What recourse does anyone have when an immigration officer is a fault-finder rather than be an adjudicator of a case. I first came to this country in 1977 as an F-1 student. After about 3 years of studies, I graduated in 1979 and left the U.S. Then I came back with a student visa again to start graduate studies in 1981 and had enough money for my studies. Then sometime in mid-1981, I had to leave for about 3 weeks to my home country due to a death of a close relative in the family. I did not get any re-entry paper before I left because I thought my current student visa was good enough for my re-entry. When I came back, an immigration officer questioned me about not having a re-entry document. But after a brief discussion and showing documents (such as transcript, old visa, flight tickets, balance of money in my account), the officer allowed me to re-enter on my good old visa. But due to illnesses that started after I came back, I did not return back to school, and I was not working due to my illnesses. Not going to school was a violation of my student visa status and this is what qualified me for the amnesty program. Then I had to travel out sometime in mid-1983 for only 17 days to my home country and returned with a new student visa. When I went for my LULAC interview recently, I had very authentic documents (college transcripts, mails, bills, statements, etc.) dating back to 1981 to show the officer that I was here before January 1, 1982 and was out of status. The only reason I was turned away in 1987 was because of this 1983 student visa which has now been waived in the CSS/LULAC settlement. The interview was going great and I was feeling very happy, even though I was nervous. I went to this interview with one of the best, if not the best, immigration attorneys in the nation as I don't want to take any chances at all. And all of a sudden, the immigration officer said I am inadmissible and would need a waiver because he believes that I committed a wilfull misrepresentation to re-enter the U.S. in 1981 since I did not go back to school. Not going back to school however is what qualified me for amnesty, and for this officer, it's what he used to not grant me outright approval. I told him illnesses prevented me from going to school but he did not believe me. He was merely looking for any reason to deny me. Does anyone out there have such an experience? What can I do? My attorney too was surprised at this officer's sudden decision but wants me to go for the waiver. Any advice? I have a good job which I have been doing for 17 years. I have a BS, an MS and MBA. I have been a very good "citizen". As a minority, I have never been arrested in my life. My health is also not good and don't want to have to leave. I have lived here for close to 30 years. I believe this officer is prejudicial towards me. My case is almost fool proof but he still finds a flimsy excuse to tarnish it.
The second paragraph reads: '... Congress contemplated that waivers under section 245A of the Act be granted liberally. "In most cases, denials of legalization on the basis of the waivable exclusions should only occur when the applicant also falls within one of the specified non-waiverable grounds of exclusion." H.R. Rep. No. 115, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. 69-70. In matter of N-, supra, we noted that "we are also mindful that Congress intended the legalization program to be administered in a liberal and generous fashion."...'
The race card is very tired in America. We are sick this excuse for everything. It's been over played to death. But, it still exists. We can't look into a mans heart. Let's just say Bambulu is a black man from Africa, applying in the Midwest, he could possibly be a victim of discrimination.
A big question for SundevilUSA.
Imagine for a moment that you were given the identity of a white man, from let's say Canada, seeking to immigrate to the USA. You look and speak like a native born American with virtually no cultural differences. Let's say you had blonde hair and blue eyes, and you were applying at the Los Angeles office, run by Hispanics.
Let say that your immigration Officer was a brash mid 30's American born Mexican decent. Who may have felt as though he was a second class citizen in his own Country, while growing up in white America. What a salacious position of opportunity that could be, for someone who may have deep resentment and animosity. It might be very satisfying for that man, to disapprove SundevilUSA's application, even if he qualifies. There would be no million man march on SundevilUSA's behalf. We all know in America, the white man is always the perpetrator, never the victim of discrimination. Right?
The only thing un-American about America, is the USCIS.
Also does anyone knows if the waiver is required if someone left the country after 1988? I left the country in 1995 for 2 weeks and returned. I'm supposed to go for 2nd interview in january and i do not want surprises.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: privilege,
Originally posted by Bambulu: I went to this interview with one of the best, if not the best, immigration attorneys in the nation as I don't want to take any chances at all.
Experience is the best teacher, they say. Also, two heads or more are better than one. You will agree with me if I tell you the attorney's name, but I won't for now. But trust me I did and I paid top $ for it. Thanks.
quote:
Originally posted by floyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Bambulu: I went to this interview with one of the best, if not the best, immigration attorneys in the nation as I don't want to take any chances at all.
What gives?
You expect us to give you better advice? c'mmon!
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Bambulu,
I am not sure if a waiver is needed if someone left the country after 1988. There are many reasons why a waiver may be required. The officer quoted a section of the regulations pertaining to what he accused me of. Thanks.
quote:
Originally posted by privilege: Bambulu,
which state are you located?
Also does anyone knows if the waiver is required if someone left the country after 1988? I left the country in 1995 for 2 weeks and returned. I'm supposed to go for 2nd interview in january and i do not want surprises.
Men, I feel silly going up against the best in the business. I guess the best advise at this time is to tell you to do whatever that dude says, anything less would be uncivilized!!
Bambulu, This may surprise you, but having the best lawyer at the interview could actually hurt your case. Usually, lawyers are involved when a case is complicated. So, when you hire a big lawyer, automatically, the immigration officer will smell something fishy although you are confident that everything is ok. If I were you, I would have gone alone and attempt the first time. If things dont work out, then it will be justified to hire a lawyer. I am a black man from Africa. I will disagree with you that what the officer did was racist. This is what I believe: the officer saw you with a lawyer and decided to do everything with respect to the strict law. So, that caused him to look more closely at your case and found that something does not sit well. It does not matter how big of mouth your lawyer has, that is not going to change the outcome. Just go fill out the waiver paperwork and follow the instructions. Hopefully, next time you wont take a machine gun to fight against the mouse.
Since when has having a good lawyer mean you are guilty or have something to hide? Most people hire good lawyers just to make sure another good lawyer or adjudicator does not turn your innocence into guilt. I had authentic documents that should remove any doubts in the officer's or anybody's mind. The officer did not critisize any of my documents because they were genuine. Most of my documents, such as bank statements, bills, etc. still have their original envelopes with post office dates clearly shown on them. Haven't you heard of some people who did not have any documents at all and still got approved? You may disagree with me as much as you want but I went thru the interview, not you. Why do people always assume that prejudice only has to do with race? What about envy, jealousy, etc.? I don't play the race card; I am too mature for that. But a spade is still a spade. And if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, you will be foolhardy not to call it a duck just because you fear being critisized for calling it a duck.
quote:
Originally posted by Kumna: Bambulu, This may surprise you, but having the best lawyer at the interview could actually hurt your case. Usually, lawyers are involved when a case is complicated. So, when you hire a big lawyer, automatically, the immigration officer will smell something fishy although you are confident that everything is ok. If I were you, I would have gone alone and attempt the first time. If things dont work out, then it will be justified to hire a lawyer. I am a black man from Africa. I will disagree with you that what the officer did was racist. This is what I believe: the officer saw you with a lawyer and decided to do everything with respect to the strict law. So, that caused him to look more closely at your case and found that something does not sit well. It does not matter how big of mouth your lawyer has, that is not going to change the outcome. Just go fill out the waiver paperwork and follow the instructions. Hopefully, next time you wont take a machine gun to fight against the mouse.
My intent is not to make you feel guilty for hiring a lawyer. I am looking at your case from a practical view point. You may have hired a lawyer to make sure everything is ok. But, listen to what I am saying. If you come with a lawyer to an interview, you psychologically create a sense of serious environement. You are basically telling the officer, be aware, I have a lawyer with me. This creates a tense environment for everyone. That's why I told you hiring the best lawyer could actually play against you. But, take my advice for what it is worth.
I honestly believe people should hire a lawyer only when they truly need one. Based on the case you have described, you could have gone to the interview and things would have been ok.
Also, your reply to my post tells me something about you. How convinced are you that the officer is jealous of you?
If you went there and tried to show that you are better than him, I am not sorry for you that you got denied. These are people like you. They have feelings, families and issues. They sit there to listen to people stories all day long. The least you can do is to show them some respect. But if you want to come and act like superman, be ready to take some ugly surprises in your life.
I hope you get your acts together sooner than later. This is not something you can buy with money.
It's unfortunate you like to jump to conclusion. From my reply, you now know everything about me? How judgmental can you be? Did I say the officer was jealous of me? All I said was there are reasons other than race for prejudice. Why would I say the officer was jealous of me? The officer has a good job! In fact, I don't even think I have a better than the officer. And you think I went there and tried to show that I am better than him, huh? Every response to that officer ended with sir/mam. Who are you and how on earth do you get to these conclusions? "These are people like you. They have feelings, families and issues". And I don't have? Look, I already went for the interview; so, saying that if you were me you would not have gone with a lawyer, is a valueless advice. The only reason I put out my case to this board is to have the opportunity to piggyback on someone else' experience. I don't need criticism. Before you jump to another conclusion, please note I am not holier-than-thou and that's why I am asking for positive and helpful responses from this board. I am not asking you to be sorry for me either. It's not the end of my life even if I don't get approved. If you can't be of help, please don't offer advice. Help is what I need now, not criticism, ok! This is not Africa, and I know "this is not something you can buy with money".
quote:
Originally posted by Kumna: Bambulu,
My intent is not to make you feel guilty for hiring a lawyer. I am looking at your case from a practical view point. You may have hired a lawyer to make sure everything is ok. But, listen to what I am saying. If you come with a lawyer to an interview, you psychologically create a sense of serious environement. You are basically telling the officer, be aware, I have a lawyer with me. This creates a tense environment for everyone. That's why I told you hiring the best lawyer could actually play against you. But, take my advice for what it is worth.
I honestly believe people should hire a lawyer only when they truly need one. Based on the case you have described, you could have gone to the interview and things would have been ok.
Also, your reply to my post tells me something about you. How convinced are you that the officer is jealous of you?
If you went there and tried to show that you are better than him, I am not sorry for you that you got denied. These are people like you. They have feelings, families and issues. They sit there to listen to people stories all day long. The least you can do is to show them some respect. But if you want to come and act like superman, be ready to take some ugly surprises in your life.
I hope you get your acts together sooner than later. This is not something you can buy with money.
In retrospect I'm sorry that I didn't take a lawyer with me to my interview. The lawyer would have been a buffer between myself, and a very resentful immigration officer. The lawyer would also become my witness, as the officer is now distorting what I said in the interview. He must lie in order to deny me. Do they record the interviews? I hope so.
The only thing un-American about America, is the USCIS.
Add to del.icio.us
