Announcement

**Disserene** · 01-06-2005, 01:56 PM

Hi,

I am talking to a free-lance jouranlist who will be writing a story on I-751.

Should you know any real and brave people who are ready to post a short but concise written acount of their suffering due to their I-751 Waiver applications to USCIS / INS and / or have been deported .etc due to the re-interpretation of Section 216(c)(4) of Immigration and Nationality Act under the light of Mr. William Yates' Memo (http://uscis.gov/graphics/lawsregs/h...iver041003.pdf) then please do post your written account and short summary what you have gone through along-with your e-mail address (s) here on this message board URGENTLY.

Indeed, I would be greatly thankful and I hope it will help lots of people on long-term basis.

Looking forward to hearing from you soon...

Sincerely & Respectfully,

Disserene

**sphyrapicus3** · 01-06-2005, 02:55 PM

I'm just curious as to how someone would suffer because of the Yates memo? Are you referring to couples that have separated but have not finalized the divorce when it comes time to file the I-751?

**swissnut** · 01-06-2005, 03:04 PM

It appears to me that Disserene is looking for people who could not file a Waiver of the joint filing requirement as they did not have a divorce decree at the time. "Suffered", I gather, might be in reference to aliens who might have had their conditional status terminated or been placed in removal proceedings, because they did not secure a continuance. But I am speculating, here!

**mohan** · 01-06-2005, 04:29 PM

want to write a stories.. I can arrange two of them..
Topic: Aid to disaster victims.. either never reaches Or fraction of the aid only reaches to right person.. With all the proof .. let me know.

Second.. Immigration

**Disserene** · 01-06-2005, 06:14 PM

Hi,

Thanks for your feedback and Apology for NOT clarifying.

sphyrapicus3! We need what 'swissnut' has understood.

Further, Mr. Cyrus D. Mehta has also outline some very important points in his article @
http://www.cyrusmehta.com/News_Cyrus.asp?news_id=906

Some hints can be found in the following paragraphs:

"Many states, including New York, require a showing of "fault" in order to obtain a divorce.6 If the parties wish to mutually terminate the marriage in New York without establishing a "fault" ground, they have to stay apart for one year pursuant to a written separation agreement before they can apply for a divorce.7 Moreover, divorce proceedings are inevitably delayed due to the high costs of divorce, the other spouse's obstruction, property settlement negotiations and for a variety of other reasons beyond the control of the non-citizen. It is therefore extremely difficult to terminate a marriage within two years."

+

"The new Memo will cause a lot of hardship to non-citizen spouses who may be in the middle of divorce or annulment proceedings, but which have not yet been finalized before the two-year anniversary. The Marriage Termination Waiver is the most convenient way for a non-citizen spouse to remove conditional residence if the marriage has fallen apart. The evidentiary burden for establishing a Hardship Waiver and Battered Spouse Waiver is more onerous to the non-citizen spouse."

+

"As the Memo was issued only on April 10, 2003, many waiver requests have been filed while the divorce or annulment proceeding was still pending, and the non-citizen spouse has hoped to appear at the interview post-April 10, 2003 with the final termination decree. It is possible that District Offices may apply the Memo retroactively. If this happens, a new I-751 should immediately be filed at the USCIS service center with evidence of the legal termination of marriage. Such a filing will once again result in the temporary grant of conditional resident status for a period of one year at a time, although it will set this individual back by another two years. If the non-citizen is issued an NTA, he or she should ask the immigration judge for a continuance to file the new I-751 with the Service.

It is hoped that the Memo is not applied retroactively. Rather, this Memo should be rescinded altogether as it is not supported by the statute or case law, causes undue hardship to non-citizen spouses in matrimonial proceedings, and results in additional filings and administrative work for an already overburdened agency and immigration court system."

Please, do NOT think only about yourself that coz your own I-751 waiver application was successful that means people have NOT suffered.

It should be noted that USCIS / INS is re-interpreting of Section 216(c)(4) of Immigration and Nationality Act under the light of Mr. William Yates' Memo (http://uscis.gov/graphics/lawsregs/h...iver041003.pdf) AFTER successfully allowing peopel to file their I-751 waivers for almost good 10 years.

Post 911 - National Security Concerns should NOT be a valid ground / argument to re-interpret of Section 216(c)(4) of Immigration and Nationality Act under the light of Mr. William Yates' Memo (http://uscis.gov/graphics/lawsregs/h...iver041003.pdf) 'COZ Conditional Residents get their Conditional Green Card AFTER going through thorough background checks, medical exams AND interview with the USCIS / INS.

I seriously and sincerely hope that people will come forward with their written accounts in due course AS this Message Board has more than 50% of the postings on the topic of I-751.

Looking forward to seeing your postings...

Sincerely & Respectfully,

Disserene

**sphyrapicus3** · 01-06-2005, 06:30 PM

>50% of the postings on ILW are regarding I-751s? Hmmm, I wonder what board I have been monitoring then?

In all my years of monitoring immigration sites, I have yet to see someone put in removal proceedings because they were unable to file a timely waiver because of an impending divorce. I hope we do hear from some that have experienced this.

There are some inaccurracies in the text that you cite. For example, if someone files a new I-751 based on a waiver because of a divorce decree, the conditional status is NOT granted in increments of one year. A properly filed I-751 automatically extends the I-551 until the I-751 is adjudicated (regardless of how long it takes).

Good luck with your mission.

**swissnut** · 01-06-2005, 06:42 PM

She must be talking about numbers of posts, rather than the number of persons. I guess Aguila and I can take credit for skewing the percentages, when we were debating!

**sphyrapicus3** · 01-06-2005, 06:46 PM

LOL.

Maybe that's how she's arrived at her numbers.

I-751 issues are topics that I usually respond to. Hence, my doubt that over 1/2 of all postings are in reference to I-751s.

**swissnut** · 01-06-2005, 06:51 PM

And far less apply specifically to the topic she notes.

**Michael** · 01-06-2005, 08:15 PM

How about an article about the USC's that have suffered by the fraud of evil grints that used them for a greencard???????

**Still Learning** · 01-06-2005, 08:17 PM

It's nice that ILW is famous for something other than Michael.

Michael, have you considered writing a book about your experiences? It might be helpful to others, would be good therapy for you, and hopefully would keep you off of the board for a while.

**Disserene** · 01-06-2005, 08:41 PM

Hi,

Once again, Thanks for your kind feedback...

sphyrapicus3! with all due respect, you seem NOT to understand where I am coming from NOR you venture to compare the Memo AND the article by Cyrus D. Mehta.

You seem to think that you are omniscient / expert about / on the topic of I-751 Waiver 'coz you have spent years in monitoring immigration sites AND "I-751 issues are topics that I usually respond to."

Having said that I would like to excuse myself indulging in any sort of argument here.

I posted my request to help people who are I-751 Waiver applicant and have something to contribute in the shape of their personal experience highliging their problems.

The issues ARE:

- Is it some sort of 'Memos' Culture' here? That first congress passes the law and THEN people working for the pertinent Federal Agency go ahead and RE-INTERPRETE the law NEGATIVELY - AFTER successfully following the LAW for ONE DECADE as per congressional intent behind the I-751 waiver in this instance...

- Why should Memo get precedent over the LAW specially when it is used AS POLICY NEGATIVELY to create more problems for the people AND the USIC / INS?

- the Memo DOES bar people to NOT to file I-751 waiver TILL their Divorce IS finalized... AND It takes from 2 weeks (IF you live in Nevada) to almost 2 years (IF you live in a state like New York) to get your divorce finalized. Consequently, It DOES create lots of problems for lots of people which inclues, but NOT limited to, administrative / aditional filings which MEANS more money to the USCIS / INS and / or the immigration attorneys, to be in LIMBO till your divorce IS finalized with the potential risk of being put in Removal Proceedings (READ: more money... more money... more headache... more hardship) and MORE adminstrative and adjudicative work for then USCIS / INS which is already over-burdened with MILLIONS of applications inlcluding other tasks like implementing the immigration law enforcement on the ground...

- AND I am sorry I take the liberty to disagree with your argument that

"There are some inaccurracies in the text that you cite. For example, if someone files a new I-751 based on a waiver because of a divorce decree, the conditional status is NOT granted in increments of one year. A properly filed I-751 automatically extends the I-551 until the I-751 is adjudicated (regardless of how long it takes)."

The MEMO is NOT talking about those people who already have the FINAL DECREE OF DIVORCE... It is talking about those who DO NOT HAVE...

Further, People DO get to put in removal proceedings IF they DO NOT have Final Decree of Divorce... AND due to Post-911 era and on-going racial profiling scrutiny on the grounds of etnicity, religion, appearance, complaints .etc, How can one guarantee that people have NOT been removed from this country whose conditional redisency had expired and they couldn't file their I-751 waiver for whatever reason...?

It is really really hard to prove that you were battered or will face extreme hardships - specially IF you are a MALE and DON'T have kids. Therefore, rest of the two grounds of the waiver can be out of reach for some people.

AND Last but NOT the least, You ONLY GET AUTOMATIC extention IF you get the opportunity to file the I-751 waiver. If you don't then what? Go HOME EVEN you have kids... ? Come on..

sphyrapicus3! As they say, "It is really hard to be in someone's else shoes." If you are NOT an I-751 Waiver applicant and HAVEN'T gone through the system by yourself AND / OR HAVE NOT read the pertinent law, Memo and article by Cyrus D. Mehta THEN please refrain wasting your time and others time.

May I reiterate that we need to have some real life accounts of I-751 Waiver Applicants...

Looking forward to have your real accounts...

Sincerely & Respectfully,

Disserene

**sphyrapicus3** · 01-07-2005, 03:51 AM

Disserene,

I am very aware of the pertinent memo you refer to. I've read it many times - probably more than you have! In fact, I have cited that memo hundreds of times. I find it offensive that you downplay my input into this issue. I have helped literally hundreds of people that were faced with divorce issues when it comes time to file the I-751. I have described the issues to them and told them about how to file the waiver and what do do if the final divorce decree has not been issued.

I am WELL AWARE of what the memo discusses. My statement stands.

You cited the following incorrect statement. I corrected it. Filing a new I-751 when the divorce decree is finalized WILL NOT "result in the temporary grant of conditional resident status for a period of one year at at time" as the author writes. That was my point. I did not comment on the memo - I was commenting on the text that you cited from the Cyrus brief.

"If this happens, a new I-751 should immediately be filed at the USCIS service center with evidence of the legal termination of marriage. Such a filing will once again result in the temporary grant of conditional resident status for a period of one year at a time, although it will set this individual back by another two years."

My point was that I have not heard of anyone being put in removal proceedings in all of my years monitoring immigration boards. I didn't say it does not happen. I'm just saying that I have not heard of it.

I happen to have helped many people on here out of the goodness of my heart. I find your post insulting and offensive, especially where you ask me to "refrain wasting your time and others time".

If others feel the same way that you do, I will gladly take my knowledge and experience elsewhere.

**swissnut** · 01-07-2005, 06:22 AM

Sphyrapicus:

I, too, have read both the April 2003 memo and Cyrus Mehta's comments and recommendations on it. I see very clearly that you were trying to bring to Disserene's attention to the fact that under these circumstances the I-551 would be extended, but not simply for one year as her post suggests.

"Keep on keeping on", Sphyrapicus. Many have and will continue to benefit from your insight and research.

Announcement

Real Life Accounts from those who suffered due to I-751 Waiver & Mr. Willams' Memo

Real Life Accounts from those who suffered due to I-751 Waiver & Mr. Willams' Memo

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment