VisaJourney.com > General Family Based Immigration Topics > Waivers (I-601 and I-212) and Administrative Processes (221g)
at thew interview when they ask about that somtimes if they the explamation is resoabl they will go ahead and approve the visa or is it alway always deined????????? when should i fill a 601 if i hAVE TWO? THEY MAILED VISA DOCOMENT LAST WEEK SO OUR INTERVIEW COULD BE SOON?
Everything I have read suggests that her visa will be denied at the consulate because of the deportation. Once it has been denied, you may file for a waiver.
It is more complicated because of being deported twice, this means she must have Entered Without Inspection (EWI.)
We would need a COMPLETE timeline to know if she is even allowed to file a waiver at all. How many times did she enter? How many were without inspection. How long was she in the U.S. after the first entry before being deported? How long was she in the U.S. between deportations?
There is a law about multiple EWI with overstays between. . .
She will definitely not be given a visa without a waiver.
We would need a COMPLETE timeline to know if she is even allowed to file a waiver at all. How many times did she enter? How many were without inspection. How long was she in the U.S. after the first entry before being deported? How long was she in the U.S. between deportations?
There is a law about multiple EWI with overstays between. . .
She will definitely not be given a visa without a waiver.
And with the whole immediate family in Mexico, and only the husband here, how would one prove hardship?
QUOTE(diadromous mermaid @ Apr 21 2008, 04:38 PM) 
And with the whole immediate family in Mexico, and only the husband here, how would one prove hardship?
The hardship only applies to the USC. The 2 deportations may mean she is not eligable for the waiver
QUOTE(diadromous mermaid @ Apr 21 2008, 05:38 PM)
And with the whole immediate family in Mexico, and only the husband here, how would one prove hardship?
You can prove that it would be difficult for him (and the USC children-- and in turn him) to continue living in Mexico.
Things like level of schooling, being able to see his parents, their grandparents. . .USC responsibilities in US. . .medical problems of USC or USC parents (if proving USC is ONLY person able to help out parents.)
USC continuing education, debts in U.S., etc. It is very specific and personal. Can be done. Not always easy, but do-able.
Not sure they are eligible to file a waiver though. . . need to see that timeline.
QUOTE(Gaby&Talbert @ Apr 21 2008, 06:01 PM)
QUOTE(diadromous mermaid @ Apr 21 2008, 04:38 PM)
And with the whole immediate family in Mexico, and only the husband here, how would one prove hardship?
The hardship only applies to the USC. The 2 deportations may mean she is not eligable for the waiver
Exactly. What hardship would it be for the US citizen? He has clearly spent time in Mexico, per his signature.
QUOTE(diadromous mermaid @ Apr 21 2008, 06:04 PM)
Exactly. What hardship would it be for the US citizen? He has clearly spent time in Mexico, per his signature.
He doesn't have to prove that he cannot spend time in Mexico, he must prove that it would be an extreme hardship for him to live there. From the timeline, he is visiting his now wife in Mexico. It appears that he does not live there. It appears he might be a naturalized citizen, which means probably that he speaks Spanish, which means that language barrier cannot be used as a hardship, however, the hardships to naturalized citizens must be taken as seriously as any other citizen, and would be highly personal to him. Like I said, not easy, but do-able.
Still not sure she is even eligible for a waiver in the first place.
QUOTE(emt103c @ Apr 21 2008, 06:09 PM)
QUOTE(diadromous mermaid @ Apr 21 2008, 06:04 PM)
Exactly. What hardship would it be for the US citizen? He has clearly spent time in Mexico, per his signature.
He doesn't have to prove that he cannot spend time in Mexico, he must prove that it would be an extreme hardship for him to live there. From the timeline, he is visiting his now wife in Mexico. It appears that he does not live there. It appears he might be a naturalized citizen, which means probably that he speaks Spanish, which means that language barrier cannot be used as a hardship, however, the hardships to naturalized citizens must be taken as seriously as any other citizen, and would be highly personal to him. Like I said, not easy, but do-able.
Still not sure she is even eligible for a waiver in the first place.
So, what were the circumstances of her prior removals? Did she successfully enter without inspection only to be found later, and removed, twice?
Reading this, it appears that a second deportation does bring about a 20 year bar to admission. What were your wife's dates of entry? How long did she remain, if at all, between deportations?
From Siskind...
QUOTE
- PREVIOUS DEPORTATION OR UNLAWFUL PRESENCE
A person who was placed in deportation proceedings upon their entry to the US and was ordered deported is inadmissible for a minimum of five years. After a second such deportation, the period of inadmissibility is 20 years. Those who have ever been convicted of an aggravated felony are permanently inadmissible to the US. If the person subject to the deportation order left the US without allowing the deportation to occur, they are inadmissible for 10 years. Again, if it is a second deportation, the period of inadmissibility is 20 years, and if the person has been convicted of an aggravated felony, they are permanently inadmissible.
Along with the above ground of inadmissibility, the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act created the concept of “unlawful presence” and made it a ground of inadmissibility. People who have been unlawfully present in the US for more than 180 days but less than one year are subject to a three year bar on admission, while those who have been unlawfully present for more than a year are inadmissible for ten years. Also, those who have been unlawfully present for more than one year, were deported, and then seek to reenter the US without authorization are permanently inadmissible.
While the 3/10 year bar, as it is commonly known, seems straightforward, issues involved in determining exactly what constitutes unlawful presence make it more complicated. The relevant statute (Section 212(a)(9)(
(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act) defines unlawful presence as presence “in the United States after the expiration of the period of stay authorized by the Attorney General or [presence] in the United States without being admitted or paroled. The INS has not issued regulations to further define the concept, providing only memoranda on the issue, essentially saying that a person begins accruing unlawful presence when they remain in the US past the expiration date of their I-94. Unlawful presence can also be accrued if, in deportation proceedings, the immigration judge determines that there has been a status violation. Those entrants who do not have a date on their I-94, but are instead admitted for the duration of status (primarily students) do not accrue unlawful presence until the INS rules that they have violated their status.
An applicant who was formally admitted or paroled into the US and timely files an application to extend or change their status is given a 120 day grace period following the date on the I-94 during which no unlawful presence will accrue.
There are some exceptions to the 3/10 year-bar. So long as a person is under 18, they will not accrue unlawful presence. People with a bona fide pending asylum application do not accrue unlawful presence, nor do beneficiaries of the family unity program. Other groups that do not accrue unlawful presence include people with pending application for adjustment of status, people in temporary protected status, and people under a grant of deferred enforced departure.
It is possible to obtain a waiver of the 3/10-year bar. To do so, the applicant must demonstrate that if the waiver is not granted, their US citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse or parents would suffer extreme hardship. While this standard is nowhere defined, cases make it clear that the hardship required will not be found in many cases.
A person who was placed in deportation proceedings upon their entry to the US and was ordered deported is inadmissible for a minimum of five years. After a second such deportation, the period of inadmissibility is 20 years. Those who have ever been convicted of an aggravated felony are permanently inadmissible to the US. If the person subject to the deportation order left the US without allowing the deportation to occur, they are inadmissible for 10 years. Again, if it is a second deportation, the period of inadmissibility is 20 years, and if the person has been convicted of an aggravated felony, they are permanently inadmissible.
Along with the above ground of inadmissibility, the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act created the concept of “unlawful presence” and made it a ground of inadmissibility. People who have been unlawfully present in the US for more than 180 days but less than one year are subject to a three year bar on admission, while those who have been unlawfully present for more than a year are inadmissible for ten years. Also, those who have been unlawfully present for more than one year, were deported, and then seek to reenter the US without authorization are permanently inadmissible.
While the 3/10 year bar, as it is commonly known, seems straightforward, issues involved in determining exactly what constitutes unlawful presence make it more complicated. The relevant statute (Section 212(a)(9)(
(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act) defines unlawful presence as presence “in the United States after the expiration of the period of stay authorized by the Attorney General or [presence] in the United States without being admitted or paroled. The INS has not issued regulations to further define the concept, providing only memoranda on the issue, essentially saying that a person begins accruing unlawful presence when they remain in the US past the expiration date of their I-94. Unlawful presence can also be accrued if, in deportation proceedings, the immigration judge determines that there has been a status violation. Those entrants who do not have a date on their I-94, but are instead admitted for the duration of status (primarily students) do not accrue unlawful presence until the INS rules that they have violated their status. An applicant who was formally admitted or paroled into the US and timely files an application to extend or change their status is given a 120 day grace period following the date on the I-94 during which no unlawful presence will accrue.
There are some exceptions to the 3/10 year-bar. So long as a person is under 18, they will not accrue unlawful presence. People with a bona fide pending asylum application do not accrue unlawful presence, nor do beneficiaries of the family unity program. Other groups that do not accrue unlawful presence include people with pending application for adjustment of status, people in temporary protected status, and people under a grant of deferred enforced departure.
It is possible to obtain a waiver of the 3/10-year bar. To do so, the applicant must demonstrate that if the waiver is not granted, their US citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse or parents would suffer extreme hardship. While this standard is nowhere defined, cases make it clear that the hardship required will not be found in many cases.
I am a all American guy born and raised in Indiana just to get post back on track I was expecting to have my wife and family here in a month or so this post comes as a quite a shock I have posted about this question before was told just tell the truth and every thing would be ok more than likely
in the early 90's my wife was returning to California with her husband right before she left her mom got very sick she stayed behind for a few days her 4 month old daughter went with her father, so a few days latter at the border Mexican passport in hand stamped and all ready the American immigration officer took her passport looked at her a few times then tore it in two through it on the ground told her she want 23 and no way she as kids [my wife is very tiny after her third child last year she now at 30 still where's sz 12 jeans that's four sizes smaller than 0} he said she must have stolen this passport and that she was probably from south America or something she started crying said she needed to get to her daughter he laughed called back up and threw her in jail after being in jail for 6 days they gave her papers to sign she would not sign them the name on there was different than hers she had all her papers birth doc etc. but they would not listen after four more days in jail she signed what ever they wanted just to get out she received a 5 year ban once out she ran down the road under the fence and back to her home and daughter in California she lived there five years then her mom fell ill again she went back to Mexico now with two kids her mom passed a way two years latter by this time her husband add abandon her and out of desperation a year latter she wanted to return to the us to make better money however Mexico would no issue her a new passport because they did not believe that the united states had tore up the old one and you can guess what she thinks about American immigration system so she snuck across but only made it a few feet before she was picked up then she received a 20 year ban
also can i file this 601 now or will i have to go through the expense of going to mexico for the interview file there and retun with out my wife?
in the early 90's my wife was returning to California with her husband right before she left her mom got very sick she stayed behind for a few days her 4 month old daughter went with her father, so a few days latter at the border Mexican passport in hand stamped and all ready the American immigration officer took her passport looked at her a few times then tore it in two through it on the ground told her she want 23 and no way she as kids [my wife is very tiny after her third child last year she now at 30 still where's sz 12 jeans that's four sizes smaller than 0} he said she must have stolen this passport and that she was probably from south America or something she started crying said she needed to get to her daughter he laughed called back up and threw her in jail after being in jail for 6 days they gave her papers to sign she would not sign them the name on there was different than hers she had all her papers birth doc etc. but they would not listen after four more days in jail she signed what ever they wanted just to get out she received a 5 year ban once out she ran down the road under the fence and back to her home and daughter in California she lived there five years then her mom fell ill again she went back to Mexico now with two kids her mom passed a way two years latter by this time her husband add abandon her and out of desperation a year latter she wanted to return to the us to make better money however Mexico would no issue her a new passport because they did not believe that the united states had tore up the old one and you can guess what she thinks about American immigration system so she snuck across but only made it a few feet before she was picked up then she received a 20 year ban
also can i file this 601 now or will i have to go through the expense of going to mexico for the interview file there and retun with out my wife?
Mexico is running a pilot program wherein they can tell her at the interview if she is eligible to file the I-601. She will get an appointment to file it within the week usually, and they will adjudicate it on the spot. (you are lucky, this is the ONLY country where this pilot program is going on.) She could then hypothetically return to the U.S. the next day.
If I were you, I would organize completely the timeline--not just early 90's but particular years. The I would do a consultation with Laurel Scott--or another good immigration attorney specifically with experience in Mexico waivers. Ms. Scott is very experienced, honest, and has a high success rate, as well as a low consultation fee. (visacentral.net)
From what I'm reading, she was given an removal? deportation? (5 year ban) in the early 90's while trying to enter and being arrested?, then reentered EWI (the year really matters here because if it was ALL before 1997, then things are different) overstayed for five years, exited and then reentered and THEN was deported. This would be INA 212a 9c (EWI more than a year overstay then EWI again) If this was ALL before 1997, then there is a possiblility things are different. . .
You need to consult with a qualified attorney who can look at ALL of the documentation and help you with your case. I recommend Ms. Scott, just be sure you get someone experienced.
If I were you, I would organize completely the timeline--not just early 90's but particular years. The I would do a consultation with Laurel Scott--or another good immigration attorney specifically with experience in Mexico waivers. Ms. Scott is very experienced, honest, and has a high success rate, as well as a low consultation fee. (visacentral.net)
From what I'm reading, she was given an removal? deportation? (5 year ban) in the early 90's while trying to enter and being arrested?, then reentered EWI (the year really matters here because if it was ALL before 1997, then things are different) overstayed for five years, exited and then reentered and THEN was deported. This would be INA 212a 9c (EWI more than a year overstay then EWI again) If this was ALL before 1997, then there is a possiblility things are different. . .
You need to consult with a qualified attorney who can look at ALL of the documentation and help you with your case. I recommend Ms. Scott, just be sure you get someone experienced.
QUOTE(emt103c @ Apr 21 2008, 06:51 PM)
If this was ALL before 1997, then there is a possiblility things are different. . .
OP said she is 30 now, so post 97.
you need to go to http://immigrate2us.net/forum/ and read about 601 waivers and the hardship letters.
You do have to go to Juarez and interview. I would not lie to USCIS but be edjucated in the INA laws so you know what to expect. If I were you I would at least have a consultation with Laura Scott who you should be able to find information on the other website before you do anything else. You may want to know what risks are involved once she leaves the US.
You do have to go to Juarez and interview. I would not lie to USCIS but be edjucated in the INA laws so you know what to expect. If I were you I would at least have a consultation with Laura Scott who you should be able to find information on the other website before you do anything else. You may want to know what risks are involved once she leaves the US.
QUOTE(Gaby&Talbert @ Apr 22 2008, 09:46 AM)
you need to go to http://immigrate2us.net/forum/ and read about 601 waivers and the hardship letters.
You do have to go to Juarez and interview. I would not lie to USCIS but be edjucated in the INA laws so you know what to expect. If I were you I would at least have a consultation with Laura Scott who you should be able to find information on the other website before you do anything else. You may want to know what risks are involved once she leaves the US.
You do have to go to Juarez and interview. I would not lie to USCIS but be edjucated in the INA laws so you know what to expect. If I were you I would at least have a consultation with Laura Scott who you should be able to find information on the other website before you do anything else. You may want to know what risks are involved once she leaves the US.
I think he said she's already been deported again. . ."Laurel Scott"
QUOTE(Gaby&Talbert @ Apr 22 2008, 08:46 AM)
you need to go to http://immigrate2us.net/forum/ and read about 601 waivers and the hardship letters.
You do have to go to Juarez and interview. I would not lie to USCIS but be edjucated in the INA laws so you know what to expect. If I were you I would at least have a consultation with Laura Scott who you should be able to find information on the other website before you do anything else. You may want to know what risks are involved once she leaves the US.
You do have to go to Juarez and interview. I would not lie to USCIS but be edjucated in the INA laws so you know what to expect. If I were you I would at least have a consultation with Laura Scott who you should be able to find information on the other website before you do anything else. You may want to know what risks are involved once she leaves the US.
leaves the us??? she lives in mexico???
first deportation was in 96 received 5 year ban same day she entered us and lived there from 96 to 2000
second deportation was in 2002 she was only in the us for a few minutes
second deportation was in 2002 she was only in the us for a few minutes
QUOTE(bryan&nicole @ Apr 22 2008, 06:32 PM)
first deportation was in 96 received 5 year ban same day she entered us and lived there from 96 to 2000
second deportation was in 2002 she was only in the us for a few minutes
second deportation was in 2002 she was only in the us for a few minutes
Deportation in 96 and received a 5-yr ban, but remained in the USA until 2000? How could she have a 5 year ban, if she didn't exit the country until 2000? Re-entry triggers the bar, doesn't it?
QUOTE(diadromous mermaid @ Apr 22 2008, 04:26 PM)
QUOTE(bryan&nicole @ Apr 22 2008, 06:32 PM)
first deportation was in 96 received 5 year ban same day she entered us and lived there from 96 to 2000
second deportation was in 2002 she was only in the us for a few minutes
second deportation was in 2002 she was only in the us for a few minutes
Deportation in 96 and received a 5-yr ban, but remained in the USA until 2000? How could she have a 5 year ban, if she didn't exit the country until 2000? Re-entry triggers the bar, doesn't it?
I would think so too...
it was 96 then in 2002
riceved 5 year ban in 96 and lived those five years in usa in 2002 only here a few minutes
riceved 5 year ban in 96 and lived those five years in usa in 2002 only here a few minutes
Okay: Attempted to enter WITH inspection 1996- DENIED, given 5 yr, ban
days later EWI 1996- Stayed 1996-2000 (4 Yr overstay) Voluntary Exit
attempted EWI 2002- Second Deportation
If these facts are correct, then (I apologize for being the bearer of this news) then she will not qualify for a waiver until she has been outside the U.S. for ten years. She actually has a violation under both sections. This is why they gave her such a high ban in the first place. With the circumstances under which she was denied entry the first time, it might be worth a consultation with Heather Poole (who has her own web site) and/or Laurel Scott (who also has her own web site that I mentioned before.) Both are very experienced and can explain exactly what is going on to you. Below I have noted the text of INA 212a9C. Again I am sorry, maybe one of the attornies can help.
( C ) Aliens unlawfully present after previous immigration violations.-
(i) In general.-Any alien who-
(I) has been unlawfully present in the United States for an aggregate period of more than 1 year, or
(II) has been ordered removed under section 235( b )(1) , section 240 , or any other provision of law, and who enters or attempts to reenter
the United States without being admitted is inadmissible.
(ii) Exception.-Clause (i) shall not apply to an alien seeking admission more than 10 years after the date of the alien's last departure from the United States if, prior to the alien's reembarkation at a place outside the United States or attempt to be readmitted from a foreign contiguous territory, 14a/ 6aa/ the Secretary of Homeland Security has consented to the alien's reapplying for admission.
days later EWI 1996- Stayed 1996-2000 (4 Yr overstay) Voluntary Exit
attempted EWI 2002- Second Deportation
If these facts are correct, then (I apologize for being the bearer of this news) then she will not qualify for a waiver until she has been outside the U.S. for ten years. She actually has a violation under both sections. This is why they gave her such a high ban in the first place. With the circumstances under which she was denied entry the first time, it might be worth a consultation with Heather Poole (who has her own web site) and/or Laurel Scott (who also has her own web site that I mentioned before.) Both are very experienced and can explain exactly what is going on to you. Below I have noted the text of INA 212a9C. Again I am sorry, maybe one of the attornies can help.
( C ) Aliens unlawfully present after previous immigration violations.-
(i) In general.-Any alien who-
(I) has been unlawfully present in the United States for an aggregate period of more than 1 year, or
(II) has been ordered removed under section 235( b )(1) , section 240 , or any other provision of law, and who enters or attempts to reenter
the United States without being admitted is inadmissible.
(ii) Exception.-Clause (i) shall not apply to an alien seeking admission more than 10 years after the date of the alien's last departure from the United States if, prior to the alien's reembarkation at a place outside the United States or attempt to be readmitted from a foreign contiguous territory, 14a/ 6aa/ the Secretary of Homeland Security has consented to the alien's reapplying for admission.
QUOTE(bryan&nicole @ Apr 22 2008, 07:48 PM)
it was 96 then in 2002
riceved 5 year ban in 96 and lived those five years in usa in 2002 only here a few minutes
riceved 5 year ban in 96 and lived those five years in usa in 2002 only here a few minutes
You really need to become familiar with the INA, and consult an expert immigration attorney. An alien can't live out a 5 year ban from within the USA! It seems your wife has made poor choices in the past, and its time to get on the right path. You can't do that without knowing what the consequences are for past actions.
poor choices you must not of read the post?
I read the thread.
Poor choices seems a kind way of putting it.
Poor choices seems a kind way of putting it.
oh you must be talking about the American immigration officer who tore up my wife's passport and visa then threw her in jail yes those where poor choices also when the united states decided that immigration laws can not be tried argued or challenged that was a poor choice I doubt there is a moron alive who would say they would abandoned their husband and four month old daughter just because some dumb idiot immigration guard broke the law
Regardless of what the immigration officer did, right or wrong, there are procedures to follow and she did not do it. Waht she could have done in the past to correct her "illegal entry" is now mote because too much time has passed and she has violated the law in the eyes of the US government.
You really are going to have to consult an attorney on this one. You can try going it alone but I would recommend at least a free consultation with an attorney with any letters and pertinent information to discover if filing would even be worth it or just a waste of money.
You really are going to have to consult an attorney on this one. You can try going it alone but I would recommend at least a free consultation with an attorney with any letters and pertinent information to discover if filing would even be worth it or just a waste of money.
Bryan, please do consult an attorney. What's done now is done. The problem is, if she had gone through a chain of command she would have been able to get around one border patrol officer not treating her with respect.
At this point, she has a lot going against her. Please see my post above. I understand that this is a bad situation and you are angry, but we can only deal with the reality of the system and try to influence congress to realize that too much power in one system, without the checks and balances that our government is supposed to be built on is a bad thing.
At this point, writing a Congressman, and reminding him that judicial review is a good thing would be in order.
There are ways around the laws, but only through extraordinary means like acts of Congress. If you are set on living in the United States before her "ban" is up, you might think of trying to convince your Congressman/Senator's office to help.
Consult an attorney and research the laws first. You will need to be very informed and active to fight something like this.
At this point, she has a lot going against her. Please see my post above. I understand that this is a bad situation and you are angry, but we can only deal with the reality of the system and try to influence congress to realize that too much power in one system, without the checks and balances that our government is supposed to be built on is a bad thing.
At this point, writing a Congressman, and reminding him that judicial review is a good thing would be in order.
There are ways around the laws, but only through extraordinary means like acts of Congress. If you are set on living in the United States before her "ban" is up, you might think of trying to convince your Congressman/Senator's office to help.
Consult an attorney and research the laws first. You will need to be very informed and active to fight something like this.
QUOTE
ran down the road under the fence and back to her home and daughter in California
QUOTE
she snuck across but only made it a few feet before she was picked up then she received a 20 year ban
Poor choices
QUOTE(Boiler @ Apr 25 2008, 10:14 AM)
QUOTE
ran down the road under the fence and back to her home and daughter in California
QUOTE
she snuck across but only made it a few feet before she was picked up then she received a 20 year ban
Poor choices
Let's keep this discussion on track and leave armchair judgments for daytime television shows OK?
QUOTE(LadyJane @ Apr 25 2008, 12:22 PM)
QUOTE(Boiler @ Apr 25 2008, 10:14 AM)
QUOTE
ran down the road under the fence and back to her home and daughter in California
QUOTE
she snuck across but only made it a few feet before she was picked up then she received a 20 year ban
Poor choices
Let's keep this discussion on track and leave armchair judgments for daytime television shows OK?
Often these issues remind me of AA, you can not deal with the issue until you acknowledge the issue.
I agree with LadyJane. You just can't judge someone who is in that much pain, and if you do, you don't have to put it in their faces.
It is not easy to think about laws objectively when they separate you from your wife and kids.
It is not easy to think about laws objectively when they separate you from your wife and kids.
QUOTE(LadyJane @ Apr 25 2008, 02:22 PM)
QUOTE(Boiler @ Apr 25 2008, 10:14 AM)
QUOTE
ran down the road under the fence and back to her home and daughter in California
QUOTE
she snuck across but only made it a few feet before she was picked up then she received a 20 year ban
Poor choices
Let's keep this discussion on track and leave armchair judgments for daytime television shows OK?
I think Boiler was well within the realm of being courteous with his reply. Frankly, the OP needs to recognise NOW that his wife made poor choices in the past and there might be a solution, but then again he must prepare for the bitter pill that there's no solution other than to live out the 20 year bar.
I take offense to being told that it is being judgmental to regard an alien that is caught, and deported and incurs a 5 year bar to admission as having exercised poor choices when she chose to remain in the USA for an additional 6 years. That is poor choice to thumb ones nose in the US government's face, and then expect someone to waive the punishment later. The only was the OP is going to find success IS if he facing the cold hard facts and work through the laws to see if there is any relief from the 20 year bar, rather than to find excuses for the choices that were made.
QUOTE(emt103c @ Apr 25 2008, 05:26 PM)
I agree with LadyJane. You just can't judge someone who is in that much pain, and if you do, you don't have to put it in their faces.
It is not easy to think about laws objectively when they separate you from your wife and kids.
It is not easy to think about laws objectively when they separate you from your wife and kids.
This problem that the OP and his wife has been ongoing for 10 years or more, since her first deportation occurred in 1996. While I feel for the OP, trying to change the laws is not the ONLY solution.
She has a twenty year ban and based on the story is not eligible for a waiver for ten years (INA 212a9c). What other solution is there besides law changes or extraordinary measures?
He can move there, but I was only addressing for her to come here. . .
He can move there, but I was only addressing for her to come here. . .
He could look into living in Juarez and work in El Paso possibly.
Unfortunately if they do pass an immigration reform bill it will still probably not forgive deportations if they are recent. Talk to someone like Laurel Scott and then decide what is best for your family.
Unfortunately if they do pass an immigration reform bill it will still probably not forgive deportations if they are recent. Talk to someone like Laurel Scott and then decide what is best for your family.
I was in the united states last in 04/2003. I was ordered removed because I had no papers. This was only because of my attempted entry in 1996. In 1996 I arrived at the border with proper passport and visa, but based solely on my looks, a officer tore my passport up and through me in jail! Once out, I was faced with the fact, that in California where my husband and my four month old daughter. My husband had no money for day care, or time, or even experience to tend to our baby. I had no money for layers, with fear, anger and indescribable worry about my daughter; as any mother would, I did not think to seek help at the Mexican embassy! I thought only of my daughter, and I went for her! It was the most traumatic experience of my life! I latter retuned to Mexico on my own. In 2003 I was single with two kids, and I made a mistake. Fueled from desperation, and a dream to better my life, I chose to return to the United States, and I regret it! It cost me dearly, I received sever penalties, but I was penalized for something that was not a mistake, something that was not my fault . Mexico would not give me a new passport as they did not believe what had happened, and you could imagine what I thought of American immigration! So in 2003 a combination of being young and ignorant, I tried to return with out papers and I was caught. In 1996 the United States made a mistake, but all they can say now, is their sorry! I have no recourse for that, as immigration law is above the law, it cannot be taken to court! Now I not only pay for my mistakes in 2003, I pay for a mistake the United States made in 1996!
QUOTE(bryan&nicole @ Apr 29 2008, 09:29 PM)
I was in the united states last in 04/2003. I was ordered removed because I had no papers. This was only because of my attempted entry in 1996. In 1996 I arrived at the border with proper passport and visa, but based solely on my looks, a officer tore my passport up and through me in jail! Once out, I was faced with the fact, that in California where my husband and my four month old daughter. My husband had no money for day care, or time, or even experience to tend to our baby. I had no money for layers, with fear, anger and indescribable worry about my daughter; as any mother would, I did not think to seek help at the Mexican embassy! I thought only of my daughter, and I went for her! It was the most traumatic experience of my life! I latter retuned to Mexico on my own. In 2003 I was single with two kids, and I made a mistake. Fueled from desperation, and a dream to better my life, I chose to return to the United States, and I regret it! It cost me dearly, I received sever penalties, but I was penalized for something that was not a mistake, something that was not my fault . Mexico would not give me a new passport as they did not believe what had happened, and you could imagine what I thought of American immigration! So in 2003 a combination of being young and ignorant, I tried to return with out papers and I was caught. In 1996 the United States made a mistake, but all they can say now, is their sorry! I have no recourse for that, as immigration law is above the law, it cannot be taken to court! Now I not only pay for my mistakes in 2003, I pay for a mistake the United States made in 1996!
While I can *feel* for your dilemma, assigning blame to CBP or the Immigration Service for your situation is not only improper, but will get you nowhere. Every tourist entering this country is presumed to have immigrant intent. That is the law. The fact that you were not able to overcome that is not a fault of the border agents, it is your issue. You had a husband and child in the USA at the time. Entering the country with a tourist visa in hand, yet your immediate family already in California shifts the burden of proof to you to demonstrate that you were not using a visa inappropriately. However, I do wonder if there would not have been a way for you to appeal their actions after you were released and get your documentation back. But, I suppose that is water under the bridge. The problem is that after such an unsuccessfuly attempt, you chose to circumvent the law and enter again in 2003. Once again you were unsuccessful.
Immigration law is not above the law. There are ways and means for aliens to hold the Service to task. I think in view of the fact that the USA is the palce your family chooses to reside, you might wish to change your tune as to how you perceive American immigration law, and the manner in which you allege the United States is inclined to evade facing mistakes made on its part! Good luck.
QUOTE(diadromous mermaid @ Apr 30 2008, 09:01 AM)
QUOTE(bryan&nicole @ Apr 29 2008, 09:29 PM)
I was in the united states last in 04/2003. I was ordered removed because I had no papers. This was only because of my attempted entry in 1996. In 1996 I arrived at the border with proper passport and visa, but based solely on my looks, a officer tore my passport up and through me in jail! Once out, I was faced with the fact, that in California where my husband and my four month old daughter. My husband had no money for day care, or time, or even experience to tend to our baby. I had no money for layers, with fear, anger and indescribable worry about my daughter; as any mother would, I did not think to seek help at the Mexican embassy! I thought only of my daughter, and I went for her! It was the most traumatic experience of my life! I latter retuned to Mexico on my own. In 2003 I was single with two kids, and I made a mistake. Fueled from desperation, and a dream to better my life, I chose to return to the United States, and I regret it! It cost me dearly, I received sever penalties, but I was penalized for something that was not a mistake, something that was not my fault . Mexico would not give me a new passport as they did not believe what had happened, and you could imagine what I thought of American immigration! So in 2003 a combination of being young and ignorant, I tried to return with out papers and I was caught. In 1996 the United States made a mistake, but all they can say now, is their sorry! I have no recourse for that, as immigration law is above the law, it cannot be taken to court! Now I not only pay for my mistakes in 2003, I pay for a mistake the United States made in 1996!
While I can *feel* for your dilemma, assigning blame to CBP or the Immigration Service for your situation is not only improper, but will get you nowhere. Every tourist entering this country is presumed to have immigrant intent. That is the law. The fact that you were not able to overcome that is not a fault of the border agents, it is your issue. You had a husband and child in the USA at the time. Entering the country with a tourist visa in hand, yet your immediate family already in California shifts the burden of proof to you to demonstrate that you were not using a visa inappropriately. However, I do wonder if there would not have been a way for you to appeal their actions after you were released and get your documentation back. But, I suppose that is water under the bridge. The problem is that after such an unsuccessfuly attempt, you chose to circumvent the law and enter again in 2003. Once again you were unsuccessful.
Immigration law is not above the law. There are ways and means for aliens to hold the Service to task. I think in view of the fact that the USA is the palce your family chooses to reside, you might wish to change your tune as to how you perceive American immigration law, and the manner in which you allege the United States is inclined to evade facing mistakes made on its part! Good luck.
Some CBP officers do think the are above the law because they can get away with crime against people who are not citizens. It happens all the time. The same applies to some ICE officers because they think they can get away with it.
I have seen how differently CBP treat me, a USC, differently.
Sorry to hear about your troubles, all I can suggest is to talk to a very good immigration lawyer.
Sounds like a difficult thing to overcome.
Good luck
Sounds like a difficult thing to overcome.
Good luck
QUOTE(Gaby&Talbert @ Apr 30 2008, 11:10 AM)
QUOTE(diadromous mermaid @ Apr 30 2008, 09:01 AM)
QUOTE(bryan&nicole @ Apr 29 2008, 09:29 PM)
I was in the united states last in 04/2003. I was ordered removed because I had no papers. This was only because of my attempted entry in 1996. In 1996 I arrived at the border with proper passport and visa, but based solely on my looks, a officer tore my passport up and through me in jail! Once out, I was faced with the fact, that in California where my husband and my four month old daughter. My husband had no money for day care, or time, or even experience to tend to our baby. I had no money for layers, with fear, anger and indescribable worry about my daughter; as any mother would, I did not think to seek help at the Mexican embassy! I thought only of my daughter, and I went for her! It was the most traumatic experience of my life! I latter retuned to Mexico on my own. In 2003 I was single with two kids, and I made a mistake. Fueled from desperation, and a dream to better my life, I chose to return to the United States, and I regret it! It cost me dearly, I received sever penalties, but I was penalized for something that was not a mistake, something that was not my fault . Mexico would not give me a new passport as they did not believe what had happened, and you could imagine what I thought of American immigration! So in 2003 a combination of being young and ignorant, I tried to return with out papers and I was caught. In 1996 the United States made a mistake, but all they can say now, is their sorry! I have no recourse for that, as immigration law is above the law, it cannot be taken to court! Now I not only pay for my mistakes in 2003, I pay for a mistake the United States made in 1996!
While I can *feel* for your dilemma, assigning blame to CBP or the Immigration Service for your situation is not only improper, but will get you nowhere. Every tourist entering this country is presumed to have immigrant intent. That is the law. The fact that you were not able to overcome that is not a fault of the border agents, it is your issue. You had a husband and child in the USA at the time. Entering the country with a tourist visa in hand, yet your immediate family already in California shifts the burden of proof to you to demonstrate that you were not using a visa inappropriately. However, I do wonder if there would not have been a way for you to appeal their actions after you were released and get your documentation back. But, I suppose that is water under the bridge. The problem is that after such an unsuccessfuly attempt, you chose to circumvent the law and enter again in 2003. Once again you were unsuccessful.
Immigration law is not above the law. There are ways and means for aliens to hold the Service to task. I think in view of the fact that the USA is the palce your family chooses to reside, you might wish to change your tune as to how you perceive American immigration law, and the manner in which you allege the United States is inclined to evade facing mistakes made on its part! Good luck.
Some CBP officers do think the are above the law because they can get away with crime against people who are not citizens. It happens all the time. The same applies to some ICE officers because they think they can get away with it.
I have seen how differently CBP treat me, a USC, differently.
That might be true occasionally, of course, but in the instant case, (notwithstanding the needless days in jail, mind you) were the CBP agents really all that wrong? They, rightly or wrongly, determined that the OP's wife was/had intentions to remain in the USA beyond the duration of status as indicated in her first visa. In point of fact, the CBP agents were right. For whatever reason, for admirable reasona or not, she chose to break the law and get here at all costs!
QUOTE(diadromous mermaid @ Apr 30 2008, 02:14 PM)
That might be true occasionally, of course, but in the instant case, (notwithstanding the needless days in jail, mind you) were the CBP agents really all that wrong? They, rightly or wrongly, determined that the OP's wife was/had intentions to remain in the USA beyond the duration of status as indicated in her first visa. In point of fact, the CBP agents were right. For whatever reason, for admirable reasona or not, she chose to break the law and get here at all costs!
According to the story, the officer claimed it was not she in the passport and ripped it up. . .that is wrong on any level. I do agree with you that she cannot blame the officer for the actions she took afterwards. Those were definitely illegal and she knew it.
Border Patrol DOES believe itself to be above the law, more often than any of us want to believe. I have been in the situation where my husband was denied entry and it was not done according to the border patrols own rules--which were conveniently posted on the wall only to be disregarded by the officer on duty.
The other "above the law" that they are referring to is the fact that there is NO judicial review for that officer's decision. While most CBP officers, I am sure, are extremely level-headed and fair-minded, their decision should not be above judicial review, and neither should that of the consulate. The system is purposefully beaurocratical and difficult to navigate, which is illustrated by the fanatical addiction to reasearch about these laws, that I and other forumers have adopted over the last few years.
There are well educated attorneys, consular officers, USCIS employees, and border patrol agents for whom it is their life's work, and THEY can't all seem to understand it either. I don't think it is fair to assume that someone in a state of emotional crisis--separated from their children, without passport or any means, in their estimation, of legal reprise, to be able to figure out or afford, all of the channels they would have to go through in order to reverse such a decision.
In the end, had it been me, I would have gone the legal route to have my children returned to me, and lived in my home country.
These are just my opinions, not meant to offend anyone.
*steps off soapbox and returns to the work she SHOULD have been doing in the first place*
QUOTE(diadromous mermaid @ Apr 30 2008, 09:01 AM)
QUOTE(bryan&nicole @ Apr 29 2008, 09:29 PM)
I was in the united states last in 04/2003. I was ordered removed because I had no papers. This was only because of my attempted entry in 1996. In 1996 I arrived at the border with proper passport and visa, but based solely on my looks, a officer tore my passport up and through me in jail! Once out, I was faced with the fact, that in California where my husband and my four month old daughter. My husband had no money for day care, or time, or even experience to tend to our baby. I had no money for layers, with fear, anger and indescribable worry about my daughter; as any mother would, I did not think to seek help at the Mexican embassy! I thought only of my daughter, and I went for her! It was the most traumatic experience of my life! I latter retuned to Mexico on my own. In 2003 I was single with two kids, and I made a mistake. Fueled from desperation, and a dream to better my life, I chose to return to the United States, and I regret it! It cost me dearly, I received sever penalties, but I was penalized for something that was not a mistake, something that was not my fault . Mexico would not give me a new passport as they did not believe what had happened, and you could imagine what I thought of American immigration! So in 2003 a combination of being young and ignorant, I tried to return with out papers and I was caught. In 1996 the United States made a mistake, but all they can say now, is their sorry! I have no recourse for that, as immigration law is above the law, it cannot be taken to court! Now I not only pay for my mistakes in 2003, I pay for a mistake the United States made in 1996!
While I can *feel* for your dilemma, assigning blame to CBP or the Immigration Service for your situation is not only improper, but will get you nowhere. Every tourist entering this country is presumed to have immigrant intent. That is the law. The fact that you were not able to overcome that is not a fault of the border agents, it is your issue. You had a husband and child in the USA at the time. Entering the country with a tourist visa in hand, yet your immediate family already in California shifts the burden of proof to you to demonstrate that you were not using a visa inappropriately. However, I do wonder if there would not have been a way for you to appeal their actions after you were released and get your documentation back. But, I suppose that is water under the bridge. The problem is that after such an unsuccessfuly attempt, you chose to circumvent the law and enter again in 2003. Once again you were unsuccessful.
Immigration law is not above the law. There are ways and means for aliens to hold the Service to task. I think in view of the fact that the USA is the palce your family chooses to reside, you might wish to change your tune as to how you perceive American immigration law, and the manner in which you allege the United States is inclined to evade facing mistakes made on its part! Good luck.
The Supreme Court has stated that the Bill of Rights
does not apply to immigration cases. So, the right
against self-incrimination does not apply.
In regard to the false imprisonment, while the guard's
behavior may have been inappropriate, there's no false
imprisonment charge as he has the authority to hold
aliens for several months on the allegations he had
against your wife. There is no standard of proof that
he has to meet. His personal suspicion that she was
intending to enter on fraudulent documents was
sufficient. He should not have torn up her Mexican
passport, which is property of the Mexican government.
You have a valid complaint for the destruction of
property.
All of these issues are problems with the law that I
recommend you bring up to your Congressman.
this was sent to me from a very very very highly recommended immigration lawyer frequently referred to or quoted on this website
your “change your tune remark” made me laugh as I recalled a unrelated issue that happened to me this year. I owed some money for my 2005 taxes. So in 2006 I get a letter for a amount I owe, send in a check and pay it done deal right,--- they send the money back, I pay again, the third time they send the money back I get on the phone because buy this time there already sending me penalty notices. I have them launch an investigation that department then sends me papers to sign and tell’s me irregardless of what I receive do not pay anything until investigation is complete! One day I get a notice of levy, so I call in, hey what's going on, they say that they have conducted there investigation and the letter is on it’s way, don't worry! A few days latter I open the letter it says we sent this money back for theses reasons ------- followed buy it was there fault and then they apologize for any inconvenience, but the last sentence is what made me laugh when reading your post "although we regret any inconvenience this matter may of caused you, the penalties accrued are law and can not be removed, you must pay all accrued penalties and interest as we cannot be held accountable or liable for Our mistakes IRS."
I quoted the best I could as I am at home and that letter is hanging framed on the wall were I work and I encourage all to read especially the ones who don’t like my tone at times
I quoted the best I could as I am at home and that letter is hanging framed on the wall were I work and I encourage all to read especially the ones who don’t like my tone at times
QUOTE(emt103c @ Apr 30 2008, 02:08 PM)
QUOTE(diadromous mermaid @ Apr 30 2008, 02:14 PM)
That might be true occasionally, of course, but in the instant case, (notwithstanding the needless days in jail, mind you) were the CBP agents really all that wrong? They, rightly or wrongly, determined that the OP's wife was/had intentions to remain in the USA beyond the duration of status as indicated in her first visa. In point of fact, the CBP agents were right. For whatever reason, for admirable reasona or not, she chose to break the law and get here at all costs!
According to the story, the officer claimed it was not she in the passport and ripped it up. . .that is wrong on any level. I do agree with you that she cannot blame the officer for the actions she took afterwards. Those were definitely illegal and she knew it.
Border Patrol DOES believe itself to be above the law, more often than any of us want to believe. I have been in the situation where my husband was denied entry and it was not done according to the border patrols own rules--which were conveniently posted on the wall only to be disregarded by the officer on duty.
The other "above the law" that they are referring to is the fact that there is NO judicial review for that officer's decision. While most CBP officers, I am sure, are extremely level-headed and fair-minded, their decision should not be above judicial review, and neither should that of the consulate. The system is purposefully beaurocratical and difficult to navigate, which is illustrated by the fanatical addiction to reasearch about these laws, that I and other forumers have adopted over the last few years.
There are well educated attorneys, consular officers, USCIS employees, and border patrol agents for whom it is their life's work, and THEY can't all seem to understand it either. I don't think it is fair to assume that someone in a state of emotional crisis--separated from their children, without passport or any means, in their estimation, of legal reprise, to be able to figure out or afford, all of the channels they would have to go through in order to reverse such a decision.
In the end, had it been me, I would have gone the legal route to have my children returned to me, and lived in my home country.
These are just my opinions, not meant to offend anyone.
*steps off soapbox and returns to the work she SHOULD have been doing in the first place*
In the end, had it been me, I would have gone the legal route to have my children returned to me, and lived in my home country.
These are just my opinions, not meant to offend anyone.
*steps off soapbox and returns to the work she SHOULD have been doing in the first place*
[/quote]
hindsight is 20/20
i appreciate your response and you certainly have not offended any one nor am i ever offended by any ones comments i welcome the onions of all and learn something from someone here or there everyday
These are just my opinions, not meant to offend anyone.
*steps off soapbox and returns to the work she SHOULD have been doing in the first place*
[/quote]
hindsight is 20/20
i appreciate your response and you certainly have not offended any one nor am i ever offended by any ones comments i welcome the onions of all and learn something from someone here or there everyday
QUOTE(bryan&nicole @ Apr 30 2008, 07:41 PM)
QUOTE(diadromous mermaid @ Apr 30 2008, 09:01 AM)
QUOTE(bryan&nicole @ Apr 29 2008, 09:29 PM)
I was in the united states last in 04/2003. I was ordered removed because I had no papers. This was only because of my attempted entry in 1996. In 1996 I arrived at the border with proper passport and visa, but based solely on my looks, a officer tore my passport up and through me in jail! Once out, I was faced with the fact, that in California where my husband and my four month old daughter. My husband had no money for day care, or time, or even experience to tend to our baby. I had no money for layers, with fear, anger and indescribable worry about my daughter; as any mother would, I did not think to seek help at the Mexican embassy! I thought only of my daughter, and I went for her! It was the most traumatic experience of my life! I latter retuned to Mexico on my own. In 2003 I was single with two kids, and I made a mistake. Fueled from desperation, and a dream to better my life, I chose to return to the United States, and I regret it! It cost me dearly, I received sever penalties, but I was penalized for something that was not a mistake, something that was not my fault . Mexico would not give me a new passport as they did not believe what had happened, and you could imagine what I thought of American immigration! So in 2003 a combination of being young and ignorant, I tried to return with out papers and I was caught. In 1996 the United States made a mistake, but all they can say now, is their sorry! I have no recourse for that, as immigration law is above the law, it cannot be taken to court! Now I not only pay for my mistakes in 2003, I pay for a mistake the United States made in 1996!
While I can *feel* for your dilemma, assigning blame to CBP or the Immigration Service for your situation is not only improper, but will get you nowhere. Every tourist entering this country is presumed to have immigrant intent. That is the law. The fact that you were not able to overcome that is not a fault of the border agents, it is your issue. You had a husband and child in the USA at the time. Entering the country with a tourist visa in hand, yet your immediate family already in California shifts the burden of proof to you to demonstrate that you were not using a visa inappropriately. However, I do wonder if there would not have been a way for you to appeal their actions after you were released and get your documentation back. But, I suppose that is water under the bridge. The problem is that after such an unsuccessfuly attempt, you chose to circumvent the law and enter again in 2003. Once again you were unsuccessful.
Immigration law is not above the law. There are ways and means for aliens to hold the Service to task. I think in view of the fact that the USA is the palce your family chooses to reside, you might wish to change your tune as to how you perceive American immigration law, and the manner in which you allege the United States is inclined to evade facing mistakes made on its part! Good luck.
The Supreme Court has stated that the Bill of Rights
does not apply to immigration cases. So, the right
against self-incrimination does not apply.
In regard to the false imprisonment, while the guard's
behavior may have been inappropriate, there's no false
imprisonment charge as he has the authority to hold
aliens for several months on the allegations he had
against your wife. There is no standard of proof that
he has to meet. His personal suspicion that she was
intending to enter on fraudulent documents was
sufficient. He should not have torn up her Mexican
passport, which is property of the Mexican government.
You have a valid complaint for the destruction of
property.
All of these issues are problems with the law that I
recommend you bring up to your Congressman.
this was sent to me from a very very very highly recommended immigration lawyer frequently referred to or quoted on this website
Isn't this citation from the prominent immigration attorney essentially what I said above? That the incarceration of your wife, as inhospitable as it was, was not outside the realm of a CBP agent's duty? It clearly appears to be a case that the CBP agent had reason to believe that your wife was intending to either misuse the visa she was carrying or the visa itself was not hers.
I agree that an alien cannot plead the Fifth Amendment when encountered by an Immigration Officer, this isn't a matter that demonstrates an alien is stripped of rights that he or she should be entitled to, in my opinion. While we are all aware that the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination can be taken by the defendant in a criminal case, are you aware of the fact that the Bill of Rights, in particular, the right of the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination cannot be asserted by that same crimininal when it comes to providing DNA samples?
I agree that she had recourse, still does perhaps, as it applies to her passport, but it is the choice she made thereafter that have caused her more distress. I am only stating this to try to dissipate your sense of distaste for the system. You ahve a right to be angry with the circumstances you face, but not the reasons for those circumstances. The system is certainly not perfect, but the system is in place because there are individuals that take it upon themselves to enter the country without the appropriate documentation. Your wife has reason to be dissapointed at the outcome of her first encounter with our American Immigration representatives, no doubt. As for her second encounter, I think she is paying a handsome price for taking her future into her own hands.
With respect to your comment of hindsight being 20/20, perhaps you might consider that also now, and think of alternatives than to rest on the law accommodating your particular circumstance.
I hope you find a resolution to this that doesn't require a decade or more of separation. If it turns out that her inadmissibility for 10 years is indeed upheld, for the sake of your children, who deserve to be with their mother, perhaps you will consider the option of relocating, if for no other reason than to mitigate the damages already done.
P.S. As to your retelling of the matter that involved the IRS, I believe that this could be fought. There are services available to make an "Offer of Compromise" to the agency, if and when a taxpayer can demonstrate that a penalty and interest have been mounting due to an error made by IRS!
P.S. As to your retelling of the matter that involved the IRS, I believe that this could be fought. There are services available to make an "Offer of Compromise" to the agency, if and when a taxpayer can demonstrate that a penalty and interest have been mounting due to an error made by IRS!
[/quote]
thank you ill look into that tomarrow
ps. I just learned today that I have to nvc numbers one for k3 one for I 130 I called the nvc they said chose the one you want and don't pay the other that said and you obviously being very educated what are your thought on choosing--- copied from another forum...
Which visa do I want I would pay someone to figure that out! as you may know if you read some of my other post, excited as I was, as I figured that my wife would be here in a month or two per my k3 visa I always figured that I would fail the interview but it was the advice of all the people I'm about to mention that I go through the process once denied file 601 hardship and 97% of the time you win it was here only a week ago I learned on visa journey after a 3 year quest seeking help from consulates, senators, governors, immigration lawyers and embassies that my wife will not be able to come here at all! I will not be eligible to apply for the 601! my baby boy now 10 month's will have no father unless I move there and I will not be able to return here to my country ever unless I choose for him to be fatherless at some point in time! where I would need to come home and earn an income for a year or two to meet the poverty line restrictions, as living there I would have no income here, I guess, unless some how I got a job at an American company over there which is highly unlikely as I am not a top ceo here, no one here would want to send me there lol, they have plenty of labor there already. since my wife as two deportations and will not legally be able to apply until 2013 I'm told that said dose one of these visas the 130 or the k3 provide a greater chance for a loop hole or a greater chance for a one in million long shot of going through the system and getting passed I will appreciate help in determining the answer to this thank you Bryan
Never ever determine a major life descion based on what is said on a bulletin board.
You have been recommended at least one very good lawyer who is very familiar with this sort of issue.
I have met many Americans and Canadians who live and work in Mexico. It's not a third world hell hole.
You have been recommended at least one very good lawyer who is very familiar with this sort of issue.
I have met many Americans and Canadians who live and work in Mexico. It's not a third world hell hole.
QUOTE(Boiler @ Apr 30 2008, 10:05 PM)
Never ever determine a major life descion based on what is said on a bulletin board.
You have been recommended at least one very good lawyer who is very familiar with this sort of issue.
I have met many Americans and Canadians who live and work in Mexico. It's not a third world hell hole.
You have been recommended at least one very good lawyer who is very familiar with this sort of issue.
I have met many Americans and Canadians who live and work in Mexico. It's not a third world hell hole.
i know that i have a house and family there i just add long term investments here like my farm and bussines ill have to cash out when i move there it is a life changing descion i dont live in town with a two car garage i have thirty years woth ot tools and machinery i have to sell everythying i was told by laywers and the goverment was this day would never happen well it happened in the last 8 day ive learned my lifew will take a different path
So we understand clearly, has your wife gone back to Mexico yet? If the lawyer has told you her chances of getting a waiver are slim then why even try at this time?
QUOTE
i know that i have a house and family there i just add long term investments here like my farm and bussines ill have to cash out when i move there it is a life changing descion i dont live in town with a two car garage i have thirty years woth ot tools and machinery i have to sell everythying
When you marry croos border, or cross country, these are part of the choices.
Many of us have had the same issues, moving to the US, in this sort of situaton one of the parties has to make the sacrifice.
QUOTE(Gaby&Talbert @ May 1 2008, 09:03 AM)
So we understand clearly, has your wife gone back to Mexico yet? If the lawyer has told you her chances of getting a waiver are slim then why even try at this time?
my wife and kids live in mexico not sure how you thought she lived here i am applying to bring her here
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.