> I don't think that's quite true. According to the BIA decision (see
> below), immediate relatives are allowed adjustment even if there is a
> presumption of intent to immigrate provided there are no other issues
> with their application.
>
> Interim Decision # 2750
>
>
>
> Volume 17 (Page 215)
>
>
>
> United States Department of Justice
>
> Board of Immigration Appeals
>
>
>
> MATTER OF CAVAZOS
>
>
>
> In Deportation Proceedings
>
> A-22365153
>
> Decided by Board January 8, 1980
>
>
>
> (1) While an Immigration and Naturalization Service Operations
> Instruction binds neither an immigration judge nor the Board, the
> Service policy manifest therein may appropriately be considered by
> the immigration judge and the Board in exercising discretion.
>
>
>
> (2) Notwithstanding evidence establishing preconceived intent, an
> application for adjustment of status should as a general rule be
> granted in the exercise of discretion in the case of an immediate
> relative or other specified alien who under Operations Instruction
> 245.3(b) and 8 CFR 242.5(a)(2) and (3) could be granted voluntary
> departure until invited to appear before a United States consul to
> apply for an immigrant visa.
>
>
>
> (3) Where a finding of preconceived intent was the only negative
> factor cited by the immigration judge in denying the respondent's
> application for adjustment of status as the beneficiary of an
> approved immediate relative visa petition and no additional
> adverse matters are apparent in the record, and where significant
> equities are presented by the respondent's United States citizen
> wife and child, a grant of adjustment of status is warranted as a
> matter of discretion.
Hi:
BTW, FWIW you are quoting the "headnotes" which are NOT law but are a
summary of the actual decision.
And they are often wrong. In fact, I have a habit of not even reading
them. I recall one case where I had a denial which purported to QUOTE a
decision. I went over the decision and couldn't find the language. I
then read it agiain carefully line by line with a ruler. Still didn't
find the language.
I then went in to see the officer and tell that the decision didn't
contain the lanugage, where did she get it. And she pointed to the
headnote -- we shared a good laugh when I told her the purpose of
headnotes and not to be embarrassed since many attorneys have made that
mistake at least once and have gotten bawled out for it.
--
Certified Specialist
Immigration & Nat. Law
Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization
Posted via http://britishexpats.com |