We have never been asked this question more than we have this past year. Whether it’s a citizenship interview, marriage-based Green Card interview, or employment-based Green Card interview—we are approached by people who are confused regarding whether it’s really necessary to hire an attorney, whether an attorney has filed their case, or if they have filed the case themselves.

Who doesn’t like to save money? I certainly do—so I don’t blame people for asking this question. Even up to a year ago, I would tell many of my clients who had seemingly straightforward cases that they could attend the interview themselves after I had given them a mock interview. However, with the recent immigration climate, we see a rather hostile trend with respect to how clients are treated at immigration interviews.

Choosing to Hire an Attorney When You’ve Filed the Case Yourself

Immigration attorneys are not fans of representing clients who have filed the case themselves—not for selfish reasons, but for ethical reasons, as all factors have to be weighed to see if we can really help the person who is before us, especially if the interview is in a couple of weeks. Common factors to be considered include:

• There may have been errors or misrepresentations made in the filing process when the client filled in the forms themselves, and these can be difficult to “fix” before the interview

• There may have been a complicated immigration history that predated the filing of the case. With little time left to look into immigration history (no time to do a FOIA), walking into the interview room can be risky, to say the very least. We may even be facing an immediate denial, with the client losing all the filing fees, which can amount to hundreds to thousands of dollars. For example, we have seen where the beneficiary had been married before, and their previous spouse had filed an Adjustment of Status for them. The previous case had been abandoned, as the marriage did not work out. Unbeknownst to the beneficiary, the abandoned Adjustment of Status could have led to the commencement of deportation proceedings, which would clearly, prevent the adjudication of the current case due to an open deportation matter. Walking into an Adjustment of Status interview where there could be a deportation order in place can be a scary thing to deal with.

• There may be, for example, a marriage-based Adjustment of Status case where the petitioner or beneficiary believes their divorce was effective and legally valid, so they remarried and then filed an Adjustment of Status. It then turns out that one of the parties was not properly divorced and not free to marry, rendering their current “marriage” invalid. In this situation, the case would be denied, ending up in the loss of filing fees, and the loss of so much time.

Case Study:

One of our recent clients approached us after a case they had filed themselves had been denied. They had attended their marriage-based Adjustment of Status interview by themselves and also their subsequent Stokes Interview. They didn’t even know what a Stokes Interview was, and their guard was down the whole time since they believed that their marriage was real and that they had nothing to worry about. When we reviewed the case, we looked at what it was about the case that would have caused the Immigration Officer to look at the case with suspicion. It turned out that the petitioner had married the beneficiary only a couple of days after her first husband had passed away. We instantly knew that because this wasn’t properly explained away, the Immigration Officer must have looked at this as a potentially fraudulent case. I asked the petitioner about the timing issue and she said that she had been separated from her first husband for more than 10 years and she didn't know his whereabouts, so she couldn’t file for divorce. It turned out that her long-time boyfriend/fiancé (beneficiary) was visiting her in the US when she found out about her first husband’s death, and she realized that she was finally free to remarry.

Although she was distraught to hear about her first husband’s death, she saw an opportunity to move forward and invite love and the potential of having a family into her life finally again. This was a huge blind spot that the client wasn’t aware of. If this had been explained away at the beginning when the case was filed, the interviews would not have gone so badly. When we filed the case after the denial, we presented the issues upfront as a real-life story in our effort to control the narrative and therefore the USCIS Officer’s questions. To make matters worse, the beneficiary had traveled abroad after the Stokes Interview (which we would have advised him not to do). He counted on coming back to the US on his Advance Parole Travel Card but the case was denied while he was abroad. Due to the denial of the case after the Stokes Interview, the Travel Card was canceled and the beneficiary was stuck outside the country until we got the case approved. Not only that but having to overcome the previous denial made it more difficult for us to get approval.

The above reasons are examples of why it’s best to hire an attorney to file the case so that any red flags can be identified. If the case was filed without an attorney—at the very least, it’s advisable to seek representation for the interview purposes so the attorney can do a thorough intake, identify any issues, review the paperwork that was filed, prepare the clients for the interview, and attend with them. There still may be an opportunity to do some damage control if necessary with proper preparation of supplemental documentation. The unfortunate thing about this latter scenario is that it can end up costing more money to fix a situation than it would have if the client had hired the attorney to begin with.

Naturalization Interviews Where Clients Had a Complicated Green Card Case

We have observed that during naturalization interviews, USCIS Officers have been probing more than before, into the validity of the underlying Green Card case. A good example of this would be cases where a Removal of Conditions case was filed years ago, where the marriage had ended within two years of the beneficiary receiving a Green Card (Removal of Conditions based on waiver/divorce/domestic violence). USCIS Officers have been exercising their discretion to the reason the marriage fell apart. We strongly advise that proper documents are brought to the naturalization interview to make sure you are prepared to answer any questions as the inability to prove your point may result in delays in the adjudication of your naturalization case.

Immigration Officers have a really difficult job to do. How do they determine who is telling the truth; whose relationship is real; and how to reconcile discrepancies in cases where the beneficiary isn’t even aware that what they are saying may get them into trouble? We always see our job as helping USCIS Officers make their decision easily—it’s our job to walk them to the correct outcome of the case by providing evidence to make their decision quick and easy. In cases where the evidence isn’t black and white—creative preparation of documents such as affidavits can make a significant difference.

In life and with respect to immigration, there are only a limited number of variables we can control. This is why it’s best to go into the situation with eyes open and file the strongest case possible. Over the years, we at Khunkhun Law have helped countless individuals obtain and keep their Green Cards, and we’ve helped keep families together. Retaining one of our attorneys will ensure that your case is in the right hands, as we offer a customized approach to each case.

Over the years, we at Khunkhun Law have helped countless individuals obtain and keep their Green Cards. Retaining one of our attorneys will ensure that your case is in the right hands, as we offer a customized approach to each case.

Contact us if you need help with your family based or marriage based immigration case today. You can call us, email us at info@khunkhunlaw.com or review other options to get in touch with us for an immigration consultation.