Marrying GC holder,please help

And It seems TheRealCanadian and him are buddys, that why the thread is now closed. Link to closed thread below!
He should stick around a little more though, but as I said in an other post, NO MORE LINKS TO IRA STATUES PRAETORIANXI, espically in regards to claiming to be a US citizen
 
Last edited by a moderator:
banano1842 said:
For perspective, my dad passed away on month 4 of my immigration process. I was still waiting for my GC Interview letter and only had EAD but no Travel Document. I came in B-2 and got married in miami. So when my family called and told me what had happened to my father I was devastated and went to Immigration office and couldn't get an Emergency AP, so I said "fuck it" and went to my dad's funeral. 12 days later I came into MIA with my wife, EAD, pay stubs, and was allowed back in.

So I wonder, if I had posted here to cry for help what would your response have been, prolly same as my lawyer's "stay or you will not be allowed back in and your immigration will have to continue in your country and you will have to wait 1-2 years outside of US", or and even mor praetorian "don't cry for help if you messed up your application documents, should of applied for AP in the 1st place".
Click to expand...
interestingly enough, your lawyer was right. The immigration officer shouldn't have let you in - just doing his job lawfully. Sometimes an immigration officer makes a mistake and allows someone who left without AP enter the US again. Most of the time that mistake is caught by the adjudicating officer and AOS is denied, as it should be - by law, not by a moral code. Sometimes the mistake is not caught and the person is adjusted - thinking that it's because the officer understood him and forgave him, whereas that's just a mistake the officer made.
 
Praetorian,

Be nice to other people and stop being an ass. :rolleyes: You can state the intent of USCIS laws, but never let your head to get bigger than Hank Hill...:cool:
 
Since all other threads seem to be closed where the "rudeness" topic has been discussed, let me say this ...

I think it's good that we have all kinds of personalities here. The objective people, the passionate people, the caring people, the compassionate people, the rude people, the sugar-coaters, the frank people, the ones who go by the law, the ones who explain loopholes in the law that may be exploited with some risk, the ones who symphasize with illegal immigration, the ones who are against illegal immigration. We need them all to make this forum work. For everyone who gives advice on a complicated issue that "this might work" or "good luck" or "try this" I think it's also good to have a reality check that "this might not work" and "this is against the law" and "this is not ethical." For everyone who gives a long-winded complicated answer we need someone with a short answer to the point. I think what makes this place work is the combined power and knowledge of everyone, the consensus and compromise in discussion, and the more different perspectives and background we have, the more it adds to the forum.
 
LucyMO said:
interestingly enough, your lawyer was right. The immigration officer shouldn't have let you in - just doing his job lawfully. Sometimes an immigration officer makes a mistake and allows someone who left without AP enter the US again. Most of the time that mistake is caught by the adjudicating officer and AOS is denied, as it should be - by law, not by a moral code. Sometimes the mistake is not caught and the person is adjusted - thinking that it's because the officer understood him and forgave him, whereas that's just a mistake the officer made.
Click to expand...


which is why I fired her... she was right but not helpful, being in the situation I was, who would stay here just to have my GC. I understand there are people that would kill to have a GC but I am not one of them, I am here because my wife lives here. So that's why I left without any certainty I would be able to come back. To say it in another way, I went and left it in God's hands, if I am allow back in good for us if not that's good too.

The matter of fact is, I was travelling with my wife and IO prolly noticed that and they also saw I was taxpayer (cuz of paystub) resident, and that enough made it possible for me to enter.

FYI, there's actually a process of letting someone in without any travel document, which is when the IO doesn't have much information to stamp passport but he thinks that if he paroles you in you might be able to get the necessary documents and get back with them. Which is what I did. I don;t remember exactly how its called but you can check my previous posts and find out if you care.
 
austriacus said:
Since all other threads seem to be closed where the "rudeness" topic has been discussed, let me say this ...

I think it's good that we have all kinds of personalities here. The objective people, the passionate people, the caring people, the compassionate people, the rude people, the sugar-coaters, the frank people, the ones who go by the law, the ones who explain loopholes in the law that may be exploited with some risk, the ones who symphasize with illegal immigration, the ones who are against illegal immigration. We need them all to make this forum work. For everyone who gives advice on a complicated issue that "this might work" or "good luck" or "try this" I think it's also good to have a reality check that "this might not work" and "this is against the law" and "this is not ethical." For everyone who gives a long-winded complicated answer we need someone with a short answer to the point. I think what makes this place work is the combined power and knowledge of everyone, the consensus and compromise in discussion, and the more different perspectives and background we have, the more it adds to the forum.
Click to expand...


I agree with you, but people must not be rude to other people you have not even met. I wonder why praetorian has not responden but opened up a poll, who cares what he does. What we want is a helpful environment.
 
I thoroughly enjoyed reading your summary of us forum members. You should work for cliff notes :)

austriacus said:
I think it's good that we have all kinds of personalities here. The objective people, the passionate people, the caring people, the compassionate people, the rude people, the sugar-coaters, the frank people, the ones who go by the law, the ones who explain loopholes in the law that may be exploited with some risk, the ones who symphasize with illegal immigration, the ones who are against illegal immigration. We need them all to make this forum work. For everyone who gives advice on a complicated issue that "this might work" or "good luck" or "try this" I think it's also good to have a reality check that "this might not work" and "this is against the law" and "this is not ethical." For everyone who gives a long-winded complicated answer we need someone with a short answer to the point. I think what makes this place work is the combined power and knowledge of everyone, the consensus and compromise in discussion, and the more different perspectives and background we have, the more it adds to the forum.
Click to expand...
 
Totally agree with austriacus.

People should be aware that this is not a "meet and greet" forum, I remember the other day somebody post just to make a little fun about totally true issues that happens everyday in this forum, very common and somebody got offended. Well is your call to take it or ignore it. Why start an arguement about just point of views and personal experiences?

Many of us don't post our names here! And to be sincere is good to have people down to earth and even sound rough sometimes (within the respectful guidelines of course) tells us right there the chances because a lot can at stake for many.

You guys have a good day!
 
Could be my post titled Family based immigrant from hell :)
It was based purely on observations and posts on these forums and for some reason it touched the raw nerves of a few. To this day I am still baffled since it was not a work of fiction, just cut and paste from these forums :confused:

cherr1980 said:
I remember the other day somebody post just to make a little fun about totally true issues that happens everyday in this forum, very common and somebody got offended.
Click to expand...
 
banano1842 said:
which is why I fired her... she was right but not helpful, being in the situation I was, who would stay here just to have my GC. I understand there are people that would kill to have a GC but I am not one of them, I am here because my wife lives here. So that's why I left without any certainty I would be able to come back. To say it in another way, I went and left it in God's hands, if I am allow back in good for us if not that's good too.

The matter of fact is, I was travelling with my wife and IO prolly noticed that and they also saw I was taxpayer (cuz of paystub) resident, and that enough made it possible for me to enter.

FYI, there's actually a process of letting someone in without any travel document, which is when the IO doesn't have much information to stamp passport but he thinks that if he paroles you in you might be able to get the necessary documents and get back with them. Which is what I did. I don;t remember exactly how its called but you can check my previous posts and find out if you care.
Click to expand...

I don't think you should expect your lawyer to give you "practical" advice that's not explicitly stated in the law. That's not what they studied or practiced, and you can probably hold it against them if their practical advice doesn't work for you.

Let me give you an example ... let's say I'm an engineer and I'm given a contract to build a bridge you will use. I can build it so there's very low risk of it failing, but it'll be costly (paid from your tax dollars), take a long time to build and won't be pretty. On the other hand, I can build it faster and cheaper and it will be a beautiful design, however there's a 5% chance of it failing within it's operating lifetime. Now, for all practical purposes, it would probably be ok to go with the faster, cheaper, beautiful design option even though it doesn't quite meet building code. Out of 20 bridges I'll build this way, only one is expected to fail so it's unlikely to be the one you will use. However, it could be yours, any day.

Which bridge do you want me as an engineer to build?
 
austriacus said:
I don't think you should expect your lawyer to give you "practical" advice that's not explicitly stated in the law. That's not what they studied or practiced, and you can probably hold it against them if their practical advice doesn't work for you.

Let me give you an example ... let's say I'm an engineer and I'm given a contract to build a bridge you will use. I can build it so there's very low risk of it failing, but it'll be costly (paid from your tax dollars), take a long time to build and won't be pretty. On the other hand, I can build it faster and cheaper and it will be a beautiful design, however there's a 5% chance of it failing within it's operating lifetime. Now, for all practical purposes, it would probably be ok to go with the faster, cheaper, beautiful design option even though it doesn't quite meet building code. Out of 20 bridges I'll build this way, only one is expected to fail so it's unlikely to be the one you will use. However, it could be yours, any day.

Which bridge do you want me as an engineer to build?
Click to expand...

Not a good example imo... to compare apples to apples, as engineering is very straight forward when you talk about building.

But as an immigration lawyer you should know 100% of you stuff so you can give the right advice. I was actually paroled in as there is a process for it and my lawyer had no idea this was an option (or if she had she did not mention it to me, which would have made things easier). There were many other reasons I decided not to continue with her after I got paroled in so techincally I didn't fire her, I had already paid her so I was just being hypotethical when I said that.

I feel sorry for invading OP's post and talk about this but one thing lead to another and you know how things happen.
 
She gave you the right advice as an immigration lawyer it was her right advice to tell you, like it or not, you should get your AP or not got out with the proper authorized travel document.

That you did not like her answer, is something different. You want a lawyer that were more on your understanding of your feelings...but she was not and is your right to call for a more suitable lawyer for you but is not right to say that she gave you a wrong advice, she did not. Now is funny, you said all that, and that's why many people want to sue others when their lawyers don't practice correctly the law.

Would be good if you can clarify all of us what was "this document" that the IO at the port of entry used or gave it to you. As in all cases is in the immigrant to proof the situations and factors that cause the different actions in question.

I am sorry, for me, you got lucky. Simple as that. There have been pretty sad stories about travel ordeals. By the way, each case is different. I just recall that even uscis give a warning about it.

http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/TravelAdvisory101806.pdf

And if you read "carefully" states that "Travel outside of the United States without advance parole may result in serious consequences including being unable to return to the United States and having pending immigration-related applications denied"...the key is "may result"...well yes, but here is very discretionable...and most of the time is better to go on the safe net.

I dont think that will be a responsible act to say a person "sure go out" would you? For many a lot is at stake and has nothing to do about "dying" to be here. Our advices came from past experience, experience of family and friends and so be it most of the time people before post here don't read many of the instructions on the forms, don't want to listen to what a fourth lawyer keep saying to them or what even uscis is requesting from them. You already had your set minded that if you were not able to return you would not care, so why the fuzz with the lawyer...you try to enter right? lucky for you, you and your family were able to go through. But would you give that same advice to other person...to just go out like that?

Austriacus gave a pretty apple vs apple example. Engineers, lawyers, doctors, accountants are professions that are very well regulated under the law. Don't you wonder why there is always one of them getting sue in this country, apart from the goverment?

If your lawyer told you "yes, go ahead go out and at the POE they will give you a parole" she would be at fault. And if you won't be able to come in (even if you don't care) you most probably would have all the right to sue her for bad practice.

At the end , even you pay for their service to give advice and opinions, people should be responsible for their own decisions. Unfortunately we live in a society that more and more is easy to pinpointing other person for our own fault when things don't go in our way.

I won't give you any example because none will satisfy you and I won't try to convince you, every person is responsible for their own choices. But I would tell you be careful to give an advice when 1. you can't remember or reproduce the paperwork that the IO at the port of entry give to you 2. which part the law states so 3. did you went to another lawyer and gave you a different advice from your previous lawyer? 4. it's really against the warning that had been posted several times in uscis.gov about travel outside the US.

Just wonder if your lawyer or you use your lawyer to give you steps about how to convince your uscis office about that you needed an emergency advance parole. I found other posts about people got their emergency advance parole when they showed notices from the doctors and the funeral home.

My 2 cents, better say...it's like 10 bucks.
 
I guess I found what the IO gave to you...

"Humanitarian Parole

What is Humanitarian Parole?

The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security may, in his discretion, parole into the United States temporarily, under such conditions as he may prescribe on a case-by-case basis, for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit, any alien applying for admission to the United States."

That is an excerpt from uscis.gov
 
Humanitarian Parole is a part of I-131, but according to instcution, document must be mailed to USCIS office in Washington DC and I don't think they can handle it at the airport unless they have an exceptional procedure which I believe they don't have.
 
Thank you, cherr1980 for explaining my example!

banano1842, since engineering "buildings" is so straightforward, what do you know about civil engineering, structural analysis, material selection, safety factors, uncertain loading conditions, thermal stresses, aging of materials, microstructure, fracture mechanics, Weibull distributions, professional responsibility? But let's not digress into details - the point is that law and engineering are both specialized professional fields and you'd expect any member of the profession to follow all standards, codes, and laws of the practice. Getting back to my example, sure there will be many who want to make the bridge faster and cheaper (politicans who don't want to raise taxes, want to crown themselves with a landmark and will not be in office anymore when the bridge collapses) but my professional responsibility would be to not get caught up in agreeing with them but upholding the standards of my profession (and we'd probably meet somewhere in the middle on how the bridge will be built).

Your lawyer advised you very well under the law, clearly stated in 8 CFR §245.2(a)(4)(ii),

(A) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(B) and (C) of this section, the departure of an applicant who is not under exclusion, deportation, or removal proceedings shall be deemed an abandonment of the application constituting grounds for termination of any pending application for adjustment of status, unless the applicant was previously granted advance parole by the Service for such absences, and was inspected upon returning to the United States.

(Paragraphs (B) and (C) give the conditions wherein the AOS is not abandoned when one has previously approved advance parole or is in H or L status upon departure.)

Therefore, according to the law your lawyer had to advise you that you are abandoning your AOS upon departing. Do I blame you for acting against her advice? Of course not, only you can make the decision if attending your father's funeral is more important to you than not abandoning the AOS. I might have done the same as you, because it would have just been a matter of time to come back through CP just as your lawyer advised (but I really couldn't say because with H-1B I could have traveled anyway). But you can't blame her for advising you correctly that it will cause your AOS to be abandoned and that after showing immigrant intent you need to continue the process from your country.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hello,
Here is my situation

I am a Green card holder since January 2004.
My wife came here on F1 and she is currently on OPT. She is maintaining her F1 status. I didn't file a I-130 for her.
My wife has applied for H1B visa under advanced degree quota. On the H1 application she has mentioned the marital status as "Married". Will this cause any problems during H1B visa stamping, because the DS-156/157 forms specifically asks whether the spouse is GC/USC? Do you think of any issues at the POE?

Thanks for your help
 
No issues. You should be more worried about whether she could get H1 or not. 20k quota is likely to go for lottery too.
 
Hello gurus,

I need a help with my situation.

I am greencard holder and my wife came to US on a F1 visa. She was single when she got the F1 visa. We got married after an year and currently she is on OPT and has applied for a H1B visa under advanced degree quota.

Below is my question:

I am eligible to apply for citizenship next month. The citizenship application (N400) requires us to enter the spouse name and visa status. Since my wife is on F1, I am confused whether to submit the citizenship application now or wait until my wife gets her H1B visa stamping. If I include my wife name on the application, will it cause any problems with her H1B stamping or at Port of entry?

I have a appointment with an attorney next week, but want to get an idea before that.

Thanks for your help!
 
HelpMe0001 said:
Since my wife is on F1, I am confused whether to submit the citizenship application now or wait until my wife gets her H1B visa stamping. If I include my wife name on the application, will it cause any problems with her H1B stamping or at Port of entry?
Click to expand...
If she tries to enter the US with an F1 she can expect problems at the port of entry. But your marriage is not going to be a problem with her getting H1B stamping or entering with the H1B visa, as H1B is a dual-intent visa.
 
Thanks Jackolantern!

On my citizenship application (N400) can I mention that my wife is on F1 visa or wait until she gets her H1B visa?

Thanks in advance


Jackolantern said:
If she tries to enter the US with an F1 she can expect problems at the port of entry. But your marriage is not going to be a problem with her getting H1B stamping or entering with the H1B visa, as H1B is a dual-intent visa.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top