Bring lawyer to interview or not?
- Thread starter panther0528
- Start date
PraetorianXI
Banned
LOL. Dude, it has to do with your Name and DOB, nothing to do with a Lawyer... the Namecheck is processed WAY before the interview and the IO is not going to put you "stuck" in namecheck..
Byran, have you done a special statistical study???
Or you just are saying it? Baba, don't say things that you are not knowledgeable about. You are not going to look smart at all. No offense.Immigrant66
Registered Users (C)
having attorney at interview?I am prety sure that IO will get the message that the applicant is not going to accept the denial easily if attorney is present.IO don't like or better said hate that if the case denied by Him/her gets approve after appeal because questions their judgement and accounablity to adjudicate applicants in their top supervisers eyes.
The other thing is that IO won't go out of line on questioning.One of them had asked my freind at interview,on aweful rude manner, Are you sure that the child is yours? It was so offensive to him but he had to swallow it because he did not want any problem but I don't think this could happened in presense of attorney.Over all IO is human with all the positive or negative specifications. they are like other human being and have emotions, hate or love toward others and this will playing big role as well.There are raciest, projiduce and liberal and easy going ones.
At the end I recommend that go with attorney if the fee is right.
Good luck
The other thing is that IO won't go out of line on questioning.One of them had asked my freind at interview,on aweful rude manner, Are you sure that the child is yours? It was so offensive to him but he had to swallow it because he did not want any problem but I don't think this could happened in presense of attorney.Over all IO is human with all the positive or negative specifications. they are like other human being and have emotions, hate or love toward others and this will playing big role as well.There are raciest, projiduce and liberal and easy going ones.
At the end I recommend that go with attorney if the fee is right.
Good luck
Last edited by a moderator:
One of my friend has two kids 2 and 5 years old, and in birth certificate he is listed as father, IO ask his US citizen wife, kids really from him or not... sad...
My point is not the namecheck, still read the namecheck thing up there, check who has lawyer yourself?
When you have a lawyer even in traffic court, you get more attension to your case?
you guys make it sound like having a lawyer no good, and giving the people wrong impression not to have one?
Buddy, nobody is giving people "wrong impression". First of all, the name check is performed by a totally different entity (organization) and has nothing to do with the fact that the applicant employs an imm. attorney. The people performing the name check don't know and don't care if you have a lawyer. By the way, if you have a traffic citation, that means you've done something wrong and you would deffinetely need a lawyer if you want to prove otherwise. Do not confuse civil and criminal court with immig. adjudecators.
Every case is adjudecated on an individual basis. You are the one who has to make the call based on your situation. For some having an attorney could be a good idea, for others might not be necessary. That's why we all have brains that we are suppose to use.
Atlanta_Brother
Registered Users (C)
Having an attorney around
By reading pretty much everyone's comments here, I personally came to this conclusion that regardless you have a strong straight fwd case or a weak case, having an attorney could never hurt your interview if he is around. If you can afford one, I would go for one......why not. I wouldn't waste my time thinking what the IO must be thinking etc etc.
Jan08filer is a perfect example.
I have my interview coming up on Monday Sep 22nd at 9am. My attorney will show up to the interview as well. I will let you guys know how it goes.
Have a great weekend.
By reading pretty much everyone's comments here, I personally came to this conclusion that regardless you have a strong straight fwd case or a weak case, having an attorney could never hurt your interview if he is around. If you can afford one, I would go for one......why not. I wouldn't waste my time thinking what the IO must be thinking etc etc.
Jan08filer is a perfect example.
I have my interview coming up on Monday Sep 22nd at 9am. My attorney will show up to the interview as well. I will let you guys know how it goes.
Have a great weekend.
panther0528
Registered Users (C)
Thanks again!
Yeah I see that it seems to be pretty much neutral! Please let us know how your interviews go?
Thanks
Yeah I see that it seems to be pretty much neutral! Please let us know how your interviews go?
Thanks
Atlanta_Brother
Registered Users (C)
My experience today
Guys,
My wife & I went thru GC interview in Atlanta today. I can tell you with the experience I went today, it was useless having an attorney around. If I turn back time, I would not take an attorney with me to the interview. It was a bad idea.
He just sat on a chair like a dummy and there were to IO's in the officer who spent good half an hour asking us questions left & right. There were 25% of the questions which were very irrelevant but my attorney did not say a word. I come to the coclusion (I may be wrong), but with what I went thru and I can only speak for myself. I could feel that since we had an attorney, the immigration officers went deep and asked us lot of questions. May be they thought there may be an issue with the case and that is why we have an attorney around.
In short, it did not make any sense to why he was there. Infact he did not even prepared us for the interview and nor he suggested us to what to bring to the interview. I am glad I did not count on him and used my own head.
He infact told me couple of days before the interview that we will be approved, no need to worry and today when the IO informed us that there are dual files involved and they have to order one file and merge them bla bla and thus the decision will come in the mail, this idiot attorney could do nothing. He shook hands with the IO and wished him a good day......huh.
Guys,
My wife & I went thru GC interview in Atlanta today. I can tell you with the experience I went today, it was useless having an attorney around. If I turn back time, I would not take an attorney with me to the interview. It was a bad idea.
He just sat on a chair like a dummy and there were to IO's in the officer who spent good half an hour asking us questions left & right. There were 25% of the questions which were very irrelevant but my attorney did not say a word. I come to the coclusion (I may be wrong), but with what I went thru and I can only speak for myself. I could feel that since we had an attorney, the immigration officers went deep and asked us lot of questions. May be they thought there may be an issue with the case and that is why we have an attorney around.
In short, it did not make any sense to why he was there. Infact he did not even prepared us for the interview and nor he suggested us to what to bring to the interview. I am glad I did not count on him and used my own head.
He infact told me couple of days before the interview that we will be approved, no need to worry and today when the IO informed us that there are dual files involved and they have to order one file and merge them bla bla and thus the decision will come in the mail, this idiot attorney could do nothing. He shook hands with the IO and wished him a good day......huh.
Sorry to hear your experience, Brother. I hope both of you guys will be fine. Good thing you prepared for the interview. This could be a good lesson for those who claim that lawyers can prevent you from getting "stuck in the name check".
PraetorianXI
Banned
Sorry about your experience... but "I told you so".
With few exceptions (the IOs know the Lawyer, and have a good relationship) will having a lawyer help you in a pretty straightforward case...
Either way, there is very little lawyer can do for you, except hand you papers and sit there like a dummy.
I am sure you guys will be fine at the end. If there was TWO IOs... one of them was probably in training (that is why it was so long and thorough) and he will have to have his supervisor review the file and approve it.
Do not sweat it, you are almost over the hill
Atlanta_Brother
Registered Users (C)
Thank you
Let's hope what the IO told me comes out to be true & my wife's start getting approval notice and welcome letter by end of this week.
Thank you guys for the positive feedback.
I will keep u posted.
Last but not least, stay away from attorneys, esp taking them to the interview if you have a straight fwd case.
PretorianXI, do u think since the IO took my wife's I-94 card from the passport, it's a good sign?
Let's hope what the IO told me comes out to be true & my wife's start getting approval notice and welcome letter by end of this week.
Thank you guys for the positive feedback.
I will keep u posted.
Last but not least, stay away from attorneys, esp taking them to the interview if you have a straight fwd case.
PretorianXI, do u think since the IO took my wife's I-94 card from the passport, it's a good sign?
PraetorianXI
Banned
I am not sure you can generalize like that because of one experience. This interview could have happened to anyone with or without a lawyer present, and it could just be your perception that it happened the way it did because a lawyer was there.
Your lawyer may not have even been a good one since he didn't even prep you. It seems common sense that part of the fee that you pay to a lawyer requires him to tell you what to expect.
Atlanta_Brother
Registered Users (C)
I agree with you partly especially when you say that my attorney may not be a good one. True, very true. He was very relaxed and after we walked out from the interview, he didn't say a word, expect that my wife will be approved soon. It could take several months, just be patient and he left.
The point on the other hand that I was trying to make was, attorney can't do nothing. It's a battle that you have to fight on your own. He cannot convince or make the IO to change his mind & approve the case. Hope it makes sense.
I have to agree with Atlanta_brother
When there are cases like this, immigration lawyers think of them as easy and quick money. All they do are just filing and waiting. That's all. Same old same old. There's nothing they can do to speed it up and if there is something they can do, they wouldn't do it anyway because u basically already paid them. It's a one time service.
Anyway, lawyers suck and I have fired one. I did all the paper work myself in 2 days and I'm already half way through the whole process. Thank God we only paid $500 for that guy. We basically saved $2300 just by firing the guy
When there are cases like this, immigration lawyers think of them as easy and quick money. All they do are just filing and waiting. That's all. Same old same old. There's nothing they can do to speed it up and if there is something they can do, they wouldn't do it anyway because u basically already paid them. It's a one time service.
Anyway, lawyers suck and I have fired one. I did all the paper work myself in 2 days and I'm already half way through the whole process. Thank God we only paid $500 for that guy. We basically saved $2300 just by firing the guy
Just like seat belts, you would think that a lawyer it's just on the way... that is until something goes wrong.
A good immigration lawyer knows the law and should help you prepare for the interview letting you know what questions the IO might ask, based on the specifics of your case.
That said, the IO doesn't care that there's a lawyer present to make a decision one way or the other. They will look into your file and try to poke holes into it.
I say, if you can afford it, take a lawyer with you.
"A man who represents himself in court has a fool for a client. "
A good immigration lawyer knows the law and should help you prepare for the interview letting you know what questions the IO might ask, based on the specifics of your case.
That said, the IO doesn't care that there's a lawyer present to make a decision one way or the other. They will look into your file and try to poke holes into it.
I say, if you can afford it, take a lawyer with you.
"A man who represents himself in court has a fool for a client. "
Atlanta_Brother
Registered Users (C)
ghee108,
You are missing the point here. It's not about how well you were prepared for the interview. I can talk about myself here. Our interview went perfect. We convinced the officer all the way. The problem was at their end.....I mean missing file or they had to merge this other file together. Even at that point the lawyer did not speak up or showed any interest. As we were walking out of USCIS building, I asked him if we should follow back with the USCIS again in 2 weeks to see where we at. He said there is no need. The decision will just come in the mail. It could take weeks or several month, there is no telling. Just relax & go home........huh. What an idiot. He could have told me to call him after a month or 6 weeks and we'll take it from there, but he said nothing and walked away. I am glad I did not pay him an extra penny to show up to the interview. I hope you see my point.
Buddy, I think you are mixing waters here. You are not deffending yourself against some allegations filed by an IO against you. And the IOs don't "poke holes" into cases they process. It's their job and duty to adjudecate if a guy deserves the beneffit he/she is asking for. If you are clean, why in the whole world would you need expensive and useless "seatbelts" with you at the interview? If you crossed the law then you deffinetively need a good attorney.
That's my opinion.