly married people out
there
> me, to assure that
> our marriage was in good faith". That's not what the interview is for.
> The interview is for the officer to see that they are *currently* in a
> valid marriage, not one where they entered in good faith and are now
> separated. The "good faith marriage" proof is only needed when the OP
> gets divorced, files the I-751 on his own, and gets called for an
> interview alone.
>
> The scenarios you suggested are quite different, in my opinion.
>
> Rene
>
From: http://www.hooyou.com/marriage/removal.html
I. If the couple is filing a joint petition to remove the conditions
on the alien spouse�s permanent residence, they must submit the
following:
Evidence that the marriage is not to evade the immigration laws
Again, I don't know if you're correct or not, I am just starving to
see your sources.
I think that living in a commingled fashion is fair game.
I think that living in an harmonious fashion is not fair game - and if
it is included in the law at least 25% of approved I-751 out there
would defacto be fraudulous: there are unhappilly married people out
there
May 15th 2007, 8:43 am
#23
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Conditional resident, and we separated.
On May 15, 3:39 pm, wildestkabs <[email protected]>
wrote:
> > > > An attorney who came often on the forum used to say:
>
> > > > "The correct answer to the question "Do you know what time it is?"
> > > > is
> > > > either Yes or No"
>
> > > What you are saying in the above quoted post merely means that
> > > answer
> > > just the question that has been asked and don't offer information
> > > that
> > > has not been asked for.
>
> > > The other post of yours implies material misrepresentation.
>
> > > The two things are totally unrelated.
>
> > > --
> > > Posted viahttp://britishexpats.com
>
> > The above quoted post means that if you have info that can be
> > desadvantageous to you, and it is not requested, you don't need to
> > volunteer it.
>
> Do you understand the difference between not sharing information which
> is disadvantageous to you versus implied material misrepresentation? If
> you did, you would not be so stubborn. If you don't, then I don't see
> any point in continuing this discussion. I will just advise the OP to
> *not* follow your advice.
>
> I am done.
>
> --
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I unfortunately don't sorry. I use to see things in black and white.
Maybe I'm stupid, I don't know.
I will just advise the OP to follow the appropriate laws and
regulation - and I really hope that somebody will post some links to
those laws and regulation on this thread.
wrote:
> > > > An attorney who came often on the forum used to say:
>
> > > > "The correct answer to the question "Do you know what time it is?"
> > > > is
> > > > either Yes or No"
>
> > > What you are saying in the above quoted post merely means that
> > > answer
> > > just the question that has been asked and don't offer information
> > > that
> > > has not been asked for.
>
> > > The other post of yours implies material misrepresentation.
>
> > > The two things are totally unrelated.
>
> > > --
> > > Posted viahttp://britishexpats.com
>
> > The above quoted post means that if you have info that can be
> > desadvantageous to you, and it is not requested, you don't need to
> > volunteer it.
>
> Do you understand the difference between not sharing information which
> is disadvantageous to you versus implied material misrepresentation? If
> you did, you would not be so stubborn. If you don't, then I don't see
> any point in continuing this discussion. I will just advise the OP to
> *not* follow your advice.
>
> I am done.
>
> --
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I unfortunately don't sorry. I use to see things in black and white.
Maybe I'm stupid, I don't know.
I will just advise the OP to follow the appropriate laws and
regulation - and I really hope that somebody will post some links to
those laws and regulation on this thread.
May 15th 2007, 8:46 am
#24
Banned
Joined: Sep 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 3,825
Re: Conditional resident, and we separated.
Perhaps the OP would be better served by consulting with a qualified immigration attorney rather than relying on legal advice being rendered by a non-attorney, and where that legal advice being rendered is apparently at least partially based upon an interpretation the non-attorney is making of a general statement an attorney once made. Just a thought.
>Do you guys know what happened to Mr. F? Sadly I don't see his posts
much anymore.
>He would have been good in pointing out where the line is.
-//-
>I took Mr. F's sentense to mean that it is ok to say some but not all
the truth (I interpret it to mean that you cannot be accused of fraud
for something implicit (the imagination of the person interpreting it
plays a big role in anything implicit).
I took it to mean "You sould say yes or not - in any case unless and
until asked what time it is, you cannot be accused of hiding the fact
that it is 8:30 pm"
>Do you guys know what happened to Mr. F? Sadly I don't see his posts
much anymore.
>He would have been good in pointing out where the line is.
-//-
>I took Mr. F's sentense to mean that it is ok to say some but not all
the truth (I interpret it to mean that you cannot be accused of fraud
for something implicit (the imagination of the person interpreting it
plays a big role in anything implicit).
I took it to mean "You sould say yes or not - in any case unless and
until asked what time it is, you cannot be accused of hiding the fact
that it is 8:30 pm"
May 15th 2007, 9:13 am
#25
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Conditional resident, and we separated.
On May 16, 4:43 am, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 15, 3:39 pm, wildestkabs <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > An attorney who came often on the forum used to say:
>
> > > > > "The correct answer to the question "Do you know what time it is?"
> > > > > is
> > > > > either Yes or No"
>
> > > > What you are saying in the above quoted post merely means that
> > > > answer
> > > > just the question that has been asked and don't offer information
> > > > that
> > > > has not been asked for.
>
> > > > The other post of yours implies material misrepresentation.
>
> > > > The two things are totally unrelated.
>
> > > > --
> > > > Posted viahttp://britishexpats.com
>
> > > The above quoted post means that if you have info that can be
> > > desadvantageous to you, and it is not requested, you don't need to
> > > volunteer it.
>
> > Do you understand the difference between not sharing information which
> > is disadvantageous to you versus implied material misrepresentation? If
> > you did, you would not be so stubborn. If you don't, then I don't see
> > any point in continuing this discussion. I will just advise the OP to
> > *not* follow your advice.
>
> > I am done.
>
> > --
> > Posted viahttp://britishexpats.com-Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I unfortunately don't sorry. I use to see things in black and white.
>
> Maybe I'm stupid, I don't know.
You are not that at all.. I think your have presented yourself with
FACTS and follow the rule of law as it allows. I can easily
digest and accept your interpretation.
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 15, 3:39 pm, wildestkabs <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > An attorney who came often on the forum used to say:
>
> > > > > "The correct answer to the question "Do you know what time it is?"
> > > > > is
> > > > > either Yes or No"
>
> > > > What you are saying in the above quoted post merely means that
> > > > answer
> > > > just the question that has been asked and don't offer information
> > > > that
> > > > has not been asked for.
>
> > > > The other post of yours implies material misrepresentation.
>
> > > > The two things are totally unrelated.
>
> > > > --
> > > > Posted viahttp://britishexpats.com
>
> > > The above quoted post means that if you have info that can be
> > > desadvantageous to you, and it is not requested, you don't need to
> > > volunteer it.
>
> > Do you understand the difference between not sharing information which
> > is disadvantageous to you versus implied material misrepresentation? If
> > you did, you would not be so stubborn. If you don't, then I don't see
> > any point in continuing this discussion. I will just advise the OP to
> > *not* follow your advice.
>
> > I am done.
>
> > --
> > Posted viahttp://britishexpats.com-Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I unfortunately don't sorry. I use to see things in black and white.
>
> Maybe I'm stupid, I don't know.
You are not that at all.. I think your have presented yourself with
FACTS and follow the rule of law as it allows. I can easily
digest and accept your interpretation.
May 15th 2007, 9:45 am
#26
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Conditional resident, and we separated.
On May 15, 4:46 pm, Matthew Udall <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Perhaps the OP would be better served by consulting with a qualified
> immigration attorney rather than relying on legal advice being
> rendered by a non-attorney, and where that legal advice being rendered
> is apparently at least partially based upon an interpretation the non-
> attorney is making of a general statement an attorney once made. Just
> a thought.
wrote:
> Perhaps the OP would be better served by consulting with a qualified
> immigration attorney rather than relying on legal advice being
> rendered by a non-attorney, and where that legal advice being rendered
> is apparently at least partially based upon an interpretation the non-
> attorney is making of a general statement an attorney once made. Just
> a thought.
Last edited by Noorah101; May 15th 2007 at 11:25 am. Reason: cleaned up quoted text
May 15th 2007, 9:57 am
#27
Forum Regular
Joined: Feb 2005
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Posts: 270
Re: Conditional resident, and we separated.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Again, I don't know if you're correct or not, I am just starving to see your sources.
Here it is -
==============================
*Emphasis all mine*
If you *knowingly* and *willfully* falsify or conceal a *material fact* or submit a false document with this request, we will deny the benefit you are filing for and may deny any other immigration benefit. In addition, you will face severe penalties provided by law and may be subject to criminal prosecution.
=============================
What impact do you think it would have if the OP were to disclose at the time of the interview that he and his wife are actually separated? I think he will get denied and will be instructed to get divorced and file with a waiver, which means that the lie about being married while actually being separated, is really to bypass this situation, thereby making the misrepresentation - material.
Now, do you think the OP by projecting themselves as a married couple, when really their marriage has fallen apart and they are separated, falls into the "Penalties" category?
In my opinion, he does.
May 15th 2007, 11:00 am
#28
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Conditional resident, and we separated.
I think that we've been arguing over the word "conceal" and wether
what I said would fall into concealing.
Only one thing to say to the OP: See an attorney
what I said would fall into concealing.
Only one thing to say to the OP: See an attorney
May 15th 2007, 12:08 pm
#29
Septicity
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 23,762
Re: Conditional resident, and we separated.
Perhaps the OP would be better served by consulting with a qualified immigration attorney rather than relying on legal advice being rendered by a non-attorney, and where that legal advice being rendered is apparently at least partially based upon an interpretation the non-attorney is making of a general statement an attorney once made. Just a thought.
May 16th 2007, 3:37 am
#30
Concierge
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 46,477
Re: Conditional resident, and we separated.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Again, I am geniously curious, and look forward to clearing up that
misunderstanding. And ultimately clarifying the situation to the OP.
Thanks a lot,
Olivier
I've attended a three part immigration course at NYC college and one of the three courses dealt strictly with marriage-based visas. One of our main books for the course was:
"U.S. Immigration & Citizenship - Your Complete Guide - 4th Edition" by Allan Wernick, Esq.
Mr. Wernick spearheaded the program for NYCC and is responsible for the US Naturalization Phone-a-thon held yearly by NYCC where the phones are manned by students of the law school, this course, immigration paralegals, foreign student advisors and attorneys. This book is my "bible".
During the course we were told by our law professor, who is also a practicing immigration attorney in NYC, that USCIS considers a marriage to be terminated once you are legally separated. By legally separated she went on to say that means a separation agreement filed with and accepted by a family court.
In my bible, Mr. Wernick has an example of something very similar to what the OP is asking. It is on page 23 and I will just give a small quote from that example as to what occurred at the time to apply for removal of conditions:
"he and Yoko had been living apart for well over a year. Yoko wanted him to get his green card ... agreed not to divorce him until after removal of conditions. The joint petition included their separate addresses."
Subsequently they were called for an interview. Both went, presented evidence of their good faith marriage, including photos and told their story. The USCIS examiner believe their story and removed conditions on his card. After that she divorced him.
Not the example does not say if they were legally separated or just informally separated.
In regards to the above it would appear that your interpretation is consistent with Mr. Wernick's and ours is not, as long as the OP is not legally separated. Again he and anyone else with a wrinkle in lives should always consult with an experienced immigration attorney before filing.
