G-28 means nothing unless you're an attorney

[I love Sunshine]

We were originally scheduled for our biometrics on March 15, but because we would be out of town, we requested to be rescheduled for a later date, thinking it would be about 2 weeks from our request. As of today (April 8), still no appointment. So I scheduled one of the very limited USCIS Infopass appointments with the Phoenix office to talk about Sunshine's case while she is up taking care of business at our hotel out of state.

The Phoenix USCIS "service" center had all the hallmarks of government inefficiency: 10 available windows, 6 of them occupied people right out of central casting for lazy government workers -- who were more concerned about their own personal matters and comparing shades of fingernail polish (i was close enough to listen, unfortunately) than helping the growing lines of customers waiting in the lobby area. Only 2 of the 6 employees even bothered to stop gossiping to help customers the 30 minutes I was waiting there.

Now here is why I am upset:

I tried to simply request an appointment for Sunshine's biometrics, and to see about how to get an AP for our scheduled May trip back to China. It turns out nothing could be done without her being present, even though I am her appointed and authorized representative per the G-28 form we filled out during AOS.

Wait a minute! I was approved as a representative, and received copies of this. I showed him the copies of her info sent to my name.

"Sorry, you must be an attorney to be a representative"

"That's poppycock! I was approved!"

He went to talk with the supervisor, who also agreed that I was not authorized. I asked to speak to the supervisor, a shrewish looking woman, about just wanting to set up a biometrics appointment a full month after we asked to reschedule.

Her: "You are not authorized. Only lawyers are authorized. It seems you have misrepresented yourself."

Me: "If that is so, why doesn't the G-28 require an Arizona Bar Number if only attorneys can be authorized representatives? Why was my petition approved by the national center? If they had a problem, why wasn't this denied? And why can't a husband be her authorized representative since she signed and approved this"

Her: "Well that is the rule in this office, I am the supervisor."

Me: "This is a federal form, and all offices should follow the same rules, correct?"

Her: "In this office, I set the rules. If you are not a lawyer, you cannot do anything on her case unless she is present. That's it"

At this time, this harpie-in-a-hairbun walked away.

Has anyone else been denied?

Also, who can I talk to about the Phoenix office and it's renegade rule-setting?

I really think government workers in Arizona are the worst this country can muster.

[Randy W]

Some offices will let you talk about your wife's case, with or without your case. But, yes, that same interpretation (only applies to lawyers) is used at (some) other offices as well.

 

You can try the USCIS Ombudsman.

 

I agree - it's borderline criminal to use a worst case interpretation of the law against you to throw up a road block.

[IllinoisDave]

We were originally scheduled for our biometrics on March 15, but because we would be out of town, we requested to be rescheduled for a later date, thinking it would be about 2 weeks from our request. As of today (April 8), still no appointment. So I scheduled one of the very limited USCIS Infopass appointments with the Phoenix office to talk about Sunshine's case while she is up taking care of business at our hotel out of state.

 

The Phoenix USCIS "service" center had all the hallmarks of government inefficiency: 10 available windows, 6 of them occupied people right out of central casting for lazy government workers -- who were more concerned about their own personal matters and comparing shades of fingernail polish (i was close enough to listen, unfortunately) than helping the growing lines of customers waiting in the lobby area. Only 2 of the 6 employees even bothered to stop gossiping to help customers the 30 minutes I was waiting there.

 

Now here is why I am upset:

 

I tried to simply request an appointment for Sunshine's biometrics, and to see about how to get an AP for our scheduled May trip back to China. It turns out nothing could be done without her being present, even though I am her appointed and authorized representative per the G-28 form we filled out during AOS.

 

Wait a minute! I was approved as a representative, and received copies of this. I showed him the copies of her info sent to my name.

 

"Sorry, you must be an attorney to be a representative"

 

"That's poppycock! I was approved!"

 

He went to talk with the supervisor, who also agreed that I was not authorized. I asked to speak to the supervisor, a shrewish looking woman, about just wanting to set up a biometrics appointment a full month after we asked to reschedule.

 

Her: "You are not authorized. Only lawyers are authorized. It seems you have misrepresented yourself."

 

Me: "If that is so, why doesn't the G-28 require an Arizona Bar Number if only attorneys can be authorized representatives? Why was my petition approved by the national center? If they had a problem, why wasn't this denied? And why can't a husband be her authorized representative since she signed and approved this"

 

Her: "Well that is the rule in this office, I am the supervisor."

 

Me: "This is a federal form, and all offices should follow the same rules, correct?"

 

Her: "In this office, I set the rules. If you are not a lawyer, you cannot do anything on her case unless she is present. That's it"

 

At this time, this harpie-in-a-hairbun walked away.

 

Has anyone else been denied?

 

Also, who can I talk to about the Phoenix office and it's renegade rule-setting?

 

I really think government workers in Arizona are the worst this country can muster.

I don't have any answers ILS,but I have an opinion. That is bulls**t!! We need a USCIS Speaks sub-forum so we could get to the bottom of the whole "do you have to be an actual attorney" thing.

[LeeFisher3]

If you are up for round 2, here is some information you might want to take with you:

 

8 CFR Sec. 292.1 Representation of others.

(a) A person entitled to representation may be represented by any of the following:

(1) Attorneys in the United States. Any attorney as defined in Sec. 1.1(f) of this chapter.

 

(2) Law students and law graduates not yet admitted to the bar. A law student who is enrolled in an accredited law school, or a law graduate who is not yet admitted to the bar, provided that:

 

(3) Reputable individuals. Any reputable individual of good moral character, provided that:

(i) He is appearing on an individual case basis, at the request of the person entitled to representation;

(ii) He is appearing without direct or indirect renumeration and files a written declaration to that effect;

(iii)

He has a pre-existing relationship or connection with the person entitled to representation (e.g., as a

relative

, neighbor, clergyman, business associate or personal friend),

provided that such requirement may be waived, as a matter of administrative discretion, in cases where adequate representation would not otherwise be available; and

(

iv

) His appearance is permitted by the official before whom he wished to appear (namely, a special inquiry officer, district director, officer-in-charge, regional commissioner, the Commissioner, or the Board)

, provided that such permission shall not be granted with respect to any individual who regularly engages in immigration and naturalization practice or preparation, or holds himself out to the public as qualified to do

so

.

(4) Accredited representatives. A person representing an organization described in Sec. 292.2 of this chapter who has been accredited by the Board.

 

(5) Accredited officials. An accredited official, in the United States, of the government to which an alien owes allegiance, if the official appears solely in his official capacity and with the alien's consent.

 

(6) Attorneys outside the United States.

 

 

[40 FR 23271, May 29. 1975, as amended at 53 FR 7728, Mar. 10, 1988]

Section 3 is the area that pertains to a husband, but there is item iv to contend with. My take on it is that NBC has permitted you to appear and your visit to the local office is for conducting business with NBC as their local point of contact. You do not wish to speak to a supervisor, but to the district director or office director.

 

You might want to involve your local Congressional Representative and have them inquire as to why the USCIS is not allowing a person authorized in the case to come to the office to conduct case related matters, especially since the USCIS is not willing to provide a Chinese speaking officer to answer the questions.

 

If you can talk your congressman's liaison to accompany you to the USCIS it might be helpful.

Edited April 8, 2008 by LeeFisher3 (see edit history)

[I love Sunshine]

LeeFisher3,

 

This is great information. I am sure this supervisor hadn't bothered to do any sort of research on this, such as reviewing Section 292.1 that you found, prior to making her decision. Facts don't matter to her, the fastest path to her coffee break and to continue discussing the "Byonce - Jay Z wedding" with the others without typing a few lines in her computer to make this request are what does matter.

 

Thanks to the others that also voiced their support for me. As a US citizen, it is really appalling to imagine how those [foreigners] without such information and a voice are treated. Sunshine's procedure in GUZ went fairly fast and smoothly, but after the recent experiences here in Phoenix with government officials, we admit a hefty loss of confidence in USCIS.

 

I think contacting my congressman is a good start, and I will do this today. There is no room for this supervisor to start making her own rules over what should be permitted and what should not without checking the facts like Lee was able to discover. If she does it to me, she probably breathes fire on those without a voice. God forbid if this woman had to face off with Lee! B)

Edited April 8, 2008 by I love Sunshine (see edit history)

[I love Sunshine]

I just spoke with someone in Senator Kyl's office -- his USCIS liaison, who agreed that this supervisor was out of line. (Senator Kyl is on the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration Border Security and Citizenship).

 

I will submit a privacy act consent form and he will start asking questions about this matter directly with someone with far more decision-making power than this supervisor.

 

Thanks, everyone, for your suggestions. I will let you know what happens!

[jim_julian]

That's great follow up ILS ... thank you very much. Please keep us informed of the outcome. With any luck this could lead to a memo or directive to these offices providing clarification.

 

I've used the G-28 authorization for matters concerning both my wife and our daughter. The occasions include InfoPass and phone calls also. The interpretation certainly is uneven.

[tsap seui]

I really think government workers in Arizona are the worst this country can muster.

 

 

The WORST of WORST government workers are working in Guangzhou, China.

 

Hope your senator has some sort of pull here in the states with the USCIS as senators and congressmen are totally ineffectual in China.

 

Good luck with the case,

 

tsap seui

[LeeFisher3]

I really think government workers in Arizona are the worst this country can muster.

 

 

The WORST of WORST government workers are working in Guangzhou, China.

 

Hope your senator has some sort of pull here in the states with the USCIS as senators and congressmen are totally ineffectual in China.

 

Good luck with the case,

 

tsap seui

As this has nothing to do with a decision and is procedural a congressman's office can have great power to ask why the rules are not being applied properly.

[georgeandli]

DOS, DHS and USCIS. All different yet the same. If they don't know the rules lets just ad lib. To often folks give up. Until that woman gets direction from higher up thats the way it is, her way. I hope to hear what happens about this. Maybe try to get the press involved?

[yemmie]

DOS, DHS and USCIS. All different yet the same. If they don't know the rules lets just ad lib. To often folks give up. Until that woman gets direction from higher up thats the way it is, her way. I hope to hear what happens about this. Maybe try to get the press involved?

I'm no lawyer, and I don't even play one on TV, but it looks like the section 3 part IV does give the government official the discretion to allow or disallow representation. If that is in fact the case, then the form G-28 needs to be revised to reflect this. The form found at:

http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/g-28.pdf

does not adequately define who will and will not be regarded as a qualified representative, and it makes no mention of any discretionary powers on the part of the government officials, at least that's the way I read it.

[IllinoisDave]

I was wondering that too Yemmie. From Lee's post:

 

(iv) His appearance is permitted by the official before whom he wished to appear (namely, a special inquiry officer, district director, officer-in-charge, regional commissioner, the Commissioner, or the Board)

 

Unless I'm interpreting it wrong, it does seem to give her (or any local official) the leeway she excercised. If so, it almost makes the G-28 obsolete, or at least a bit of a Catch-22. My interpretation could be wrong though.

Edited April 9, 2008 by IllinoisDave (see edit history)

[Randy W]

But they are not saying that they do not wish to speak to her representative, they are saying that he cannot be her representative since he is not a lawyer.

[IllinoisDave]

But they are not saying that they do not wish to speak to her representative, they are saying that he cannot be her representative since he is not a lawyer.

True. But the rules Lee cited seem to give her the latitude to deny him the opportunity to represent her at THAT office, at HER discretion no? He's appearing under number 3, which seems to have the qualifiying language: "provided that:" from the top of the list followed by:

(iv) His appearance is permitted by the official before whom he wished to appear (namely, a special inquiry officer, district director, officer-in-charge, regional commissioner, the Commissioner, or the Board) Key words obviously being "provided that" and "permitted."

This seems to give her wide latitude,albeit unfairly, as to who she'll allow to represent someone.

Edited April 9, 2008 by IllinoisDave (see edit history)

[Randy W]

But he's not doing that, and I'm guessing would not, if the law were followed correctly.

 

But, yes, it may be difficult to cut through that when even lawyers interpret it that way (see AILA)