Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

To use an attorney or not, This is my dilemna.

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

  • To use an attorney or not, This is my dilemna.

    I need some input. No bull! I have been told by my lawyer, that we have strong basis for MTR and because I applied and received an I-130 before the deadline, we are also eligible to "adjust status" also. My Q is this: Use an attorney or do the MTR myself? I already did all the hard work. The attorney wants $2000 just to start and then there's no guarentee that he won't want more. Input, please.

  • #2
    I need some input. No bull! I have been told by my lawyer, that we have strong basis for MTR and because I applied and received an I-130 before the deadline, we are also eligible to "adjust status" also. My Q is this: Use an attorney or do the MTR myself? I already did all the hard work. The attorney wants $2000 just to start and then there's no guarentee that he won't want more. Input, please.

    Comment


    • #3
      use an attorney, especially a commie pinko liberal mouthpiece, who will sell out the country to anyone with total disregard to...everything.

      Comment


      • #4
        <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by concerned citizen:
        I need some input. No bull! I have been told by my lawyer, that we have strong basis for MTR and because I applied and received an I-130 before the deadline, we are also eligible to "adjust status" also. My Q is this: Use an attorney or do the MTR myself? I already did all the hard work. The attorney wants $2000 just to start and then there's no guarentee that he won't want more. Input, please. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

        I would say it depends on your case. What is the basis of it? If you can write diligently and stick with the facts, i.e., make USCIS aware of all the points wrong and why they should reopen and reconsider I'd say go for it. The motion to reopen should directly dispute the reason(s) why it was denied and give the right reasons, laws and legal options why they should grant it. Don't give them any emotional stuff - hard-core facts based in law only. Because USCIS officers, can only go by what's in their books.

        If it is not a clear cut case, I don't think they would do the research on how to approve it, you'd have to give them the case law so they can just go and look it up.

        Argue your heart out in that motion!!
        “...I may condemn what you say, but I will give my life for that you may say it”! - Voltaire

        Comment


        • #5
          MTRs usually fail unless there is an agency error. Don't waste your money.

          Comment


          • #6
            <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by federale86:
            MTRs usually fail unless there is an agency error. Don't waste your money. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

            Well, I am not sure about the usual, but I do have to tell you, that if they do not grant, i.e., they deny again, it will then exhaust the administrative appeal route, meaning if you are deportable, you will be issued an NTA (Notice to Appear). I motioned to reopen and they partially granted mine. I mean in that motion they granted that I am illegible for 245i based on my ex's old I-130. I was angry as hell that I had to spent $800 for the motion plus lawyer fees to point out the agencies error omitting the fact that I was an approved I-130 prior to the Sunset Date of 1998.

            The first time around they denied without any regard to that old I-130. My motion did bring me one step forward however.

            You gonna have to tell us more detail about the case. Did USCIS acknowledge in their denial you can adjust status and how?
            “...I may condemn what you say, but I will give my life for that you may say it”! - Voltaire

            Comment


            • #7
              Federale: what the **** do we care if he wastes his money? this guy has a shady past. He should get an atty. a real extortionist...err...a real good one who's going to promise him the sun and the moon. Let me be the first one to say GOOD BYE!!!

              Comment


              • #8
                by the way I wrote h.e.c.k.

                Comment


                • #9
                  one more important thing, we need S12 input on this one, he'll clarify all doubts

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I'd suggest hiring a lawyer, just to be safe you really receive your visa...all this legal-talk can be very confusing...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
                      It's mandatory. An individual for all intensive purposed is barred pro se in matters before an IJ. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                      This isn't true, sorry. Unlike in criminal cases, an alien isn't mandated to be represented by an attorney or accredited representative before any immigration proceedings.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        "Can't be done" (what you said) vs. "Shouldn't be done" are two totally different things though.

                        And so, you're "for" the hiring of one, i.e. despite the "looting."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          By now RN you should know that davdah is a contradiction in terms. It's the Trent Lott effect.
                          "What you see in the photograph isn't what you saw at the time. The real skill of photography is organized visual lying."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            You mean just like the anti-immigrant stance and the closet romance wrapped around in one irreconcilable mix?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
                              It's mandatory. An individual for all intensive purposed is barred pro se in matters before an IJ. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                              You digress. Let's go back to basics. This was what you said as quoted above. You made a statement about regulations, to which I just responded accordingly. That's all.

                              You used the word "mandatory" as in attorney representation, and you went further with the phrase "barred pro se in matters before an IJ," which means "to do otherwise isn't permissible." True or not?

                              I raised an objection because that's not what the regs say. Forget about the outcome and avoid being case-specific because that's not the point. I'm talking about the rules that you categorically stated in the opposite.

                              To stress my point that representation isn't mandatory and individuals aren't barred pro se before an IJ, please see Chapter 2 of Immigration Court Practice Manual: http://www.justice.gov/eoir/vl...cManual/Chap%202.pdf

                              Whereas, "In all criminal prosecutions, ... to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." Which is what I said quoting in part the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution.

                              Oh, pro se http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...in_the_United_States and pro bono http://www.justice.gov/eoir/reports/icrepsummary.htm are two different things as well.

                              Comment



                              Working...
                              X