Change in form G-28

[yangxifu]

Is filing the G-28, as a spouse/sponsor still an option? It seems that the G-28 form has been updated eliminating the "Other" field, thus allowing only lawyers and (how was it worded... leaders?) of certain organizations to utilize it.

 

Any insights?

Edited April 14, 2010 by dnoblett (see edit history)

[dnoblett]

Is filing the G-28, as a spouse/sponsor still an option? It seems that the G-28 form has been updated eliminating the "Other" field, thus allowing only lawyers and (how was it worded... leaders?) of certain organizations to utilize it.

 

Any insights?

It certainly looks that way.

 

The forms instructions say Attorney or accredited representative ONLY.

 

It refers to 8 CFR 292.1(a )(4) and 8 CFR 292.1(a )(1)

http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title08/8-1.0....0.1.2.59.0.1.1

Edited April 14, 2010 by dnoblett (see edit history)

[Randy W]

Interesting - From Dan's link -

 

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

 

. . .

 

(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.

[Henry and Mei]

Is filing the G-28, as a spouse/sponsor still an option? It seems that the G-28 form has been updated eliminating the "Other" field, thus allowing only lawyers and (how was it worded... leaders?) of certain organizations to utilize it.

 

Any insights?

 

Basically, looks like they are now discouraging it. Probably not liking to do the double mailing. They may or may not honor the old form. And they may or may not send you acknowledgement for being your spouse's representative.

 

So if you are not using an attorney, it looks like one less form to send...although we have killed enough trees preparing these packages

 

GO GREEN...LOL

[dnoblett]

Edition Date : 04/22/09. Previous editions not accepted.

 

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/men...00045f3d6a1RCRD

 

This was a topic a while ago, http://uschinak1.com/forums/index.php?show...c=28422&hl=

 

Looks like they made a clarification.

[Randy W]

Edition Date : 04/22/09. Previous editions not accepted.

 

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/men...00045f3d6a1RCRD

 

This was a topic a while ago, http://uschinak1.com/forums/index.php?show...c=28422&hl=

 

Looks like they made a clarification.

 

 

It would actually seem to muddy the waters quite a bit, since 8 CFR 292.1(a )(1) says that "Any reputable individual of good moral character, provided that" . . . "His appearance is permitted by the official before whom he wished to appear".

 

So we ARE allowed to represent our spouses, as long as our "appearance is permitted by the official before whom he wished to appear", but we can no longer use the G-28 to back that up.

[LeeFisher3]

Edition Date : 04/22/09. Previous editions not accepted.

 

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/men...00045f3d6a1RCRD

 

This was a topic a while ago, http://uschinak1.com/forums/index.php?show...c=28422&hl=

 

Looks like they made a clarification.

 

 

It would actually seem to muddy the waters quite a bit, since 8 CFR 292.1(a )(1) says that "Any reputable individual of good moral character, provided that" . . . "His appearance is permitted by the official before whom he wished to appear".

 

So we ARE allowed to represent our spouses, as long as our "appearance is permitted by the official before whom he wished to appear", but we can no longer use the G-28 to back that up.

Actually 8 CFR 292.1 (a)(3) concerns Reputable individuals, which is specifically excluded by the instructions as they state that

8 CFR 103.2 (a)(3) and 8 CFR 292.1 (a)(1) or 8 CFR 292.1 (a)(4) define who is allowed to utilize form G-28.

 

The question that will need to be asked, probably in a Federal Court is where is the form is appropriate to use for those qualified under 8 CFR 292.1 (a)(2) and 8 CFR 292.1 (a)(3) which ARE specifically excluded under 8 CFR 103.2 (a)(3), as well as is the modification to 8 CFR 103.2 (a)(3) legal by excluding representatives who are not a member of the bar or accredited by the USCIS.

 

Definitely a move to exclude religious organizations, friends and family from assisting the applicant.

[Randy W]

Edition Date : 04/22/09. Previous editions not accepted.

 

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/men...00045f3d6a1RCRD

 

This was a topic a while ago, http://uschinak1.com/forums/index.php?show...c=28422&hl=

 

Looks like they made a clarification.

 

 

It would actually seem to muddy the waters quite a bit, since 8 CFR 292.1(a )(1) says that "Any reputable individual of good moral character, provided that" . . . "His appearance is permitted by the official before whom he wished to appear".

 

So we ARE allowed to represent our spouses, as long as our "appearance is permitted by the official before whom he wished to appear", but we can no longer use the G-28 to back that up.

Actually 8 CFR 292.1 (a)(3) concerns Reputable individuals, which is specifically excluded by the instructions as they state that

8 CFR 103.2 (a)(3) and 8 CFR 292.1 (a)(1) or 8 CFR 292.1 (a)(4) define who is allowed to utilize form G-28.

 

The question that will need to be asked, probably in a Federal Court is where is the form is appropriate to use for those qualified under 8 CFR 292.1 (a)(2) and 8 CFR 292.1 (a)(3) which ARE specifically excluded under 8 CFR 103.2 (a)(3), as well as is the modification to 8 CFR 103.2 (a)(3) legal by excluding representatives who are not a member of the bar or accredited by the USCIS.

 

Definitely a move to exclude religious organizations, friends and family from assisting the applicant.

 

 

I understand, but what I'm thinking is that these "reputable individual"s NEED to be allowed to represent our spouses, as long as our "appearance is permitted by the official before whom he wished to appear", but we can no longer use the G-28 to back that up.

 

That's the rub, which has been there all along, that the "appearance is permitted by the official before whom he wished to appear" clause has always applied, but is harder for them to invoke when you have a signed G-28 on file.

 

Another case of the USCIS having their own very special interpretation of government (in this case, their own) regulations.

[LeeFisher3]

Edition Date : 04/22/09. Previous editions not accepted.

 

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/men...00045f3d6a1RCRD

 

This was a topic a while ago, http://uschinak1.com/forums/index.php?show...c=28422&hl=

 

Looks like they made a clarification.

 

 

It would actually seem to muddy the waters quite a bit, since 8 CFR 292.1(a )(1) says that "Any reputable individual of good moral character, provided that" . . . "His appearance is permitted by the official before whom he wished to appear".

 

So we ARE allowed to represent our spouses, as long as our "appearance is permitted by the official before whom he wished to appear", but we can no longer use the G-28 to back that up.

Actually 8 CFR 292.1 (a)(3) concerns Reputable individuals, which is specifically excluded by the instructions as they state that

8 CFR 103.2 (a)(3) and 8 CFR 292.1 (a)(1) or 8 CFR 292.1 (a)(4) define who is allowed to utilize form G-28.

 

The question that will need to be asked, probably in a Federal Court is where is the form is appropriate to use for those qualified under 8 CFR 292.1 (a)(2) and 8 CFR 292.1 (a)(3) which ARE specifically excluded under 8 CFR 103.2 (a)(3), as well as is the modification to 8 CFR 103.2 (a)(3) legal by excluding representatives who are not a member of the bar or accredited by the USCIS.

 

Definitely a move to exclude religious organizations, friends and family from assisting the applicant.

 

 

I understand, but what I'm thinking is that these "reputable individual"s NEED to be allowed to represent our spouses, as long as our "appearance is permitted by the official before whom he wished to appear", but we can no longer use the G-28 to back that up.

 

That's the rub, which has been there all along, that the "appearance is permitted by the official before whom he wished to appear" clause has always applied, but is harder for them to invoke when you have a signed G-28 on file.

 

Another case of the USCIS having their own very special interpretation of government (in this case, their own) regulations.

The difficult part is when it comes to Children and the USCIS, while the USCIS cannot interview the child alone they can exclude a step-parent from protecting the interest of the child by insisting that the natural parent is the only one with authority to be involved.

 

The AOS interview for our son started off with the IO playing a game of who had a right to be there which was trumped by the G-28 my wife had signed. The IO was about to refuse permission and insist my wife conduct the interview when he was reminded that if he refused me it would be at his expense to bring in a translator to aid my wife in an interview outside of her native language as she had previously arranged for someone who spoke English fluently to represent our son.

[Randy W]

 

 

 

The difficult part is when it comes to Children and the USCIS, while the USCIS cannot interview the child alone they can exclude a step-parent from protecting the interest of the child by insisting that the natural parent is the only one with authority to be involved.

 

The AOS interview for our son started off with the IO playing a game of who had a right to be there which was trumped by the G-28 my wife had signed. The IO was about to refuse permission and insist my wife conduct the interview when he was reminded that if he refused me it would be at his expense to bring in a translator to aid my wife in an interview outside of her native language as she had previously arranged for someone who spoke English fluently to represent our son.

 

Wow! Those guys can get extremely ugly when they have their own (interpretation of their own) law on their side