Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AAO revocation of Temp. Resident Status

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • AAO revocation of Temp. Resident Status

    Please see if the following post is of concern in your case. If it does then do contact the Ctr. for Human Rights.
    Posted Aug 9, 7:13 PM
    The Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law serves as class counsel for persons who apply for legalization or “late amnesty” under the CSS and LULAC/Newman settlements.

    The Center is concerned that CIS adjudicators may be violating the CSS and LULAC/Newman settlements in the following ways:

    1) Misapplication of the preponderance of the evidence standard.

    8 C.F.R. § 245a.12(e) requires CIS to adjudicate legalization applications using the familiar “preponderance of the evidence” standard.
    Class counsel have received reports that CIS adjudicators and the Administrative Appeals Office may be misapplying the preponderance of the evidence standard in the following ways:

    • Finding or inventing some weakness in individual items of documentary evidence of unlawful residence and thereupon declaring such evidence wholly lacking in probative weight.

    • Refusing to give declarations any probative weight because the declarant failed to attach documentary evidence of his or her U.S. residence during the period the declarant confirms a legalization applicant’s residence or presence in the U.S.

    • Declaring declarations devoid of probative weight because the declarant failed to provide non-essential details about the applicant’s employment, physical address, or daily activities.

    This list is not exclusive.

    2) Evading regulatory procedures for termination of temporary resident status.

    8 C.F.R. § 245a.2(u) prescribes the procedure CIS must follow to terminate temporary resident status.

    Class counsel have received reports that rather than follow § 245a.2(u), CIS is, without notice, revisiting CSS and Newman class members’ basic eligibility for lawful temporary residence at the time they appear for interview on applications to adjust from temporary to permanent resident status, finding that temporary residence was improvidently granted, rescinding lawful temporary residence, and denying adjustment to permanent residence.

    Lawyers, advocates and class members are encouraged to report examples of these possible violations off-list to Carlos Holguín, General Counsel, crholguin@centerforhumanrights.org.

  • #2
    Please see if the following post is of concern in your case. If it does then do contact the Ctr. for Human Rights.
    Posted Aug 9, 7:13 PM
    The Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law serves as class counsel for persons who apply for legalization or “late amnesty” under the CSS and LULAC/Newman settlements.

    The Center is concerned that CIS adjudicators may be violating the CSS and LULAC/Newman settlements in the following ways:

    1) Misapplication of the preponderance of the evidence standard.

    8 C.F.R. § 245a.12(e) requires CIS to adjudicate legalization applications using the familiar “preponderance of the evidence” standard.
    Class counsel have received reports that CIS adjudicators and the Administrative Appeals Office may be misapplying the preponderance of the evidence standard in the following ways:

    • Finding or inventing some weakness in individual items of documentary evidence of unlawful residence and thereupon declaring such evidence wholly lacking in probative weight.

    • Refusing to give declarations any probative weight because the declarant failed to attach documentary evidence of his or her U.S. residence during the period the declarant confirms a legalization applicant’s residence or presence in the U.S.

    • Declaring declarations devoid of probative weight because the declarant failed to provide non-essential details about the applicant’s employment, physical address, or daily activities.

    This list is not exclusive.

    2) Evading regulatory procedures for termination of temporary resident status.

    8 C.F.R. § 245a.2(u) prescribes the procedure CIS must follow to terminate temporary resident status.

    Class counsel have received reports that rather than follow § 245a.2(u), CIS is, without notice, revisiting CSS and Newman class members’ basic eligibility for lawful temporary residence at the time they appear for interview on applications to adjust from temporary to permanent resident status, finding that temporary residence was improvidently granted, rescinding lawful temporary residence, and denying adjustment to permanent residence.

    Lawyers, advocates and class members are encouraged to report examples of these possible violations off-list to Carlos Holguín, General Counsel, crholguin@centerforhumanrights.org.

    Comment


    • #3
      More than likely USCIS has managed to discover the fraud and BS that is so rampant ... and the OP is just unhappy because his or her phony stories/relationship might have been exposed....I applaud USCIS's efforts to prevent dirtbags from gaining a green card....I have zero sympathy for visa cheats and marriage fraudsters....zero.

      Comment


      • #4
        Isn't the OP what chlorquin posted in August of last year, and you participated there as well, didn't you?

        Get a life man!
        http://www.anbsoft.com/images/usflag_med.jpg

        "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit

        Comment


        • #5
          Like I always say, it pays to keep ICE informed. I do, I do, I do

          Comment


          • #6
            I would volunteer to round up and deport some illegal a-holes myself.
            http://www.anbsoft.com/images/usflag_med.jpg

            "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit

            Comment


            • #7
              The Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law serves as class counsel for persons who apply for legalization or “late amnesty” under the CSS and LULAC/Newman settlements.

              The Center is concerned that CIS adjudicators may be violating the CSS and LULAC/Newman settlements in the following ways:

              1) Misapplication of the preponderance of the evidence standard.

              8 C.F.R. § 245a.12(e) requires CIS to adjudicate legalization applications using the familiar “preponderance of the evidence” standard.
              Class counsel have received reports that CIS adjudicators and the Administrative Appeals Office may be misapplying the preponderance of the evidence standard in the following ways:

              • Finding or inventing some weakness in individual items of documentary evidence of unlawful residence and thereupon declaring such evidence wholly lacking in probative weight.

              • Refusing to give declarations any probative weight because the declarant failed to attach documentary evidence of his or her U.S. residence during the period the declarant confirms a legalization applicant’s residence or presence in the U.S.

              • Declaring declarations devoid of probative weight because the declarant failed to provide non-essential details about the applicant’s employment, physical address, or daily activities.

              This list is not exclusive.

              2) Evading regulatory procedures for termination of temporary resident status.

              8 C.F.R. § 245a.2(u) prescribes the procedure CIS must follow to terminate temporary resident status.

              Class counsel have received reports that rather than follow § 245a.2(u), CIS is, without notice, revisiting CSS and Newman class members’ basic eligibility for lawful temporary residence at the time they appear for interview on applications to adjust from temporary to permanent resident status, finding that temporary residence was improvidently granted, rescinding lawful temporary residence, and denying adjustment to permanent residence.

              Lawyers, advocates and class members are encouraged to report examples of these possible violations off-list to Carlos Holguín, General Counsel, crholguin@centerforhumanrights.org.

              Comment


              • #8
                cutting and repasting this message doesn't make it any more useful nor accurate.

                Comment


                • #9
                  The main problem with LULAC people is that there are too many of them who haven't been here during the period of statutory eligibility or totally lack any evidence in support of the same and suddenly filed apps. requesting the benefits , basing it entirely on their own declaration and zero probative or documentary evidence.
                  You just can't go to USCIS tomorrow and say you were here as a homeless person since before 1972 registry date and get a GC based solely on your declaration, now can you? Same with LULAC applicants.

                  People who have been front-desked and had real grievances have already got their PR's (you can't fail to prove to have been front-desked, the record is there for all to see).

                  Go read and study those cases carefully.
                  http://www.anbsoft.com/images/usflag_med.jpg

                  "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law serves as class counsel for persons who apply for legalization or “late amnesty” under the CSS and LULAC/Newman settlements.

                    The Center is concerned that CIS adjudicators may be violating the CSS and LULAC/Newman settlements in the following ways:

                    1) Misapplication of the preponderance of the evidence standard.

                    8 C.F.R. § 245a.12(e) requires CIS to adjudicate legalization applications using the familiar “preponderance of the evidence” standard.
                    Class counsel have received reports that CIS adjudicators and the Administrative Appeals Office may be misapplying the preponderance of the evidence standard in the following ways:

                    • Finding or inventing some weakness in individual items of documentary evidence of unlawful residence and thereupon declaring such evidence wholly lacking in probative weight.

                    • Refusing to give declarations any probative weight because the declarant failed to attach documentary evidence of his or her U.S. residence during the period the declarant confirms a legalization applicant’s residence or presence in the U.S.

                    • Declaring declarations devoid of probative weight because the declarant failed to provide non-essential details about the applicant’s employment, physical address, or daily activities.

                    This list is not exclusive.

                    2) Evading regulatory procedures for termination of temporary resident status.

                    8 C.F.R. § 245a.2(u) prescribes the procedure CIS must follow to terminate temporary resident status.

                    Class counsel have received reports that rather than follow § 245a.2(u), CIS is, without notice, revisiting CSS and Newman class members’ basic eligibility for lawful temporary residence at the time they appear for interview on applications to adjust from temporary to permanent resident status, finding that temporary residence was improvidently granted, rescinding lawful temporary residence, and denying adjustment to permanent residence.

                    Lawyers, advocates and class members are encouraged to report examples of these possible violations off-list to Carlos Holguín, General Counsel, crholguin@centerforhumanrights.org.[/quote]

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      SOSDD

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Please see if the following post is of concern in your case. If it does then do contact the Ctr. for Human Rights.
                        Posted Aug 9, 7:13 PM
                        The Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law serves as class counsel for persons who apply for legalization or “late amnesty” under the CSS and LULAC/Newman settlements.

                        The Center is concerned that CIS adjudicators may be violating the CSS and LULAC/Newman settlements in the following ways:

                        1) Misapplication of the preponderance of the evidence standard.

                        8 C.F.R. § 245a.12(e) requires CIS to adjudicate legalization applications using the familiar “preponderance of the evidence” standard.
                        Class counsel have received reports that CIS adjudicators and the Administrative Appeals Office may be misapplying the preponderance of the evidence standard in the following ways:

                        • Finding or inventing some weakness in individual items of documentary evidence of unlawful residence and thereupon declaring such evidence wholly lacking in probative weight.

                        • Refusing to give declarations any probative weight because the declarant failed to attach documentary evidence of his or her U.S. residence during the period the declarant confirms a legalization applicant’s residence or presence in the U.S.

                        • Declaring declarations devoid of probative weight because the declarant failed to provide non-essential details about the applicant’s employment, physical address, or daily activities.

                        This list is not exclusive.

                        2) Evading regulatory procedures for termination of temporary resident status.

                        8 C.F.R. § 245a.2(u) prescribes the procedure CIS must follow to terminate temporary resident status.

                        Class counsel have received reports that rather than follow § 245a.2(u), CIS is, without notice, revisiting CSS and Newman class members’ basic eligibility for lawful temporary residence at the time they appear for interview on applications to adjust from temporary to permanent resident status, finding that temporary residence was improvidently granted, rescinding lawful temporary residence, and denying adjustment to permanent residence.

                        Lawyers, advocates and class members are encouraged to report examples of these possible violations off-list to Carlos Holguín, General Counsel, crholguin@centerforhumanrights.org.[/QUOTE]

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I know several law abiding citizens who are willing and able to help ICE round up illegals, stuff them in their own cars, trucks, vans and leave them at the border, at no charge, for free, retarded dagos included. See what happens when you eat that pasta thingy? your brains gets clogged.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Please see if the following post is of concern in your case. If it does then do contact the Ctr. for Human Rights.
                            Posted Aug 9, 7:13 PM
                            The Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law serves as class counsel for persons who apply for legalization or “late amnesty” under the CSS and LULAC/Newman settlements.

                            The Center is concerned that CIS adjudicators may be violating the CSS and LULAC/Newman settlements in the following ways:

                            1) Misapplication of the preponderance of the evidence standard.

                            8 C.F.R. § 245a.12(e) requires CIS to adjudicate legalization applications using the familiar “preponderance of the evidence” standard.
                            Class counsel have received reports that CIS adjudicators and the Administrative Appeals Office may be misapplying the preponderance of the evidence standard in the following ways:

                            • Finding or inventing some weakness in individual items of documentary evidence of unlawful residence and thereupon declaring such evidence wholly lacking in probative weight.

                            • Refusing to give declarations any probative weight because the declarant failed to attach documentary evidence of his or her U.S. residence during the period the declarant confirms a legalization applicant’s residence or presence in the U.S.

                            • Declaring declarations devoid of probative weight because the declarant failed to provide non-essential details about the applicant’s employment, physical address, or daily activities.

                            This list is not exclusive.

                            2) Evading regulatory procedures for termination of temporary resident status.

                            8 C.F.R. § 245a.2(u) prescribes the procedure CIS must follow to terminate temporary resident status.

                            Class counsel have received reports that rather than follow § 245a.2(u), CIS is, without notice, revisiting CSS and Newman class members’ basic eligibility for lawful temporary residence at the time they appear for interview on applications to adjust from temporary to permanent resident status, finding that temporary residence was improvidently granted, rescinding lawful temporary residence, and denying adjustment to permanent residence.

                            Lawyers, advocates and class members are encouraged to report examples of these possible violations off-list to Carlos Holguín, General Counsel, crholguin@centerforhumanrights.org.

                            Comment



                            Working...
                            X