USCIS Loses in Court Again..K1 Wins!

[Ronnie]

Last Week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a BIA ruling denying adjustment of status to divorced K-1.  Finding no requirement in the law that K-1 must remained married to her sponsor husband until adjudicated for adjustment of status.

Text of opinion in Choin v. Mukasey is linked below

[William3rd]

If that decision was as you posted it to be, that would be the absolutely worst decision possible in K land.

This lady won because she was never able to get adjudicated in over two years for the first green card so that conditional residency applied to her under the marriage fraud act. To remove the two year conditions, there has to be good faith.

[Ronnie]

Bill,

I attached the decision at the bottom of the post.  This did not deal with the 2-year condition.  She was flat denied her green card because the USCIS ruled that she must still be married to the petitioner at the time of adjudication, even in good faith marriages because the permanent residency was based on that marriage.
The ninth circuit said, the only requirement in law was that there be a good faith marriage at the time of applying for permanent residence.

[Gator]

...that would be the absolutely worst decision possible in K land.

How so?  Implications, please.

[BC]

Last Week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a BIA ruling denying adjustment of status to divorced K-1.  Finding no requirement in the law that K-1 must remained married to her sponsor husband until adjudicated for adjustment of status.

At issue is whether Choin's divorce after over two years of marriage made her ineligible to adjust to conditional permanent resident.

The purpose and context of § 245(d) also do not support the government's reading of the statute that requires the automatic removal of immigrants whose marriages end in divorce while their application for adjustment of status languishes in the agency's file cabinet.

Seems quite similar to rulings on the aging out issue.. or?

[Ronnie]

There are great similarities BC.  The essence of all these cases is that USCIS takes the worst interpretation possible on each disputed question.  It simply makes one wonder who's in charge.