Motion To Approve The: Fill & Download for Free

I had a friend. His wife had a 14-year-old daughter from her previous marriage. My friend loved the hell out of her and was her father in all but biology. The daughter indicated that she wanted to take my friend’s last name. In order to do that they had to get the bio dad’s approval. He refused. It wound up going to court. The judge indicated that he was not inclined to grant name change petitions for minors but would allow the matter to proceed before he made a judgment.The bio dad claimed that he loved his daughter, and she meant a lot to him and was a part of his family. This despite the fact that she never was invited to family events and felt excluded every time she was at his home. The lawyer for the girl asked a few questions about his other children from his second marriage, their birthdays, etc. establishing that she was older than all of them, as well as a few more designed to lull him. Then he asked, “How old did you say your oldest child is?” to which he replied, “He’s twelve,” the age of his son from his second (and current) marriage.He asked the question a few more times in a slightly different way and got the same answer each time. The bio dad answered every question about his oldest as if it was his son and not his daughter. The bio dad never caught on that he was torpedoing his case. In his mind she just didn’t count. My friend said the lawyer for the bio dad had his face in his hands as the questions continued. In short order, the judge approved the motion to make the name change.

There is no provision for a “motion to reconsider” of a refused H-4 visa application. Motions to reconsider apply to petitions filed with USCIS and denied by USCIS, but H-4 visas are not subject to a separate USCIS petition. The H-4 applicant simply files Form DS-160 with the Department of State on the basis of the H-1B principal’s preexisting approval, a process in which USCIS is not involved. As this was an application for a non-immigrant visa refused by a consular official, it is not eligible for a motion to reconsider. There is no formal process for requesting reconsideration of the decision of a consular officer to refuse an application for a non-immigrant visa. See 9 FAM 403.10 (U) NIV REFUSALSYou can informally ask the consulate to reconsider the refusal, but the consulate is not required to entertain this request. Or you can file the DS-160 application again, but unless you somehow address the reason for the refusal (which would have been conveyed to you by the consular official, although you likely do not understand what it was), you will simply be refused again.My best guess is that the refusal was because either the documentation you provided to prove a marital relationship was inadequate, or your spouse is inadmissible to the United States for some reason. But that’s just a guess; I don’t know the particulars of your situation. H-4 refusals are fairly uncommon: in FY2019, the BCA issued 125,999 H-4 visas, and refused only 2,376.Obviously, because your spouse’s application for a visa was refused, your spouse cannot and will not be issued a visa on the basis of that application.Update: It occurs to me that what you really meant is that your spouse filed a I-539 petition to change status from whatever he or she was in now to H-4. This is not an application for a visa, but instead a petition to change status. It is subject to being heard by USCIS, and is, in theory, subject to a motion to reconsider if denied.If this is what happened in your spouse’s case—hard to be sure because you were not precise in how you asked the question—then it is theoretically possible, but practically unlikely, that your spouse could, in fact, travel out of the country and then attempt to get an H-4 visa issued through consular processing. However, the consular officer should be able to see that the I-539 petition was denied and the reason for that denial, and will likely refuse the application for a visa for the same reason unless you can convince the consular officer that that prior denial was in error or that the circumstances that warranted that denial do not exist. This will be difficult if you don’t understand the reason for that denial. Even if the consular officer approves the application for a visa, the CBP immigration officer who handles your spouse’s request to be admitted using any visa issued will be able to see that the prior I-539 was denied and the reason for the denial, and will deny admission if the CBP officer concludes that the conditions that justified the prior denial still obtain and still justify denying admission.“Try over and over again until you succeed” is not a good strategy for dealing with US immigration. If you are denied, you really need to make some effort to address the reason for the denial before trying again, or you’ll just be denied again and again.

I was hired on very short notice in a bankruptcy case in another city where the debtor was trying to sell property “free and clear” of my clients’ interests in the production of a number of oil wells. The trial was set on the day following service and was in front of a judge I had a few clashes with in the past.To approve the opposing side’s request, the judge had to make four statutorily required findings of fact. The plaintiffs presented evidence on three of the four. The judge suggested he was inclined to grant the plaintiff’s requested relief, but wanted to hear from me.The fourth required finding was that the property at issue was not “fungible”, meaning it could not be divided up and sold separately. I had nearly a hundred years of evidence that the property in question was very much fungible, which I thought would be obvious from the fact that my clients all had separate ownership interests in it. I really just figured that the judge just assumed that the plaintiffs wouldn’t have brought the thing before him if they weren’t right.A side note: At the conclusion of what was passing for a trial, and after my motions to deny the relief had been overruled on my argument that one day’s notice did not comply with due process, the judge held it had been enough notice for me to come and mount what he called a “spirited” defense.Then I made a motion to dismiss the suit with prejudice because the plaintiffs could not possibly prove their case, and in fact had demonstrated that during the trial. I said that the judge could not make the statutorily required finding about fungibility because the only evidence introduced on it was mine, and it clearly showed that the property in dispute was fungible. I then said that I suspected the silence of opposing counsel on that point was because it was impossible to prove otherwise, and that anyone admitted to the State Bar of Texas would know that because there was always an oil and gas question on the bar exam. Can you tell that I was angry at what I saw as a blatant railroading of justice?That last irritated the judge. He said, “Mrs. Williams, you always think that anytime I rule against your clients, I am always wrong.” My co-counsel was pulling at my jacket whispering “shut up shut up” but my red-haired Texan woman was in full control and I said “If Your Honor would consider the several times I have had the honor and privilege of appearing before you, you would see that is correct.”Now the judge had to sort through that a bit since I wasn’t particularly grammatical and perhaps not accurate either, but he finally did and held me in contempt — again. But then that good man went on to make my point to the plaintiffs and deny their request for the sale. And some time later rescinded the finding of contempt after the plaintiffs agreed to settle rather than try again.And I say, to that man’s credit, that when he retired from the bench and began a small private practice, he referred me a number of litigation matters, telling me that I did my ancestors proud (three died during the fight against Mexico in 1835–36). I took it as a great compliment to me as an attorney, and him as a caring judge.I never had the nerve, though, to ask him what he was thinking that day in the first place.