Very Urgent issue- Court case- N-400 applicant

[WBH]

Hopes this clarifies the point about BIA's jurisdiction and authority.

BIA can be overruled by Attorney General. I don't know if Attortney General has a habit of using his power or not.
If USCIS is not happy with BIA, they can just talk to the Secretary of DHS, who in turn make a phone call to Attorney Gen.

 

[NewRunner]

BIA can be overruled by Attorney General. I don't know if Attorney General has a habit of using his power or not.
If USCIS is not happy with BIA, they can just talk to the Secretary of DHS, who in turn make a phone call to Attorney Gen.

It doesn't quite work like that in Washington DC, despite what you might see in the movies and read in the newspapers... The principals (A.G. and Sec. DHS) rarely get directly involved in situations like this. They have deputies and staffers that do all of that. Eventually, the Attorney General can over-rule a BIA decision, but it would have to be a significant matter of law that rises to that level of review. For example, constitutional issues, or confusion about how specific statutes are being interpreted by BIA or USCIS DOs.

This AILA webpage tracks important BIA decisions and also certain A.G. overrules and clarifications.

There are some interesting articles on this site, including an A.G. clarification about CIMTs.

 

[WBH]

USCIS counsel meaning legal attorneys who provide USCIS officers with legal guidance on such matters.

Are these counsel impartial? That is, when there is a potential dispute between USCIS officers and applicants, do these counsels try their best to help USCIS officers to beat applicants or they try to provide objective
legal opinions to USCIS officers? I think at least it is too much to hope they are on applicants side.

 

[NewRunner]

Are these counsel impartial? That is, when there is a potential dispute between USCIS officers and applicants, do these counsels try their best to help USCIS officers to beat applicants or they try to provide objective legal opinions to USCIS officers? I think at least it is too much to hope they are on applicants side.

As with any governmental Chief Counsel's office, I would hope that they would interpret the law in a manner that is consistent with the most current legal reasoning, statutes, precedents, and applicable case law. Sometimes this means that they will side with petitioners and sometimes with USCIS IOs. In the end, their goal is to ensure that USCIS is on the right side of the law for any given decision, not individual IOs. Part of their mission is to train IOs in the proper application of the INA in the adjudication of cases.

http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/chief_counsel.pdf

"The Office of the Chief Counsel was established in accordance with the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to provide specialized legal advice, opinions, determinations, regulations, and other assistance to the USCIS Director and to represent the agency in visa petition appeals before the Executive Office for Immigration Review.

With a highly skilled team of more than 100 attorneys nationwide, the Office of Chief Counsel (OCC) fields a wide range of inquiries. These inquiries concern immigrant and nonimmigrant employment and family-based petitions, adjustment of status, adoptions, inadmissibility and waivers, naturalization, asylum and refugee status and contract and administrative matters. OCC provides comprehensive litigation support to the Department of Justice’s Office of Immigration Litigation and the Offices of the U.S. Attorney. OCC’s areas of responsibility include providing legal education and training to USCIS personnel, advising USCIS and Department of Homeland Security staff on legislative, regulatory and national security issues."

 

[Bobsmyth]

Are these counsel impartial? That is, when there is a potential dispute between USCIS officers and applicants, do these counsels try their best to help USCIS officers to beat applicants or they try to provide objective
legal opinions to USCIS officers? I think at least it is too much to hope they are on applicants side.

My guess is that they go by the law and by precedent.

 

[munnabhai02]

Sorry for bringing this up again.
Please direct me to similar threads/polls if I missed. I could not find one.

Curious after infopass and tel calls. My case was approved in September after I submitted my documents. Just wanted to see if more people are in same situation waiting for just oath letter. Rest all is cleared.
Fairfax office.

Io told me that it may come in nov/dec because they are overbooked for now.

Any help!!

 

[Bobsmyth]

Sorry for bringing this up again.
Please direct me to similar threads/polls if I missed. I could not find one.

Curious after infopass and tel calls. My case was approved in September after I submitted my documents. Just wanted to see if more people are in same situation waiting for just oath letter. Rest all is cleared.
Fairfax office.

Io told me that it may come in nov/dec because they are overbooked for now.

Any help!!

Have you tried posting in Fairfax thread?

http://forums.immigration.com/showthread.php?t=117422

 

[munnabhai02]

Ya I have been following that. Most of them are waiting for interview letter.
In my case I have been thrown back in queue after June interview and just wondering if I am in line with FP people or interview folks or being considered as a fresh applicant.
If anyone recently recd only oath letter date, that would give me an idea.
I will post there also. Thanks.