Guys i need you help!

waqas ahmed

Registered Users (C)
hi every one i am new to this forum. I have my court hearing next year. Other day i tried to reach immigration judge through facebook. She said not to send her message again and she also said she will reffer this matter to EOIR ethic cousel.

Im just wondering if i am going to be in any trouble? please help!

thanks for your help!!
 
hi every one i am new to this forum. I have my court hearing next year. Other day i tried to reach immigration judge through facebook. She said not to send her message again and she also said she will reffer this matter to EOIR ethic cousel.

Im just wondering if i am going to be in any trouble? please help!

thanks for your help!!

You have attempted ex parte communication which is forbidden. The IJ must ask whether she must give your case to another IJ because you communicated with her. Depending on what you communicated, the IJ may have to reassign your case to someone else.

5 USC Sec. 551 Definitions

(14) “ex parte communication” means an oral or written communication not on the public record with respect to which reasonable prior notice to all parties is not given, but it shall not include requests for status reports on any matter or proceeding covered by this subchapter.

5 USC Sec. 554 Adjudication

(d) The employee who presides at the reception of evidence pursuant to section 556 of this title shall make the recommended decision or initial decision required by section 557 of this title, unless he becomes unavailable to the agency. Except to the extent required for the disposition of ex parte matters as authorized by law, such an employee may not—

(1) consult a person or party on a fact in issue, unless on notice and opportunity for all parties to participate; or

(2) be responsible to or subject to the supervision or direction of an employee or agent engaged in the performance of investigative or prosecuting functions for an agency.

An employee or agent engaged in the performance of investigative or prosecuting functions for an agency in a case may not, in that or a factually related case, participate or advise in the decision, recommended decision, or agency review pursuant to section 557 of this title, except as witness or counsel in public proceedings. This subsection does not apply—

(A) in determining applications for initial licenses;

(B) to proceedings involving the validity or application of rates, facilities, or practices of public utilities or carriers; or

(C) to the agency or a member or members of the body comprising the agency.

5 USC Sec. 557. Initial decisions; conclusiveness; review by agency; submissions by parties; contents of decisions; record

(d)(1) In any agency proceeding which is subject to subsection (a) of this section, except to the extent required for the disposition of ex parte matters as authorized by law—

(A) no interested person outside the agency shall make or knowingly cause to be made to any member of the body comprising the agency, administrative law judge, or other employee who is or may reasonably be expected to be involved in the decisional process of the proceeding, an ex parte communication relevant to the merits of the proceeding;

(B) no member of the body comprising the agency, administrative law judge, or other employee who is or may reasonably be expected to be involved in the decisional process of the proceeding, shall make or knowingly cause to be made to any interested person outside the agency an ex parte communication relevant to the merits of the proceeding;

(C) a member of the body comprising the agency, administrative law judge, or other employee who is or may reasonably be expected to be involved in the decisional process of such proceeding who receives, or who makes or knowingly causes to be made, a communication prohibited by this subsection shall place on the public record of the proceeding:

(i) all such written communications;

(ii) memoranda stating the substance of all such oral communications; and

(iii) all written responses, and memoranda stating the substance of all oral responses, to the materials described in clauses (i) and (ii) of this subparagraph;

(D) upon receipt of a communication knowingly made or knowingly caused to be made by a party in violation of this subsection, the agency, administrative law judge, or other employee presiding at the hearing may, to the extent consistent with the interests of justice and the policy of the underlying statutes, require the party to show cause why his claim or interest in the proceeding should not be dismissed, denied, disregarded, or otherwise adversely affected on account of such violation; and

(E) the prohibitions of this subsection shall apply beginning at such time as the agency may designate, but in no case shall they begin to apply later than the time at which a proceeding is noticed for hearing unless the person responsible for the communication has knowledge that it will be noticed, in which case the prohibitions shall apply beginning at the time of his acquisition of such knowledge.

(2) This subsection does not constitute authority to withhold information from Congress.
 
thanks you very much for reply!

my communication was very short. i just told her my name is "........" i have hearing wit you. she replied, not to contect with her again!"
thats all!
 
thanks you very much for reply!

my communication was very short. i just told her my name is "........" i have hearing wit you. she replied, not to contect with her again!"
thats all!

In that case, she is merely following protocol and will likely keep your case.
 
Heh, well you can always claim ignorance since it's a new legal system or something. I don't think it'll be a big issue.
 
It was wrong

You violated the court ethic, for sure. However it wasn't like you were making a bad solicitation or something even worse. It'd depend on her now if she wants to make it a big deal or she wants to keep your case on her hand.

Next time you should separate your eagerness of being a very 'social' human being :rolleyes: and playing in law realm. Those are very different entities.

Hope for the best and prepare for the worst. I wish you a good luck though.
 
You violated the court ethic, for sure. However it wasn't like you were making a bad solicitation or something even worse. It'd depend on her now if she wants to make it a big deal or she wants to keep your case on her hand.

Next time you should separate your eagerness of being a very 'social' human being :rolleyes: and playing in law realm. Those are very different entities.

Hope for the best and prepare for the worst. I wish you a good luck though.

thanks for the wish!

Yeah i was not planning to do anything bad. I was just trying to make a simple contact with her but i was not aware of the rule.
 
I cracked up reading the first post. This has got to be a first, an applicant facebooking an Immigration Judge.

Obviously the Judge cannot communicate with you. It would be a conflict of interest.
 
I dont blame you ahmed... out of line- yes but we really never know how stupid we can be untill you are right in that situation. All the best for all you know she advised you on the best thing to do and she'll let sleeping dogs lie.
My question is- since you mention your case is next year-When did you have your interview/court hearing, why that long a time away?
 
i think he's a pretty much lucky because one year is reasonable to me.As i can see Ahmed is from NY.I'am in NY too and i had my master hearing in January 2012 and my merit hearing is scheduled for march 2014. that's even worse than the one he got.Basically it depends on your judge some are ss crushing under cases so they have no other choice than scheduling 2,3 years appointments .One guy i know has is merit hearing in almost 3 years.
Could you share experience about your states????
 
well even judges have their own dates. me and my brother file the case at same time, we both have different judges. His hearing is on 2014 and mine is jan 2013!
 
well even judges have their own dates. me and my brother file the case at same time, we both have different judges. His hearing is on 2014 and mine is jan 2013!

You could have both your cases heard at the same time if you guys were applying on the same basis. My brother and I did it that way.
 
we did apply on same basis, but some how we got different IJ hearing and first court hearing was different, different finger print dates. Even we apply on same day and same basis. Infact we recieve our work permit on different dates!
 
Top