Concerns - lack of consistency within the USCIS

[OldinWV]

I am pleased that this site has been started and feel that new immigrants/non-immigrants to the US should post their experiences with regard to inconsistency of the rules applied by the USCIS.

I have posted on other forums and many that view here may be aware of our situation. This week, however, I have been contacted by several other non-immigrants that applied for AOS and, under the USCIS' own regulations, are eligible. The problem being that in all these cases the USCIS are not "applying" these rules correctly and causing many newcomers to the US considerable expense for unecessary filing fees (renewal of EAD's etc) which the Ombudsman is well aware of but seems to be doing nothing about. The stress and usual inevitable court appearances are totally unecessary and the rules are not applied equally across the United States either.

The USCIS do not seem to know how to apply their own regulations, as in my case, but it seems they are opting for the "pass the buck" option, as in "let another department deal with it" rather than actually making decisions, even when it is pointed out by attorneys that they are not applying rules correctly.

I hate to even estimate how much money this has cost us so far. Many USC's are not in a position to be able to afford the cost of going to court and I am sure many immigrants are returned to their homelands simply because of the inhibitive cost of staying here.

In our case, if we fail to gain LPR status for one of our children, the only alternative is to leave the US, thereby forcing a USC to leave his home country in order to keep his new family together.

It makes me very angry when I see such complacency and total disregard for the fact that, due to no fault of their own, families are bankrupted and then returned to their home countries! I am sure this is not what Congress intended when enacting, and amending, the Immigration and Nationality Act, but who is doing anything about it?

[punky]

:welcome: to the site :)

Thanx very much for your imput. Unfortunately, doesn't make for good reading, but its a good heads up for people thinking of emmigrating.

You're right about USCIS not knowing what they are doing half the time. They seem to have loads of employees, with various skill levels, so its down to chance wether you'll get someone who knows what they are doing or not :(

With regards to changing it, I know Susie is in touch with both her congressmen with regards to petitioning the house about it, so you may want to PM her to find out how that's going. One particular emphasis she is putting forward is how much foreigners invest in the US, only to be forced to leave or messed around.

Glad you shared with your experiences with us, although they wern't positive. Do please come back and update us on how you get on :)

[OldinWV]

I have been in personal contact with Sue for nearly a year now and she is well aware of our situation and has my personal phone number and e-mail and we contact each other from time to time. I know that my posting wasn't positive - that's because the outcome of our case, so far, has not been positive. I don't see the point in "candy coating" things that just can't be candy coated!

Sue's situation is horrible! Our situation is horrible and many other people I talk to are in horrible situations too. None of them have broken any rules and are suffering real hardship, both financial and emotional, because to USCIS incompetency.

For many it is a breeze and I wish them the best, but for others it is not.

Just want to show people the other side of the coin.

[Susie]

Hi and welcome :welcome:

Great to have you on board.

The aim of this forum will be to start petitions and send to our congressmen/senators/ judiciary committe etc.,

Once mebership increases we intend to place adverts promoting our site and aims in national newspapers. Will be very interesting to see the results

We will be a voice that will be heard given time !!

Keep us updated

Regards Sue

[OldinWV]

I think it's a great idea to submit petitions. At the moment "legal" immigrants have no voice. Maybe this is just the place to be heard.

It has been a difficult few months for us and I get so frustrated that there seems to be no end to this nightmare, simply because the laws are not clear and are subject to "interpretation".

Although the USCIS denied my son, just this last month, the District Director said she wanted to send it up to the Administrative Appeals Office for "clarification" on the law.

What hope is there for some, when the USCIS don't know how to apply their own regulations.

Maybe some media support wouldn't go amiss.

Hope you are well, Sue. Hang in there!

[Susie]

Hi

Thanks, I will hang on in there, my immigration dream to live in the US has been a long haul beging in 1990, still ongoing and turned into a complete nightmare.

I have been in touch with a top newspaper reporter who is very interested in our aims for a much fairer immigration system

She wrote a large article called #be nice to brits# I wrote and thanked her for the report and told her just a few problems that immigrants face. She asked we watch this space as she intends to follow up !!

When she does I will post here

Regards Sue

[Susie]

Hi

There is also a lack of consistency with my sons case.

He is or should be subject to protection from ageing out. I have paid for at least 7 attorneys opinions, all say son is protected but may need a leglative fix.!!



CSPA (Child status protection act) was passed on 6th Aug 2002 and enacted to protect children from loosing benefits, due to processing delays.

The I 485 application to apply for LPR says, If you are adjusting status in the USA and have a spouse or minor child abroad who is to-follow-to-join then the beneficary may concurrently file an I 824 on the derviatives behalf, and act as the derivatives agent.

Here are our case details, which may help others

Husband arrived in the US on an L1 (inter-company transfer) in 1998,

In Sept 2000, the company applied for an I 140, which was approved in May 2001

Within one year of the I 140 approval, submitted his I 485 (green card application) and concurrently filed I 824 for son

This 1st I 824 was submitted before son was 21years and pending at enactment of the CSPA So no final determination on case.

In Oct 2002 this first I 824 came back denied saying to submit a new I 824 for son once husbands I 485 was approved.

In May 2004 husbands I 485 was approved - so submitted a new I 824 for son. This was approved in Aug 2004 and notice of action said the consulate had been informed of approval.

As no new in Jan 2005, sort help from congressman for case status. Eventually the consulate asked for further info on sons case . In Oct 2005 they sent e-mail to congressman to say son had aged out.

I have asked consulate to explain how and why they have come to this conculsion but have not replied.

Have now been told our options are

1. Submit an I 130, son or daughter over 21 years of LPR

2. Go to court to fight CSPA, simular to the Kym and Pradash case's


The service centre is working on I 130 cases that were received in 1996 , so it will be 10 years before they look at case, unless something is done to reduce backlogs !!!!!!!!

Ahhhhhhhhhhh

Regards Sue

[OldinWV]

Hi

There is also a lack of consistency with my sons case.

He is or should be subject to protection from ageing out. I have paid for at least 7 attorneys opinions, all say son is protected but may need a leglative fix.!!



CSPA (Child status protection act) was passed on 6th Aug 2002 and enacted to protect children from loosing benefits, due to processing delays.

The I 485 application to apply for LPR says, If you are adjusting status in the USA and have a spouse or minor child abroad who is to-follow-to-join then the beneficary may concurrently file an I 824 on the derviatives behalf, and act as the derivatives agent.

Here are our case details, which may help others

Husband arrived in the US on an L1 (inter-company transfer) in 1998,

In Sept 2000, the company applied for an I 140, which was approved in May 2001

Within one year of the I 140 approval, submitted his I 485 (green card application) and concurrently filed I 824 for son

This 1st I 824 was submitted before son was 21years and pending at enactment of the CSPA So no final determination on case.

In Oct 2002 this first I 824 came back denied saying to submit a new I 824 for son once husbands I 485 was approved.

In May 2004 husbands I 485 was approved - so submitted a new I 824 for son. This was approved in Aug 2004 and notice of action said the consulate had been informed of approval.

As no new in Jan 2005, sort help from congressman for case status. Eventually the consulate asked for further info on sons case . In Oct 2005 they sent e-mail to congressman to say son had aged out.

I have asked consulate to explain how and why they have come to this conculsion but have not replied.

Have now been told our options are

1. Submit an I 130, son or daughter over 21 years of LPR

2. Go to court to fight CSPA, simular to the Kym and Pradash case's


The service centre is working on I 130 cases that were received in 1996 , so it will be 10 years before they look at case, unless something is done to reduce backlogs !!!!!!!!

Ahhhhhhhhhhh

Regards Sue

Sue, I can only sympathise. We have been through a similar nightmare and I often wonder when, or if, it will ever end.

I would be interested to read the article that the newspaper. Do you have a link, or a copy of the article. I am sure if this person wanted several instances of cases similar to ours, I could get them. I know of a few others now in the same boat.

I don't know if you have tried to get your son here, on a work visa, as an employee of the company you and your husband have here. Is that not an option? What about becomming a citizen yourself and then sponsoring him? My husband tells me there is a wait, but it may not be as long as the route you have open to you now - change in legislation. Just a thought and I am sure you have gone over EVERY possibility in your minds, over and over again.

We are hoping that the AAO will see some sense in our situation - but at the same time I am not holding my breath, based on past USCIS dealings with it. Looks like we too may have to go to Court and even then there is no guarantee that an Immigration Judge will actually help. There is another case, in Court at the moment, where the Judge is saying the meaning of the wording "minor child" is up to the USCIS. That's a great help and, no doubt, the poor man going through the Court procedure has paid an arm and a leg to get that far, only to find the Judge can't define "minor child" for them. Sad.

Well, let me know if you have the article - I would love to read it and hope that the reporter takes a look at this site.

[Susie]

Hi

Hope this works

Be nice to brits article


http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...l=orl-news-col

I have been e-mailing the reporter and she has promised to follow up with me.


Ahhhhhhhhhh they have moved the story, I will try and find a way to post it


I have found her e-mail address kgriffith@orlandosentinel.com


Why not wiz her an e-mail to tell her of your plight. Would be great if you could mention the aims of what we all hope to achieve at www.expatsvoice.org

Regards Sue

[nakoic]

After a long chat with MR J Daniels ...

The below encounter is of our experience of our day at the Embassy ... after 3 calls for further information, and the instance of us to our attorney we were finally called for your pre-approval interview ....

After a long chat with Mr Jack Daneils yesterday, though we've better give you a bit of an update ( .... may thanks to those that wished us good luck) ...

After getting passed security. Got our ticket, sat down and waited ... our number was called ... firstly they weren't happy with my photo ... so we went to the chemist, and had it re-done , went thru the same procedure, however bypassed getting the ticket, and went to the same guy ... who was then happy, but he needed to process all the DS-156's, we were only given 1 application fee (this was sent from the Embassy, actully needed all 4) ... we had contacted them by e-mail regarding confirmation of what to bring/needed) ... so guess what ...another trip. What a facre, I thought at this time, considering that they were e-mailed to confirm what we need to bring as the letter only indicated 1 application).

Secuirty gave us some very bemused looks ... and had we had ajoke with them ...

Then we were told we would need to pay the courier fees and the passports would be returned in the next few days, after the interview stage ... we looked at each other ... did we understand correctly ...

Eventually, we were called ... her questions were answered, further information was given ... and we were told to go back to our seats ... 5 mins later ( there is no way she could of read and digested the information given, Roman just had enought time to take a pee) ... which pointed to the fact & body language that the decesion was not hers, passports had already been stamped, ... it was also noted that if it were her decesion, we would of had a first rate chance of getting it(if you wish to know more please feel free to pm, genuine requests only, & no co-miserations).

Irene & Roman

And because I missed some bits ... or what I should of said was inclined to put into writing, this is what my partner put in addition ...

There are a number of comments on this thread and on others about the behaviour of the US Embassy, namely that they "drag" people to the Embassy for interviews and then treat them "so bad".

I notice these comments a written by people who, either have not had the experience, or feel very bitter about their own experience.

I suppose with our rejection we should feel bitter about the way we were treated, but we don't.

The farcical running round at the start was nothing to do with Meg Olson or the E2 interview. It was to do with red tape procedures the Embassy has in place. Perhaps the process should explained better to applicants, but, to give them credit, the running round did NOT delay the timeliness of our experience.

The E2 interview was also quite fair. We were given an opportunity to respond to queries that the Visa Officer had. We were listened to and treated with respect. We had a good 40 minutes to present our case, which I think is more than fair. I also feel that the Visa Officer believed we should have been granted the visa.

The bit that Irene did not expand on was this. After the first interview, whilst visiting the boy's room (from which the interview window is clearly visible) I saw the Visa Officer having a vigorous conversation with someone else. From the body language it looked like she was arguing a case, and I believe it was our case. She looked determined, but did not look like she was winning.

Our second interview, when we received the rejection, was also about 40 minutes. The Visa Officer seemed very torn between what she wanted to do and what she had to do.

She used the phrase "my hands are tied" a number of times. And she also gave us some VERY precise answers. She did not volunteer these answers and they had to be extracted from her, but she regularly guided us in the direction we needed to explore to ask the right questions.

Yes, we are upset by the immediate outcome of the interview, but we do not regret attending. We came out of there with knowledge: we know what we need to do and how to do it. The only downside to all this is that we can remedy the problems within a couple of weeks, but now need to make a completly fresh application.

My advice to anyone going for one of these interviews is this:





Know your business inside out, up and down, sideways and round and round

Do not sit, listen and answer "yes" or "no" - expand on everything

Fight your corner aggressively, but be able to back up and prove every statement you make

Ask very direct questions and note the answers (they will not tell you anything unless you ask)




Most importantly - walk out of there POSITIVE. You will either have the visa, or, if you have done your job properly, you will be armed with all the knowledge you need to get it right first time, next time.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has offered us help and constructive advice (you guys know who you are) - THANK YOU.

If we can help anyone else - we will try. Just send us a pm.

Roman & Irene

The application process for us was very frustrating, long, and worrying ... in one way now that is over ... for now, I feel at peace, however because we have a stamp in our passports, means that if we do go back to the US, we are going to get grilling, unless we have of return back to the UK, it doesn't mean that we are going to give up, it just means that we need to re-group ...

[punky]

Excellent advice. Thanx very much for that :)

I'll be putting together some posts/articles giving advice to people and i'll use a lot of that for the interviews section (giving you credit, of course)

I wish I had it prior to my L1 interview. I pretty much broke all those rules and was turned down. Still, live to fight another day...

[JulieC]

Irene, I know of someone who was turned down by Meg Olsen at pre approval interview as you were and also got the stamp and they got back in on visa waiver with no problems whatsover.

[Susie]

I have been in personal contact with Sue for nearly a year now and she is well aware of our situation and has my personal phone number and e-mail and we contact each other from time to time. I know that my posting wasn't positive - that's because the outcome of our case, so far, has not been positive. I don't see the point in "candy coating" things that just can't be candy coated!

Sue's situation is horrible! Our situation is horrible and many other people I talk to are in horrible situations too. None of them have broken any rules and are suffering real hardship, both financial and emotional, because to USCIS incompetency.

For many it is a breeze and I wish them the best, but for others it is not.

Just want to show people the other side of the coin.



Hi

Did you get the telephone message I left for you?