immigration_hlp
Registered Users (C)
Dear All,
I am writing this on behalf of a cousin who has an appointment with a judge next month (probably no more extensions will be given.)
Basically my cousin entered the US as a tourist (has British passport), and applied for a change a status for an F-1 visa (which was eventually denied in late '2001 due school lapse). While his change of status visa was processing he and a couple of his friends including me took a trip across the San Diego borde to Tijuana-Mexico for a few hours in November '2000. On the way back from the border he was placed in Secondary / Deferred Inspection and his passport was taken away from him at the border. He had to go to the California Deferred Inspection office to get back his passport.
What happened is that he lost his original passport sometime in '2002 with the proof of this deferred inspection. He has already gotten the FOIA which has the original I-94 info (the original tourist visa B2 visa on his I-94 which was valid till June '2000) but not the updated I-94 from deferred inspection. What is really bothering is that they found a document with my cousins name at deferred inspection in some file, however the person is supposedly Puerto Rican and INS is claming that is possibly a different person or for us to prove that it is him. Both my lawyer and us believe that is him, my cousin has a very unique name (I very highly doubt a Peurto Rican person will have the same name, and was pulled for deferred inspection at the same day and same time). My cousin is now married to a US citizen and the INS is asking him to leave voluntary or be deported. His next court date is mid-June since the INS is claiming he came in illegally. This is not true, I was there with him when he got pulled in deferred inspection and was there when he picked up his passport from the deferred inspection office in California. (Also he came in legally which is the proof of the original I-94).
The question we have is how can we obtain the deferred inspection records to prove that he came in legally? Is it really true that the INS won't keep a copy? Also why would they hide the information from us saying that this is a different Peurto Rican person with the same name, who entered the same port and also went through deferred inspection, however will not share the information unless another government agency requests it? (The judge gave my cousin and his lawyer an extension to find out who the Peurto Rican person is with the same name, and same deferred inspection date, however the INS is unwilling to share that info with us?) Is the INS intentionally holding the information since they made a mistake? What can my cousin do to obtain this record?
(Also he does have a copy of the receipt from Deferred Inspection office but since the receipt does not have the details just the date it is not sufficient proof. I am very confused of how he can prove it if it seems the INS is not releasing all the document to him.)
Also finally the issue that is baffling me the most from the INS is CIRCULAR REASONING. (Also the inability for his lawyer, who he paid a heafty sum to notice CIRCULAR REASONING. She is not the brighest fish in the sea, let me tell you... Anwyay that is for another time...)
The INS is claiming my cousin entered the country illegally, which is not true since the INS themselves have the original I-94 document with his B2 visa. When he went to Mexico (for 4 hours only) this is during the time when he "change of status to F1" was in process so he was technically allowed to travel to Mexico. He then came back across the border and was placed in deferred inspection. The INS is claiming he was not placed in deferred inspection (different guy with same name, and time but different ethnicity) and they cannot find and/or provide any proof it (and the burden of proof falls on him), yet they know that he came across the border. This does not make sense to me, is this not CIRCULAR REASONING! If the INS is claiming that he did not go through deferred inspection, than they should not know he went to Mexico in the first place right; so can't he just claim he never went to Mexico, which will resolve his issue since he has his original I-94 which showed he came in legally. Can't his lawyer just explain that concept to the judge? Either he went through deferred inspection, and that person that the INS is not sharing is actually him (they messed up with the ethnicity) or the INS should have never known that he went to Mexico so he always entered legal and just overstayed? How can they give such a CIRCULAR NON-SENSICAL ARGUMENT that the person that crossed from Mexico is him but not him? MAKES NO SENSE TO ME!
Everyone knows that "CIRCULAR REASONING = NON-SENSE + IRRATIONALITY + LOGICAL FALLACY" can't the lawyer just use that as his argument?
Any inputs and thoughts on the following two questions will be of great help...
1) WHAT CAN MY COUSIN DO TO OBTAIN THE DEFERRED INSPECTION RECORD?
2) CAN HIS LAWYER USE THE ABOVE "CIRCULAR REASONING" AS A VALID DEFENSE (If he is unable to obtain the Deferred Inspection Record) WHEN HE MEETS THE JUDGE AGAIN NEXT MONTH?
Thanks in advance.
I am writing this on behalf of a cousin who has an appointment with a judge next month (probably no more extensions will be given.)
Basically my cousin entered the US as a tourist (has British passport), and applied for a change a status for an F-1 visa (which was eventually denied in late '2001 due school lapse). While his change of status visa was processing he and a couple of his friends including me took a trip across the San Diego borde to Tijuana-Mexico for a few hours in November '2000. On the way back from the border he was placed in Secondary / Deferred Inspection and his passport was taken away from him at the border. He had to go to the California Deferred Inspection office to get back his passport.
What happened is that he lost his original passport sometime in '2002 with the proof of this deferred inspection. He has already gotten the FOIA which has the original I-94 info (the original tourist visa B2 visa on his I-94 which was valid till June '2000) but not the updated I-94 from deferred inspection. What is really bothering is that they found a document with my cousins name at deferred inspection in some file, however the person is supposedly Puerto Rican and INS is claming that is possibly a different person or for us to prove that it is him. Both my lawyer and us believe that is him, my cousin has a very unique name (I very highly doubt a Peurto Rican person will have the same name, and was pulled for deferred inspection at the same day and same time). My cousin is now married to a US citizen and the INS is asking him to leave voluntary or be deported. His next court date is mid-June since the INS is claiming he came in illegally. This is not true, I was there with him when he got pulled in deferred inspection and was there when he picked up his passport from the deferred inspection office in California. (Also he came in legally which is the proof of the original I-94).
The question we have is how can we obtain the deferred inspection records to prove that he came in legally? Is it really true that the INS won't keep a copy? Also why would they hide the information from us saying that this is a different Peurto Rican person with the same name, who entered the same port and also went through deferred inspection, however will not share the information unless another government agency requests it? (The judge gave my cousin and his lawyer an extension to find out who the Peurto Rican person is with the same name, and same deferred inspection date, however the INS is unwilling to share that info with us?) Is the INS intentionally holding the information since they made a mistake? What can my cousin do to obtain this record?
(Also he does have a copy of the receipt from Deferred Inspection office but since the receipt does not have the details just the date it is not sufficient proof. I am very confused of how he can prove it if it seems the INS is not releasing all the document to him.)
Also finally the issue that is baffling me the most from the INS is CIRCULAR REASONING. (Also the inability for his lawyer, who he paid a heafty sum to notice CIRCULAR REASONING. She is not the brighest fish in the sea, let me tell you... Anwyay that is for another time...)
The INS is claiming my cousin entered the country illegally, which is not true since the INS themselves have the original I-94 document with his B2 visa. When he went to Mexico (for 4 hours only) this is during the time when he "change of status to F1" was in process so he was technically allowed to travel to Mexico. He then came back across the border and was placed in deferred inspection. The INS is claiming he was not placed in deferred inspection (different guy with same name, and time but different ethnicity) and they cannot find and/or provide any proof it (and the burden of proof falls on him), yet they know that he came across the border. This does not make sense to me, is this not CIRCULAR REASONING! If the INS is claiming that he did not go through deferred inspection, than they should not know he went to Mexico in the first place right; so can't he just claim he never went to Mexico, which will resolve his issue since he has his original I-94 which showed he came in legally. Can't his lawyer just explain that concept to the judge? Either he went through deferred inspection, and that person that the INS is not sharing is actually him (they messed up with the ethnicity) or the INS should have never known that he went to Mexico so he always entered legal and just overstayed? How can they give such a CIRCULAR NON-SENSICAL ARGUMENT that the person that crossed from Mexico is him but not him? MAKES NO SENSE TO ME!
Everyone knows that "CIRCULAR REASONING = NON-SENSE + IRRATIONALITY + LOGICAL FALLACY" can't the lawyer just use that as his argument?
Any inputs and thoughts on the following two questions will be of great help...
1) WHAT CAN MY COUSIN DO TO OBTAIN THE DEFERRED INSPECTION RECORD?
2) CAN HIS LAWYER USE THE ABOVE "CIRCULAR REASONING" AS A VALID DEFENSE (If he is unable to obtain the Deferred Inspection Record) WHEN HE MEETS THE JUDGE AGAIN NEXT MONTH?
Thanks in advance.
Last edited by a moderator: