biggish data

diadromous mermaid

The comparison of "seconds" for putting on your seatbelt and waiting for "months" is a very significant difference. Being one of the recalled petitons has made it very obvious to me that the agencies involved in implementing IMBRA were totally unprepared.

That being said, I agree with the philosophy behind the law, I just disagree with how it was rolled out initially. As for the rest of the details behind the law, I don't care at this point, I just want to get the K1 process done. If someone is trying to abuse the system, hopefully the new law will make it harder for them, maybe not. It's been debated continuosly.

Do you realise just how short-sighted that statement appears? 'Seconds' everytime you buckle up, that could be several times a day, 365 days a year, for as many years as you continue driving...as compared to a month, once in a lifetime. Any law newly implemented will cause some ripple effect, it's nature. We don't have the ability to 'stop the clock, cease all activity, to put it into action, before we resume'. In business, this happens daily, and we all take it in stride. I think if those involved with IMBRA (and that means all petitioners and beneficiaries of K visas) were to begin to really contemplate how it is ensuring their own safety, you;d have less to gripe about. I'm not sure of your background (i.e. are you the petitioner or the beneficiary) and I haven't looked at your sig to confirm, but if you're the petitioner and have not commited any act that could give rise to any scrutiny by USCIS, think, if you will about your beneficiary. Someone you love dearly, correct? Had he or she not met you, it's quite conceivable that at some point in time he/she could be party to a petition by someone who does give USCIS cause to scrutinise. Woudl you wish that on your loved one?

Not shortsighted at all actually. In fact your statement comparing the time it takes to buckle up your seatbelt to the time people have to wait for the implementation of IMBRA is really totally irrelevant. You could have said the same about the time it takes to brush to prevent cavities or pick your nose to prevent boogers. The point is IMBRA was implemented or "rolled out" in a very inconsistent and inefficient manner. If you were not affected by the process, you possibly have less understanding of the process. I was affected as were many VJer's. I'm sorry if you can't understand my main point- I am not philosophically against IMBRA, just not happy with being a guinea pig for the new law ok? As for your statement about the business world, yes, that's wondeful businesses can adjust. The government is not a business, unfortunately, and nothing in the process after IMBRA was implemented has been done in a "businesslike manner". As many people have said before, if the government was in the businessworld, then it would go out of business rather quickly. As for griping, I'm not the one who is complaining about the law itself, I actually think the ideas behind it are good things.

All I can say is reread my post. I never said I was philosophically against IMBRA. As for the personal questions about my "loved one" I won't answer that because it's just a emotional appeal that attempts to cloud my original statement. I suggest you read some of the posts about the recalled petitions and the people that are still waiting to be approved.

Actually, it's not at all irrelevant. And to compare it with brushing one's teeth is not at all the same thing. One brushes one's teeth to prevent cavities and to ensure continued health. If you don't brush then you only have yourself to blame should you end up with a mouth full of rotting teeth. In other words, the end result of not brushing is self-imposed. On the other hand, in everyday life, we do things such as buckling up to prevent harm from others' mistakes in judgment, not just our own. Whichever way you look at it, in a system where people are at different levels of processing, to implement any new procedure is going to cause a wrinkle or two. Perhaps it is unfortunate that this new legislation's implementation in 2006 just happened to catch a few who are in mid-stride, but on the whole, I can't imagine anyone grumbling about the procedure, if one is altruistic, that is. The incidence of battered aliens is on the rise. Many are fearful to report it, just as they are fearful to leave the abuser. And predators use that to their advantage, believe me.

If I were an intending immigrant alien at this time, and especially one for whom English may be a second language, I'd be thankful for the extra scrutiny, and with electronic communication as popular and as widespread as it is nowadays, the problems without more due diligence would only escalate. Predators have access to anyone in the world now, with online fora and chatrooms. And believe me, anyone is potential prey.

This is not meant to be a personal statement, but a general one. Rather than grumble about its implementation, I'd be thankful that your loved one has some comfort of knowing that what you say is a squeaky clean record, is indeed that. I know I would.

Irrelevant comparisons go both ways. The issue is not seat belts, toothbrushing , nor nose picking. I refuse to agree that "grumbling" about IMBRA implementation implies that one is not altruistic and I think many others affected by it would agree. You can choose to believe that just because people affected by the slowdown and backlog caused by the inefficient implementation of IMBRA are upset means they are against the philosophies behind the law but you are wrong. It appears to me you are more concerned about the law itself than how it actually has affected the present petition process.

A wrinkle or two? Where have you been?

You still don't get it, in my previous 2 posts I stated I agree with the general philosophy behind IMBRA. I really don't need a lecture on IMBRA and it appears to me at this point you are just using this opportunity to justify the reasons behind it. Why? IMBRA is already law. You don't have to convince me of anything and I'm done talking about it.

Fair enough, but I've been here quite some time and have read many threads on VJ pertaining to the implementation pitfalls. I am not pontificating the law, I'm recommending that while in the ideal world, no one would have been caught in a loop, how often do we actually live in an ideal world. If you are not against the law, as you say, I'll accept that, but if you support the concept, then to be alturistic would be to tolerate the delay with an eye to knowing that those that follow you may benefit from some of the heartache you have had to endure.

By the way, and this is just curiosity on my part, but how is it that you are asking where I've been? I don't recall going anywhere, although I do note that you've only been active on VJ since June of 2006.

diadromous mermaid

Female

2006-08-09 19:44:00

diadromous mermaid

The comparison of "seconds" for putting on your seatbelt and waiting for "months" is a very significant difference. Being one of the recalled petitons has made it very obvious to me that the agencies involved in implementing IMBRA were totally unprepared.

That being said, I agree with the philosophy behind the law, I just disagree with how it was rolled out initially. As for the rest of the details behind the law, I don't care at this point, I just want to get the K1 process done. If someone is trying to abuse the system, hopefully the new law will make it harder for them, maybe not. It's been debated continuosly.

Do you realise just how short-sighted that statement appears? 'Seconds' everytime you buckle up, that could be several times a day, 365 days a year, for as many years as you continue driving...as compared to a month, once in a lifetime. Any law newly implemented will cause some ripple effect, it's nature. We don't have the ability to 'stop the clock, cease all activity, to put it into action, before we resume'. In business, this happens daily, and we all take it in stride. I think if those involved with IMBRA (and that means all petitioners and beneficiaries of K visas) were to begin to really contemplate how it is ensuring their own safety, you;d have less to gripe about. I'm not sure of your background (i.e. are you the petitioner or the beneficiary) and I haven't looked at your sig to confirm, but if you're the petitioner and have not commited any act that could give rise to any scrutiny by USCIS, think, if you will about your beneficiary. Someone you love dearly, correct? Had he or she not met you, it's quite conceivable that at some point in time he/she could be party to a petition by someone who does give USCIS cause to scrutinise. Woudl you wish that on your loved one?

Not shortsighted at all actually. In fact your statement comparing the time it takes to buckle up your seatbelt to the time people have to wait for the implementation of IMBRA is really totally irrelevant. You could have said the same about the time it takes to brush to prevent cavities or pick your nose to prevent boogers. The point is IMBRA was implemented or "rolled out" in a very inconsistent and inefficient manner. If you were not affected by the process, you possibly have less understanding of the process. I was affected as were many VJer's. I'm sorry if you can't understand my main point- I am not philosophically against IMBRA, just not happy with being a guinea pig for the new law ok? As for your statement about the business world, yes, that's wondeful businesses can adjust. The government is not a business, unfortunately, and nothing in the process after IMBRA was implemented has been done in a "businesslike manner". As many people have said before, if the government was in the businessworld, then it would go out of business rather quickly. As for griping, I'm not the one who is complaining about the law itself, I actually think the ideas behind it are good things.

All I can say is reread my post. I never said I was philosophically against IMBRA. As for the personal questions about my "loved one" I won't answer that because it's just a emotional appeal that attempts to cloud my original statement. I suggest you read some of the posts about the recalled petitions and the people that are still waiting to be approved.

Actually, it's not at all irrelevant. And to compare it with brushing one's teeth is not at all the same thing. One brushes one's teeth to prevent cavities and to ensure continued health. If you don't brush then you only have yourself to blame should you end up with a mouth full of rotting teeth. In other words, the end result of not brushing is self-imposed. On the other hand, in everyday life, we do things such as buckling up to prevent harm from others' mistakes in judgment, not just our own. Whichever way you look at it, in a system where people are at different levels of processing, to implement any new procedure is going to cause a wrinkle or two. Perhaps it is unfortunate that this new legislation's implementation in 2006 just happened to catch a few who are in mid-stride, but on the whole, I can't imagine anyone grumbling about the procedure, if one is altruistic, that is. The incidence of battered aliens is on the rise. Many are fearful to report it, just as they are fearful to leave the abuser. And predators use that to their advantage, believe me.

If I were an intending immigrant alien at this time, and especially one for whom English may be a second language, I'd be thankful for the extra scrutiny, and with electronic communication as popular and as widespread as it is nowadays, the problems without more due diligence would only escalate. Predators have access to anyone in the world now, with online fora and chatrooms. And believe me, anyone is potential prey.

This is not meant to be a personal statement, but a general one. Rather than grumble about its implementation, I'd be thankful that your loved one has some comfort of knowing that what you say is a squeaky clean record, is indeed that. I know I would.

diadromous mermaid

Female

2006-08-09 19:11:00

diadromous mermaid

The comparison of "seconds" for putting on your seatbelt and waiting for "months" is a very significant difference. Being one of the recalled petitons has made it very obvious to me that the agencies involved in implementing IMBRA were totally unprepared.

That being said, I agree with the philosophy behind the law, I just disagree with how it was rolled out initially. As for the rest of the details behind the law, I don't care at this point, I just want to get the K1 process done. If someone is trying to abuse the system, hopefully the new law will make it harder for them, maybe not. It's been debated continuosly.

Do you realise just how short-sighted that statement appears? 'Seconds' everytime you buckle up, that could be several times a day, 365 days a year, for as many years as you continue driving...as compared to a month, once in a lifetime. Any law newly implemented will cause some ripple effect, it's nature. We don't have the ability to 'stop the clock, cease all activity, to put it into action, before we resume'. In business, this happens daily, and we all take it in stride. I think if those involved with IMBRA (and that means all petitioners and beneficiaries of K visas) were to begin to really contemplate how it is ensuring their own safety, you;d have less to gripe about. I'm not sure of your background (i.e. are you the petitioner or the beneficiary) and I haven't looked at your sig to confirm, but if you're the petitioner and have not commited any act that could give rise to any scrutiny by USCIS, think, if you will about your beneficiary. Someone you love dearly, correct? Had he or she not met you, it's quite conceivable that at some point in time he/she could be party to a petition by someone who does give USCIS cause to scrutinise. Woudl you wish that on your loved one?

diadromous mermaid

Female

2006-08-09 16:58:00

Hi all,

I agree we have to protect the woman/men who are brought into the USA, BUT...

The processes of IMBRA was badly planned. USCIS can do a background check on the petioner without exposing criminal records of US citizens to the world. If someone have had been abusive in the past, DENY HIS/HER VISA!

Then, do not treat men who wants to bring their loved ones into the US like sex offenders, because IMBRA does exactly that!

Restricting who we choose to marry is rediculous. It is like something from the cold war :-) If we are trying to "protect" what are we doing on the homefront to prevent the same abuse of hapening? Nothing!

Anyway, the intent of IMBRA has merit, but how USCIS and JOD implemented it, was horrable!... and still is.

It is Un-American, Un-constitutional... it is simply bad and wrong!

Find a better way of doing it!

Personally, I can't quite fathom the reason for all of the objections after implementing IMBRA. So it adds a couple of weeks, or possibly months to the process! Is that so critical? I know that waiting is difficult, but it's just a consequence of trying to ensure safe immigration for all, as a result of the acts of others. I look at this extra step as somewhat similar to attempts to stamp out drunk driving or enforce seat-belt use. We're all affacted, even if we are not the offenders. Sure, it takes a couple more seconds every time anyone gets in his/her vehicle before they can pull away, and it limts the number of drinks everyone should have before calling it a night, but it's for everyone's safety, when all is said and done.

diadromous mermaid

Female

2006-08-09 16:29:00

THIS IS MY SECOND TIME TO BE BENIFICIARY OF K-1 VISA

QUOTE (babe07 @ Feb 23 2008, 10:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Supposing the beneficiary had an ignored K 1visa petition. Now, here comes another guy who wants to petition her for a K1 visa. Is there any complication in the immigration? Thanks so much .....

Me and my ex-fiancee met last march 2007 but were 2months in the relationship at that time..And then he filed k-1 visa last july 2007.We always had a misunderstanding AND when time goes by..on that situation,we decided to broke up because we knew that were out of love to each other..And then last November i met a very kind man..Matured enough to understand me.We met on 1st week of february and came back to his country after a couples of day.

And he wants to file for k-1 visa this coming September. Does the 1st petitioned will affect this second one to us?He received NOA1 last august and nothing hear from him..just the last word"im just going to ignore it!
I really dont have any idea in this situation..
HELP ME PLEASE!!

Help me to understand. Two different men petitioned for a visa for you. One earlier, who has yet to inform anyone that he will not go through with it, and now this new person has also filed a petition on your behalf? So you are wondering if there will be complications with the current petition since the old one, by another petitioner, is still in process?

diadromous mermaid

Female

2008-02-23 22:30:00

USCIS Service Centers

Have no education? Become a ADJUDICATIONS OFFICER!!

They have listings for new posistions on the USCIS web page. One is for adjucations officer. Some things that stood out to me...

SALARY RANGE: 68,192.00 - 88,646.00 USD per year
Education: There is no specialized education requirement for this position.

Thats alot of money to be paid to drag your ### !!! *disclaimer* this is my opinion, you aren't going to change it, don't wanna hear how wonderful a job you think they are doing.

There may be no specialised education required for the position, but there is specialised training required. Most adjudicating officers are sent to a training "college" to learn how to interpret the regulations.

diadromous mermaid

Female

2006-06-05 18:25:00

USCIS Service Centers

Confused about I-864

QUOTE (Jandy @ Mar 15 2008, 08:06 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hello everybody,

We're new to this. But my wife is from French Polynesia, and I'm a us citizen. We filed I-130, I-765, I-140, I-485, G-325 and the medical examination.
We didn't file I-864 (which we should have done

), because when we read I-485, it said that I-864 should be submitted if the beneficiary 's aos was based on an entry as K-1 fiancee. But my wife came here as a F-1 student, and still is.

Before mailing the forms, we went to the local office (Honolulu), and asked them if these were the only forms to be sent, and they said yes. What we filled out was all correct etc.

So everything was mailed except the sponsor thingie to Chicago on march 1st. But we got our first notices for I-130, I-765 and I-485 on march 13th. And we guess that our case was transfered to MO since it was sent from there instead of Chicago.

So my question is : is it going to affect our case if I-864 wasn't sent along with the other forms? Or should we just send it anyway to Chicago? Or are they going to send us a notice concerning this form? (But we are thinking that it might not have been a problem because we should have got a notice on the same day as the other ones telling us that the I-864 was missing etc)...or should we wait?

Before getting our first notices, we called the immigration and they said that we should get our notice in 30-45 days concerning the I-864...But since we got our notices, we will call them again later on, and see what they will say about it.

We know that you guys didn't forget to send that sponsor thingie, but any advice concerning that will be really helpful...

thank you

Bob and Jessica

Is she adjusting status based upon marriage to you? Why did you submit an I-140?

diadromous mermaid

Female

2008-03-15 07:28:00

USCIS Service Centers

Is it possible to travel using the neutralization papers only

QUOTE (PlatyPius @ Sep 25 2008, 09:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

QUOTE (ocdane @ Sep 25 2008, 08:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was planning on going out of the country to celebrate Christmas with my family, but I don't know if that is possible with the neutralization papers only in case I do not receive my new passport in time.

Wow! If I had been issued neutralization papers, I don't think I'd carry them with me.... lest I be neutralized!

diadromous mermaid

Female

2008-09-25 20:44:00

Waivers (I-601 and I-212) and Administrative Processes (221g)

Is this misrepresentation???

Hi everybody! I am concerned with my case. I enter USA in January'06 with B2 visa. I
am here visiting my boyfriend. So my intention was to stay here for 20
days and go back. But he proposed me to stay longer. Now I found that
I am pregnant and we will go back in our country (he will become US
citizen soon) and get married. So I am afraid that at the consulate
(where I will apply direct consular filing) they can accuse me of visa
fraud because when I apply for visa at my application I stated that I
will stay in US for 20 days. I will no overstay the period which I
receive at the port of entry. As well as I left my job in my country 3
months after receiving a visa and before coming here. Is there a risk
of denial at embassy and what can I do in such case. It is my first
visit to USA and I have never applied for visa before.
thanks in advance for your reply!

Plans change, as is evident in your case. Just make sure you don't overstay the time period afforded on the I-94 before you return and of course the presence of a boyfriend will be now obvious

Edited by diadromous mermaid, 29 March 2006 - 08:27 PM.

diadromous mermaid

Female

2006-03-29 20:26:00

Waivers (I-601 and I-212) and Administrative Processes (221g)

Do we need a waiver?

My fiance was denied entry 2 years ago and his Border Crossing Card/B-1 visa taken. They charged him with misrepresentation. But, they allowed him to withdraw his application and did not place any ban on him. in fact they advised him he could reapply for a visa in one year if he wanted (we didn't). We are getting ready to apply for our K-1 visa. He has never been illegal in US and has no criminal record. This single encounter is what will be on his record. I have heard to honestly put in our I-129F all info. relating to this day and to be prepared to answer questions at our interview about it. However, I have heard that we may or may not need a waiver. They did question at the border that day if he had returned his previous I-94, because they did not show in their system he had. Since he did return it, we don't have the actual I-94, but we have paystubs and utility bills to show that he was definately present in Mexico. My question again is his visa was taken, denied entry to U.S., questioned about his I-94 and charged with misrepresentation all two years ago, almost three. Will we most likely need a waiver and if so, I-601 or I-212? I am thinking that I should prepare a I-601 just in case they tell us we need to file a waiver. Just so we already have it ready to go. Please advise. thanks!

My sense would be that if he withdrew his application, it was offered in lieu of any ban, and therefore he'd not be inadmissible. But I suppose it's always wise to have a quick consult with an immigration attorney to make sure that his recollection of the events is accurate and comprehensive.

diadromous mermaid

Female

2006-06-05 19:42:00

Waivers (I-601 and I-212) and Administrative Processes (221g)

Waivers (I-601 and I-212) and Administrative Processes (221g)

Right. I'm not well versed in all of this, but my suspicion is that you should speak with an immigration attorney if you are planning to immigrate as a fiancé. It seems that you will have to file the waiver (212) for any future admission prior to the 5 year ban.

The notations on your passport indicate that the POE (port of Entry) agent cancelled your visa on your last attempt to enter the country, due to an issue of admissibility and placed you in expedited removal (the notation ER before the Section 212 admissibility issue), hence, the 5 year bar.

The 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) appears to suggest that the POE agent determined that you were an intending immigrant not holding the proper documentation (i.e. a person who was travelling under a non-immigrant visa but for all intents and purposes was entering the country with an intent to remain). Note that all entrants are perceived as "intending immigrants" and must overcome the perception by demonstrating significant ties to his/her native land. I don't know what discourse led the POE agent to this conclusion. It could ahve been the number of times you were here, the frequency of visits, the fact that you accepted employment while here to be able to extend your visit, or simply the fact that there was little evidence presented to show that your visit was temporary and that you intended to resume liviing in your native land prior to the expiration of the I-94.

As to the notation, 22 CFR 41 122 (h)(3) which is relative to withdrawal of an application, my understanding is that a POE will either undertake ER and as a consequence a bar on future admission would be imposed, or offer an entrant the opportunity to withdraw the application for admission. Were you asked to withdraw the application and voluntarily get back on a plane to return home? Did you sign any other papers presented to you at the POE?

Edited by diadromous mermaid, 08 July 2006 - 06:42 AM.

diadromous mermaid

Female

2006-07-08 06:41:00

Waivers (I-601 and I-212) and Administrative Processes (221g)

Were you actually deported or refused entry?

1111 has a waiver under Section 212 listed in his profile prior to the K-1. Doesn't that imply that he is inadmissible, and therefore may have been removed (voluntary) rather than refused entry?
Silly rabbit, I don't look for details!
to the mermaid.

Just sort of wondered what removables would still have their return ticket. Something in Secondary?
Oh well, I'll go do some reading and see..

I was refused an entry, then they cancelled my visa. They sent me back using my return ticket. Isn't it deportation? I was asked to file for I-212 so I filed it.

Ah, details...more light. What type of visa? B1/B2? Circumstances for refused entry? Could be an expedited removal.

Yes, B1/B2 - tourist visa, 10 year multiple re-entry. Well, on my last visit prior to being refused an entry, I had worked for a family friend to fund my trip, and they found out about that for some reason. They interrogated me and I had to admit it to them. I don't know what it's called, but as I've stated earlier they cancelled my visa and sent me back to my country. The INS officer told me I can only go back to US with a waiver and marry a US citizen, but the embassy here told me if I have a fiance he can file a fiance visa for me provided I have the I-212. I have a 5 year ban on reentry, it has been 3 years since i was refused an entry. Any thoughts?

Unauthorised work on a B1/B2 visa during a prior vist, and you were therefore refused entry on your next visit? What section of 212 was listed on the passport?

If a non-immigrant violates the terms of status of a visa of any sort, the alien is then considered out of status. I believe this applies to unauthorised employment. Normally, any out of status bar triggered after leaving the country would only be 3 years, as long as you did not remain out of status over 180 days. In this case, since you say that it is a 5 year bar on readmission, it seems as if the POE considered yours an expedited removal. You should consult an immigration attorney to check the process, but I sense that the 212 waiver would be required to overcome the "alien previously removed" issue.

"The new INA §212(a)(9)(A) provides that an alien who has been ordered removed under the new INA §235( B)(1) [summary removal upon inspection of applicants for admission] or at the end of removal proceedings under the new INA §240 initiated upon the alien's arrival in the United States [an exclusion proceeding] and who again seeks admission within 5 years of the date of such removal (or within 20 years in the case of a second or subsequent removal or at any time in the case of an alien convicted of an aggravated felony) is inadmissible."

Edited by diadromous mermaid, 07 July 2006 - 10:39 PM.

diadromous mermaid

Female

2006-07-07 22:36:00

Waivers (I-601 and I-212) and Administrative Processes (221g)

Were you actually deported or refused entry?

1111 has a waiver under Section 212 listed in his profile prior to the K-1. Doesn't that imply that he is inadmissible, and therefore may have been removed (voluntary) rather than refused entry?
Silly rabbit, I don't look for details!
to the mermaid.

Just sort of wondered what removables would still have their return ticket. Something in Secondary?
Oh well, I'll go do some reading and see..

I was refused an entry, then they cancelled my visa. They sent me back using my return ticket. Isn't it deportation? I was asked to file for I-212 so I filed it.

Ah, details...more light. What type of visa? B1/B2? Circumstances for refused entry? Could be an expedited removal.

diadromous mermaid

Female

2006-07-07 21:15:00

Waivers (I-601 and I-212) and Administrative Processes (221g)

Were you actually deported or refused entry?

1111 has a waiver under Section 212 listed in his profile prior to the K-1. Doesn't that imply that he is inadmissible, and therefore may have been removed (voluntary) rather than refused entry?

diadromous mermaid

Female

2006-07-07 19:23:00

I-601

The two waivers are for distinct purposes. Form I-601 (Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility)
and Form I-212 (Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission into the United States After Deportation or Removal).

If we ARE to file the I-212, then, why were we told by the officer at our interview to pay for and file the I-601?

Why was he found deportable?

Because he overstayed his visa waiver by less than 180 days. We tried to adjust his status from visitor to permanent resident, and were really naive to the whole process. We tried filing a few times but keep gettting our packets sent back to us. We figured out it was going to take a long time to adjust his status and if we continued to try to file, Rich wouldn't have been able to work legally, and that was getting him down. So, we decided we would file from the UK and move back there. Before we did, we took a trip to visit Niagra Falls, and took a wrong turn and ended up in Canada. We had to turn back around and come through immigration. Rich, with his British accent, was asked to go into the INS (DHS) building. There we were, trying to do everything legally, and just needing a couple of extra months to earn some money, we 'took a wrong turn' that has really altered our lives and made lots of things really difficult.

What, if anything, was stamped on his passport? Usually, an overstay of less than 180 days imposes no bar. Have you calculated the dates?

Typically, the I-601 is used to overcome inadmissibility. I-212 is, by virtue of its title, used to overcome a statutory bar on admission. Now, apparently, according to the consulate your case has a twin conjunctive requirement. I'd be asking an immigration attorney under what statute your husband was removed.

Edited by diadromous mermaid, 03 August 2006 - 03:03 PM.

diadromous mermaid

Female

2006-08-03 15:00:00

Waivers (I-601 and I-212) and Administrative Processes (221g)

I-601

The two waivers are for distinct purposes. Form I-601 (Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility)
and Form I-212 (Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission into the United States After Deportation or Removal).
If we ARE to file the I-212, then, why were we told by the officer at our interview to pay for and file the I-601?

Why was he found deportable?

diadromous mermaid

Female

2006-08-01 16:47:00

Waivers (I-601 and I-212) and Administrative Processes (221g)

I-601

My Husband was found deportable in May of 2002. We tried to adjust his status on the VWP to permanent resident not knowing that through a loophole, we could actually remain in the U.S. while continuing to file. We decided therefore, to return to the U.S. to adjust his status so he could work legally. We took less than 180 days from his expiration on his VW to purchase our tickets to move back to England. A month before we were to leave for the U.K., we took a trip to visit Niagra Falls, and ended up taking a wrong turn and having to come back into the U.S. from the Canadian side of the Falls. The officer gave him the maximum penalty, found him deportable and removed him from the U.S. Because we had already purchased our tickets to return to the U.K., the officer allowed my husband to stay in the U.S. until our flight date. We left the country on July 30th, 2002. We filed for the I-130 in Feb. of 2004. We recieved our visa interview at the London Embassy on May 15th, 2006. There we were given instructions to file the I-601, as his visa was denied on the grounds stated previously. We filed, and submitted our documents along with letters of hardship, and many other supporting documents on June 3rd, 2006. We were told the filing time would take 12-14 weeks. My husband recieved a phone call on July 27th, 2006 from the London Embassy stating that they have done all they can with the I-601, and told us that we should file the I-212 with the DHS office in Buffalo, N.Y. and did not give us our reimbursement for the I-601, or return our letters of hardship and letters of support etc. The agent at the embassy told us to pay the fee for the I-212 and that in the meantime, the embassy would reimburse us. They sent us the I-212 in the mail without any other advice, or reasons why they were not filing our I-212. Is this the worst case of farcicle, lazy agents at any embassy, or what? Does anyone have any advice, or even just some empathy or sympathy? I'm going crazy trying to figure all this out myself!!!

The two waivers are for distinct purposes. Form I-601 (Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility)
and Form I-212 (Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission into the United States After Deportation or Removal).

diadromous mermaid

Female

2006-08-01 16:31:00

Waivers (I-601 and I-212) and Administrative Processes (221g)

is this a ''refuse''?

There were no reasons, It was my third trip to USA and at JFK airport, officer first stamped 6 months permit, then he changed his mind and he took me to a room and he asked why I am coming to USA I said earthquake of 1999 destroyed my home so I am coming to my friend, then he cancelled 6 months permit and he put just 1 month stay. I was hearing from back ground other officers were yelling at him ''Send him back''( I knew they wanted me to scared but I knew It was a psychological, they just want you to know that they can send you back If they want). Whatever then officer let me go. I just wonder is this a refusal entry?

Well, you were permitted to remain for one month, correct? So, why would you consider that a refusal?

diadromous mermaid

Female

2006-08-01 07:23:00

Waivers (I-601 and I-212) and Administrative Processes (221g)

Experience with EWI?

I'd like to learn of anyone's experience with marriage and the road to legalization of an EWI. Specifically. . I'd like to know what kind of documentation was required (if it was) to establish the EWI date. It appears steps would be to marry the EWI then file the I-130 and eventually, most likely the I-601? Thanks for sharing.

Caliborn

I'm not sure how you can establish the EWI date other than the word of the person who entered. Beyond that, lack of proof of being in the home country is about the only other thing I can think of.

The process for a spouse is to send in the I-130 petition, once it's approved and an interview date has been set go to home country for visa interview where visa will be denied (if illegal entry was more than 180 days), submit 601 waiver and hardship letter from USC proving extreme hardship if the waiver is not approved, and wait. Check out immigrate2us.net and the 601 forum for more help and guidance.

Good luck.

Right. I think the alien must declare the date of last entry, to the best of his/her recollection. Which brings to mind a hypothetical. Let's say an alien, EWI, enters the USA around early January give or take a day, and leaves approximately one year later. Of course, declaring an overstay of 180-364 days incurs a 3 year bar, but a declaration of 365 days + of unlawful presence would carry a much higher penalty of 10 years. I'm not sure if there are ways for dates which are on the cusp of either a 3 or 10 year bar to be verified, but I sense it might be a case of proving one over the other. For example, and EWI would ahve to prove an unlawful presence of less than 365 days in order to avoid the more rigorous bar of 10 years?.

Edited by diadromous mermaid, 05 September 2006 - 09:47 PM.

diadromous mermaid

Female

2006-09-05 21:45:00

Waivers (I-601 and I-212) and Administrative Processes (221g)

Married on Visitor Visa

Got this from www.visacentral.net:

I applied for an extension or change of my temporary visa. While the application

has been pending, my original visa has expired. Am I 'illegal'?

No, you are still in a period of authorized stay called 'tolling'. Your stay is

authorized until BCIS makes a decision on your case. If you receive a notice that

it has been denied, you begin accumulating 'out of status' time at that point and

must leave the country immediately.
Yes, but the questions remains: Was your SO admitted as a Canadian? As a B? He was not on a 'visa', he was given a specific return date on his I-94.

Interesting. I view it rather differently. Canadians are visa exempt, and therefore, the imprint on the I-94 is what the border agent determines his duration of authorised stay. I don't see why that would differ from a visa with a similar duration of stay. The issue, in my opinion, is if the I539 was approved or not. If not, then he accrued out of status time after the 21st day.

diadromous mermaid

Female

2006-09-10 11:58:00

Waivers (I-601 and I-212) and Administrative Processes (221g)

212 (a) (7)(B)(i)(II) and 212 (a)(5)(a)

And then goes on to talk about not having a bona-fide relationship [from the consulates' findings]...

Why do they reference the work section, INA 212(a)(5)(A) for denials ??

Need more infor on the "talk about bone fide relationship from consulate's findings" to comment. Care to embellish?

The citation of the statute related to work might be referenced in conjunction with a violation of VWP, because if an alien is making frequent trips into the country without maintaining sufficient ties and/or spending sufficient time in their home land before another trip, it could be that the POE suspects that the alien is working here. We'd need more specifics on the event that precipitated this notation to do anything but speculate.

diadromous mermaid

Female

2006-09-19 17:54:00

Waivers (I-601 and I-212) and Administrative Processes (221g)

Preparing a waiver just in case

Never mind. Correction, my apologies. 91 days on my second calculation.

diadromous mermaid

Female

2006-09-28 15:20:00

Waivers (I-601 and I-212) and Administrative Processes (221g)

Preparing a waiver just in case

Ive stated previously but would like to know if this has happened to anyone from the UK ( or elsewhere) at all?

In short, I left the US after getting married on day 90. I left due to a medical emergency, and am now getting treatment back in the UK. We had not yet filed for AOS, as my illness beat us to it, and I left very quickly.

Now, having spoken to a CBP fella today, who said technically I was 'overstaying' due to the fact we'd not filed for the next phase.

Euro advised me to get a waiver prepared to take with me when I reach London, however Im just wondering if anyone else can shed any light or has heard of similar before.

Thanks so much in advance.

By the way, we are filing for the CR1.

By my reckoning, March 11 - June 9 is 90 days counting arrival and departure days. Am I adding incorrectly?

diadromous mermaid

Female

2006-09-28 15:02:00

Waivers (I-601 and I-212) and Administrative Processes (221g)

Fraud Waiver?

QUOTE (realtor 1 @ Dec 22 2007, 08:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

QUOTE (desert_fox @ Dec 23 2007, 03:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

His statement would not be binding, as it was just his opinion...only the decision of the court is binding. You really need a good immigration attorney....board certified.

It wasn't his personal opinion, but his opinion as an INS representative. What do you mean by a board-certified lawuer?

http://www.aila.org

diadromous mermaid

Female

2007-12-23 08:43:00

Waivers (I-601 and I-212) and Administrative Processes (221g)

Waivers (I-601 and I-212) and Administrative Processes (221g)

QUOTE (annasherwood @ Feb 16 2008, 12:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ohhhh...now i understand you and what you're about...you just like to come onto internet forums and act superior and abuse people...

I think my history here would prove otherwise, but as you were. You do have a lot to do.

diadromous mermaid

Female

2008-02-16 12:56:00

Waivers (I-601 and I-212) and Administrative Processes (221g)

As it was too late to edit, I'd like to add that it might be I come across as being a little bewildered at your apparent lack of preparation. In reviewing your former posts, you expressed that you were so anxious to get back to your home, that it just seems a bit unreasonable that you'd complain when your express desires were being realised, especially when you were in a wiaver situation. Why not be thankful that your husband's prior actions didn't complicate your case, rather than to lament that it's going so smoothly. I am sure there are plenty of folks in less unorthodox situations that have had to wait much longer, and had no prior convictions in their history. It would be wise to use any time you have available to research the process, so you know what to expect and when. If for no other reason than that it would preempt the need for people that know to jump in and provide you with the information you so desparately need.

diadromous mermaid

Female

2008-02-16 12:41:00

Waivers (I-601 and I-212) and Administrative Processes (221g)

QUOTE (annasherwood @ Feb 16 2008, 11:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

mermaid---you are rude and sarcastic, and i frankly would rather you didn't reply; i can do without your assistance, thank you.

As for my assistance, no, you're right you don't need it, but you do need some assistance. As for your preference that I not reply, well, that's not going to stop me interjecting facts. You might consider me rude and sarcastic, but I believe I am simply being frank. And I'd rather be that than be unrealistic, which it what it appears you are more inclined to be.

diadromous mermaid

Female

2008-02-16 12:29:00