ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily




The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
© 1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23

Thread: who's breaking the law?

  1. #1
    USCIS and State Dept. web sites:
    Government instructions and "requirements" on forms or web sites are NOT LAW. In fact, many things they "require" are against the law. The supreme court has nailed this issue down numerous times. Each Dept. of Government is regulated by law as to what they are required to do. If they "require" something that is not in the law, they are committing a crime. Form instructions and web site instructions MAY request certain things. But MAY NOT require them if not authorized by law. A Public Act, Statute Law (United States Code), INA, etc., DO NOT have the force and effect of law upon you. ONLY the Code of Federal Regulations ("CFR") does. We see USCIS using "INA" and "USC" which in themselves mean nothing unless specifically backed up by the CFR.

    These sites give the impression that things done a certain way, and are complete instructions. Whoa to those who want to believe this! Such information is written and posted by some clown who's ordered to do so, and only publish's what that particular person knows. It's the omission of information that get's you into trouble. Here's an example of a USCIS published memo that blatantly contradicts the law.

    Section 832 (D)(2)(A) of the IMBRA Act:

    Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), a consular officer may not approve a petition under paragraph (1) unless the officer has verified that- ''(i) the petitioner has not, previous to the pending petition, petitioned under paragraph (1) with respect to two or more applying aliens; and ''(ii) if the petitioner has had such a petition previously approved, 2 years have elapsed since the filing of such previously approved petition. (Bold emphasis, mine).

    First: A "consular officer" is part of the U.S. Dept. of State, not USCIS (DHS), and MAY NOT approve or disapprove a petition!! The law itself is wrong!

    Second: A USCIS memo, dated July 21st, 2006, states:

    "B. Filing Limitations
    IMBRA imposes limitations on the number of petitions a petitioner for a K nonimmigrant visa for an alien fiancé(e) (K-1) may file or have approved without seeking a waiver of the application of those limitations. If the petitioner has filed two or more K-1 visa petitions at any time in the past, or previously had a K-1 visa petition approved within two years prior to the filing of the current petition, the petitioner must request a waiver. (Bold emphasis, mine).

    Where is "(1) with respect to two or more applying aliens;" ?? Instead, it just says petitions. This means that a waiver is required to file two or petitions for the same person! That's NOT what Congress said.

    So what's wrong with that? Assume a petitioner filed a petition for a person, the person came to the U.S., and decided not to marry. A year later the couple decided they just didn't know each other well enough at first, but now do. So the petitioner files again. Congress says they can. USCIS says they can't! Who wrote the LAW? Who violated the law? Certainly not the couple. And you want to believe the USCIS and State Dept. web sites? Remember, this is just ONE example.

    Form Instructions:
    Form instruction authors are guilty critical omissions and deceptions. Here's an example: Form I-485 Application for Adjustment of Status ( OMB No. 1615-0023; Expires 09/30/08 ), gives a section on eligibility:

    "Who May File?" is anything but clear on allowing a person visiting the U.S., to marry here and be able to file for adjustment of status. However, under.....

    "Who Is Not Eligible to Adjust Status?" is a paragraph stating:

    "You were admitted to the United States as a visitor under the Visa Waiver Program, unless you are applying because you are an immediate relative of a U.S. citizen (parent, spouse, widow, widower or unmarried child under 21 years old); ... " (Underlined emphasis, mine).

    Note how the eligibility statement is hidden in the wrong section as an EXCEPTION. This is blatant deception!! They are stating a person on a Visa Waiver Program can marry a U.S. Citizen and file the I-485 form.... but still fail to state that an I-130 Relative petition MUST also be filed. This same form twists and omits a number of other crucial requirements and limitation. Only one example is listed above.

    I can find critical omissions and deceptions on ALL the USCIS forms. Many are intended to gather illegal (not required by law) information that can be used against you!

    Supporting documentation: This requirement is the most abused "requirement" used by both the USCIS and Consulates. One should always ask, "Is it required by law?" If not, then they have committed a crime under Title 18 USC, acting under the "color of law" which is obstruction of justice. They MAY be held accountable for this if someone wants to take to a Federal (not "Immigration") Court. Most petition filers over document their cases, and it gets used against their honey at interview time. A significant reason for the 42% K1 Fiance rejection rate.

  2. #2
    USCIS and State Dept. web sites:
    Government instructions and "requirements" on forms or web sites are NOT LAW. In fact, many things they "require" are against the law. The supreme court has nailed this issue down numerous times. Each Dept. of Government is regulated by law as to what they are required to do. If they "require" something that is not in the law, they are committing a crime. Form instructions and web site instructions MAY request certain things. But MAY NOT require them if not authorized by law. A Public Act, Statute Law (United States Code), INA, etc., DO NOT have the force and effect of law upon you. ONLY the Code of Federal Regulations ("CFR") does. We see USCIS using "INA" and "USC" which in themselves mean nothing unless specifically backed up by the CFR.

    These sites give the impression that things done a certain way, and are complete instructions. Whoa to those who want to believe this! Such information is written and posted by some clown who's ordered to do so, and only publish's what that particular person knows. It's the omission of information that get's you into trouble. Here's an example of a USCIS published memo that blatantly contradicts the law.

    Section 832 (D)(2)(A) of the IMBRA Act:

    Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), a consular officer may not approve a petition under paragraph (1) unless the officer has verified that- ''(i) the petitioner has not, previous to the pending petition, petitioned under paragraph (1) with respect to two or more applying aliens; and ''(ii) if the petitioner has had such a petition previously approved, 2 years have elapsed since the filing of such previously approved petition. (Bold emphasis, mine).

    First: A "consular officer" is part of the U.S. Dept. of State, not USCIS (DHS), and MAY NOT approve or disapprove a petition!! The law itself is wrong!

    Second: A USCIS memo, dated July 21st, 2006, states:

    "B. Filing Limitations
    IMBRA imposes limitations on the number of petitions a petitioner for a K nonimmigrant visa for an alien fiancé(e) (K-1) may file or have approved without seeking a waiver of the application of those limitations. If the petitioner has filed two or more K-1 visa petitions at any time in the past, or previously had a K-1 visa petition approved within two years prior to the filing of the current petition, the petitioner must request a waiver. (Bold emphasis, mine).

    Where is "(1) with respect to two or more applying aliens;" ?? Instead, it just says petitions. This means that a waiver is required to file two or petitions for the same person! That's NOT what Congress said.

    So what's wrong with that? Assume a petitioner filed a petition for a person, the person came to the U.S., and decided not to marry. A year later the couple decided they just didn't know each other well enough at first, but now do. So the petitioner files again. Congress says they can. USCIS says they can't! Who wrote the LAW? Who violated the law? Certainly not the couple. And you want to believe the USCIS and State Dept. web sites? Remember, this is just ONE example.

    Form Instructions:
    Form instruction authors are guilty critical omissions and deceptions. Here's an example: Form I-485 Application for Adjustment of Status ( OMB No. 1615-0023; Expires 09/30/08 ), gives a section on eligibility:

    "Who May File?" is anything but clear on allowing a person visiting the U.S., to marry here and be able to file for adjustment of status. However, under.....

    "Who Is Not Eligible to Adjust Status?" is a paragraph stating:

    "You were admitted to the United States as a visitor under the Visa Waiver Program, unless you are applying because you are an immediate relative of a U.S. citizen (parent, spouse, widow, widower or unmarried child under 21 years old); ... " (Underlined emphasis, mine).

    Note how the eligibility statement is hidden in the wrong section as an EXCEPTION. This is blatant deception!! They are stating a person on a Visa Waiver Program can marry a U.S. Citizen and file the I-485 form.... but still fail to state that an I-130 Relative petition MUST also be filed. This same form twists and omits a number of other crucial requirements and limitation. Only one example is listed above.

    I can find critical omissions and deceptions on ALL the USCIS forms. Many are intended to gather illegal (not required by law) information that can be used against you!

    Supporting documentation: This requirement is the most abused "requirement" used by both the USCIS and Consulates. One should always ask, "Is it required by law?" If not, then they have committed a crime under Title 18 USC, acting under the "color of law" which is obstruction of justice. They MAY be held accountable for this if someone wants to take to a Federal (not "Immigration") Court. Most petition filers over document their cases, and it gets used against their honey at interview time. A significant reason for the 42% K1 Fiance rejection rate.

  3. #3
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
    Mike, who ever wrote this is really grasping at straws. For one the I-485 makes it clear about family members and the petitions in the 'who is eligible' section. The forms are actually so clear that people have a tendency to read into the form things that are not there. In reference to imbra it is assumed that if a person is filing two apps it is probably for two different people. In the hypothetical this guy describes I'm sure it wouldn't count as two if for the same person. Probably someone who got caught up in their own mistakes and is looking to blame the forms. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
    Spoken like someone who has never filled out a form in their life. Mike brings up a very significant point: immigration law is complicated. Instructions to the forms are generally good about who is eligible and who is not; yet they do not provide an exact definition nor allow for every circumstance. What the forms do not help with is how to fill out the form specifically, although a majority of the lines is self explanatory. For instance, on the I-485, part one where it states "current immigration status." What is the current status of a K-1 visa holder who married within 90 days? The instructions do not tell you. If you put K-1, that is not correct. If you put K-3, that is correct. But no where on the form does it advise you. If you put K-1, it could cause unnecessary delay in processing. Or where does it define "moral turpitude" in the instructions? That is the point Mike was making Davdah.
    "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams on Defense of the boston Massacre

  4. #4
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mike_2007:
    USCIS and State Dept. web sites:
    Government instructions and "requirements" on forms or web sites are NOT LAW. In fact, many things they "require" are against the law. The supreme court has nailed this issue down numerous times. Each Dept. of Government is regulated by law as to what they are required to do. If they "require" something that is not in the law, they are committing a crime. Form instructions and web site instructions MAY request certain things. But MAY NOT require them if not authorized by law. A Public Act, Statute Law (United States Code), INA, etc., DO NOT have the force and effect of law upon you. ONLY the Code of Federal Regulations ("CFR") does. We see USCIS using "INA" and "USC" which in themselves mean nothing unless specifically backed up by the CFR.

    These sites give the impression that things done a certain way, and are complete instructions. Whoa to those who want to believe this! Such information is written and posted by some clown who's ordered to do so, and only publish's what that particular person knows. It's the omission of information that get's you into trouble. Here's an example of a USCIS published memo that blatantly contradicts the law.

    Section 832 (D)(2)(A) of the IMBRA Act:

    Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), a consular officer may not approve a petition under paragraph (1) unless the officer has verified that- ''(i) the petitioner has not, previous to the pending petition, petitioned under paragraph (1) with respect to two or more applying aliens; and ''(ii) if the petitioner has had such a petition previously approved, 2 years have elapsed since the filing of such previously approved petition. (Bold emphasis, mine).

    First: A "consular officer" is part of the U.S. Dept. of State, not USCIS (DHS), and MAY NOT approve or disapprove a petition!! The law itself is wrong!

    Second: A USCIS memo, dated July 21st, 2006, states:

    "B. Filing Limitations
    IMBRA imposes limitations on the number of petitions a petitioner for a K nonimmigrant visa for an alien fiancé(e) (K-1) may file or have approved without seeking a waiver of the application of those limitations. If the petitioner has filed two or more K-1 visa petitions at any time in the past, or previously had a K-1 visa petition approved within two years prior to the filing of the current petition, the petitioner must request a waiver. (Bold emphasis, mine).

    Where is "(1) with respect to two or more applying aliens;" ?? Instead, it just says petitions. This means that a waiver is required to file two or petitions for the same person! That's NOT what Congress said.

    So what's wrong with that? Assume a petitioner filed a petition for a person, the person came to the U.S., and decided not to marry. A year later the couple decided they just didn't know each other well enough at first, but now do. So the petitioner files again. Congress says they can. USCIS says they can't! Who wrote the LAW? Who violated the law? Certainly not the couple. And you want to believe the USCIS and State Dept. web sites? Remember, this is just ONE example.

    Form Instructions:
    Form instruction authors are guilty critical omissions and deceptions. Here's an example: Form I-485 Application for Adjustment of Status ( OMB No. 1615-0023; Expires 09/30/08 ), gives a section on eligibility:

    "Who May File?" is anything but clear on allowing a person visiting the U.S., to marry here and be able to file for adjustment of status. However, under.....

    "Who Is Not Eligible to Adjust Status?" is a paragraph stating:

    "You were admitted to the United States as a visitor under the Visa Waiver Program, unless you are applying because you are an immediate relative of a U.S. citizen (parent, spouse, widow, widower or unmarried child under 21 years old); ... " (Underlined emphasis, mine).

    Note how the eligibility statement is hidden in the wrong section as an EXCEPTION. This is blatant deception!! They are stating a person on a Visa Waiver Program can marry a U.S. Citizen and file the I-485 form.... but still fail to state that an I-130 Relative petition MUST also be filed. This same form twists and omits a number of other crucial requirements and limitation. Only one example is listed above.

    I can find critical omissions and deceptions on ALL the USCIS forms. Many are intended to gather illegal (not required by law) information that can be used against you!

    Supporting documentation: This requirement is the most abused "requirement" used by both the USCIS and Consulates. One should always ask, "Is it required by law?" If not, then they have committed a crime under Title 18 USC, acting under the "color of law" which is obstruction of justice. They MAY be held accountable for this if someone wants to take to a Federal (not "Immigration") Court. Most petition filers over document their cases, and it gets used against their honey at interview time. A significant reason for the 42% K1 Fiance rejection rate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
    Mike,
    Instructions to the forms are not supposed to be citing law; they are designed as guidelines to apply a situation within the law itself. But the post also shows just how complicated immigration law is and the inept instructions that USCSIS provide.
    "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams on Defense of the boston Massacre

  5. #5
    Hi Mike_2007, Davdah and Hudson,

    I appreciate the discussion in this thread - it's informative.
    Do all the good you can, in all the ways you can, as long as ever you can.

    --John Wesley

  6. #6
    Someone12
    Guest
    how would mike2007 know anything about our laws?? This idiot couldn't tell 'heads' from 'tails' on a coin toss, even if one gave him 14 chances.....crawl back into your $hithole, mike2007, and pull some leaves over your sorry behind.

  7. #7
    Someone12
    Guest
    I can spell, you idiot..."boaring?"-- what word is that? You are dumber than a 5 pound bag of dog$hit, mike2007.....you wouldn't know a law if it bit you on your 2 inch dik....(in the erected state)...are you an immigration attorney? (no) are you an official working for DHS? (no) for USCIS? (no) State Dept? (no)...so....why should anyone with an IQ higher than yours (which includes 99% of mankind) believe a single word of your "advice" about our immigration system and its laws????? Come on, douchebag cleaner, enlighten all of us........

  8. #8
    I'll offer you a good price for your head S12, for the top of a totem pole.

  9. #9
    Someone12
    Guest
    dear mike(moron)2007..." a high scholl degree?"...what is that? You cannot even spell the most basic English words, you idiot. What an illiterate moron you are....which is reinforced each and every time you post your grammatically incorrect scrawl....a random pile of dog$hit is smarter than you.

  10. #10
    Someone12
    Guest
    and mike2007...you don't know $hit about who is working to protect our borders (sorry, 'boarders'....since you cannot even spell the word, why should anyone believe you 'know' so much about the agencies and personnel that work to guard our soveriegn borders?)...why aren't you in charge of DHS? Because (a) you aren't even legal in the US and (b) you are too stupid to pass the most basic exam...I've seen bricks that are smarter than you, $hit-for-brain$

Similar Threads

  1. Help. My law firm is breaking their contract with me!!!!
    By Eleanor1 in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 09-11-2007, 01:24 PM
  2. Replies: 30
    Last Post: 04-09-2006, 08:28 PM
  3. Breaking News
    By INStress in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-18-2004, 01:33 PM
  4. Breaking News
    By INStress in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-18-2004, 01:33 PM
  5. Breaking News
    By Itduzz in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-20-2004, 03:27 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: