Anyone think it will be a problem that my fiance has entered the U.S. on VWP before? There is a question on the I-94W about mental illness (really vaguely worded), to which he checked "no" because we assumed they were asking if he was psychotic, mentally incapacitated, or a danger to himself or others (because, why else would it matter?) Suppose the CO has a different interpretation?

The DS156 and DS230 both ask this question in two slightly different ways (which are also different from the I-94W question, if I recall correctly). If he were to check "yes" to either of these (which he might have to do, given how they are worded), would they then deny the visa because he checked "no" on his I-94W, AND allege misrepresentation, making us essentially ineligible for a waiver?

I've read some legal journal articles on this issue, and basically the upshot is that neither the COs nor the courts interpret the mental illness provision consistently, and that is generally vague and confusing. There are maybe a handful of attorneys in the country who have any experience with this issue.

Basically, the question was vague, so my fiance used common sense and made a judgment call. It was never his intent to lie to anybody--he just didn't think he fit the designation.

It just sickens me that any of this is an issue, as my fiance is only dangerous in the minds of people who adhere to ignorant stereotypes about people with mental health problems. This arcane, prejudiced provision of the Code needs to go.

Maybe I'm misreading some of this, but I get the impression that you think if he checks Yes on the mental health question that they are automatically going to turn him away? I don't think that is how it would be handled; they do seem to look at each one on a case-by-case basis.

As far as entering the US before on the visa waiver program, I don't think I understand your question there. Are you worried that, because he put No to the mental health question before, putting Yes now would be a problem? I think, at the very least, they would just ask him for more information and deal with it a bit at a time. I just think it'd be best to keep an open mind about this, as you still seem to be early on in the process anyway. You never know, it could be no problem to them at all once he explains it to them.

Keep the faith, and good luck!

My nightmare goes like this:

Fiance came to visit me three times on his passport. He had to fill out that little card (I-94W) that asks if he has a mental illness. He checked "No" because he figured they mean a really serious mental illness that could either need treatment while he's here or put someone in danger. Makes sense, because why else would they care?

Fiance now wants a K1 visa, and the forms from the state department ask a mental illness question that is slightly different--does he have, or has he ever had a mental disorder with a display of harmful behavior that poses or is likely to pose a danger to him/someone else. It's sort of hard to tell what that question is asking (note the present/past tense agreement problems), but it may be that he will need to answer "Yes."

Fiance goes for his medical, brings his doctor letters and the letter from me and the health insurance info and all that, promises that he will resume treatment in the U.S. HOPEFULLY, the doctor then says "okay, no Class A medical conditions" and we go for the interview.

AT THE INTERVIEW, the CO reviews all the forms, decides the mental disorder thing is old news and he's eligible...then notices my fiance entered the U.S. on his passport to visit me. He goes YOU BAD MAN, that was MISREPRESENTATION because you used to have a mental disorder! Visa denied, no waiver available because of the alleged "misrepresentation." Fiance says "I didn't mean to, I just didn't know what the hell the question was asking!" CO says "you will never enter the United States again! Hahahahaha!"



That is what I am worried about.

Well, I am sure that you are worried about this because of how important it is. But honestly, I don't see his past answers being an issue now. I can't imagine that any state department would be so efficient as to actually have access to or look at what he filled out on his previous I-94W forms. If you think he will have no problem with his medical or any other forms required, I wouldn't worry about that. My advice is just to continue to do what you all have been doing and be as truthful as you can.

Again, good luck!

wow, for a moment there, I actually thought that what you wrote had happened at the interview.... luckily it wasnt

I'm sorry that I cannot give you good advice, but I think that what Marissa&Stephen wrote made sense

What kind of mental illness are we talking about? Bipolar? Has he ever been sectioned?

I was voluntarily hospitalised for psychiatric problems in 2004 - just before my first trip on the VWP. I was never given a diagnosis, so I checked no on every box on the Visa waiver form, and the AOS forms. I got my green card, no problem.

I have heard however, that having been sectioned (which I wasn't) in the past makes you ineligable for entry into the US. I don't know how true this is.

Maybe you could call an immigration lawyer and talk it through with them? Many of the ones round here do free 30 minute consultations.....

Nope, he was never sectioned. He's been inpatient before, but never involuntarily.

As for a diagnosis, his was changed so many times it's almost become a joke. His treatment has been handled with shocking incompetence. Huge portions of his records are actually missing. He was referred to a sleep clinic and waited almost a year for an appointment before his doctor found out that the clinic closed.

He'd make a formal complaint, but he knows that nobody would believe him. It's hard to be taken seriously at all if you've had psych treatment, and anyway nobody would be willing to accept that the country's health care system could be that inept.

All this used to frustrate my fiance terribly, but it's now gotten to the point where it's comedy. It won't be funny, though, if he's denied a visa.

Nope, he was never sectioned. He's been inpatient before, but never involuntarily.

As for a diagnosis, his was changed so many times it's almost become a joke. His treatment has been handled with shocking incompetence. Huge portions of his records are actually missing. He was referred to a sleep clinic and waited almost a year for an appointment before his doctor found out that the clinic closed.

He'd make a formal complaint, but he knows that nobody would believe him. It's hard to be taken seriously at all if you've had psych treatment, and anyway nobody would be willing to accept that the country's health care system could be that inept.

All this used to frustrate my fiance terribly, but it's now gotten to the point where it's comedy. It won't be funny, though, if he's denied a visa.

Agreed - this is a scary scenario. But I hope this information will calm you a bit --

Classes of aliens ineligible to receive visas http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/inel...ities_1364.html

(I) to have a physical or mental disorder and behavior associated with the disorder that may pose, or has posed, a threat to the property, safety, or welfare of the alien or others
Not your fiance's case

or
(II) to have had a physical or mental disorder and a history of behavior associated with the disorder, which behavior has posed a threat to the property, safety, or welfare of the alien or others and which behavior is likely to recur or to lead to other harmful behavior, or
Also not your fiance's case

Also, as I understand it, Misrepresentation in immigration-speak means:

Misrepresentation.-

(i) In general.-Any alien who, by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact, seeks to procure (or has sought to procure or has procured) a visa, other documentation, or admission into the United States or other benefit provided under this Act is inadmissible.

(ii) FALSELY CLAIMING CITIZENSHIP-

(I) IN GENERAL- Any alien who falsely represents, or has falsely represented, himself or herself to be a citizen of the United States for any purpose or benefit under this Act (including section 274A ) or any other Federal or State law is inadmissible.
Not your fiance's case

I think you'll be fine : )

Because my fiance has a history of self-harm (and the physician will see the marks at the exam), he does fall into the class of potentially inadmissible aliens. Our position is that he is admissible because his self-harm is in remission (hasn't occured for two years). The guidelines for examination of aliens and immigrants on the CDC website outlines the criteria for remission of harmful behavior, and we think he can make a convincing claim that he's eligible based on that.

It is admittedly a stretch to claim that someone committed misrepresentation under the Act because he thought he was well enough to visit the U.S. on VWP, and in fact was well enough because at no time was anyone at risk and he got home safe and sound.

But you know what worrying can do...I get afraid that we'll be denied based on all kinds of wild stuff, or because they just won't "like" us.

Well I doubt you have to worry about misrepresentation - this is usually applied in situations when someone says they are a USC and are not or used someone else's papers.

If you do end up in a situation where a waiver is necessary, keep this information in mind to keep you calm -the London consulate is said to have the highest waiver approval rate in the world not to mention fast processing. Really, I think you will be fine. Good luck and do you best to stay calm!

Mexico is higher, but still pretty good.

The issue is the answer to the question on the back of the I94-W.

The answer should have been Yes, the question is whether they will make an issue of it, I do not know, my assumption is probably not, but I have not seen an identical situation. Not sure what you can do about it at this stage. Worst case scenario is the waiver.

Really? I thought London was higher but that's fine with me - I'll be filing a 601 in Mexico as soon as my damn I-129F is approved! London's definitely up there and faster . . . .

I just have a really bad feeling

You may have this resolved now, but if it helps...

I have a history of depression, including self-harm issues and suicide attempts. I ticked "No", because I had a pyschiatric evaluation which said I was fine.

you should of said yes on the form, ive been through the same thing.......i asked if i had an evaluation beforehand could i tick no..the Embassy doctor said you still have to check yes.

You have self harmed, thats what it askes you. I would of put yes..its going to look like your witholding the truth.

They check at the medical (they did me).

At the medical it will be kind of hard for my fella to hide what he's been through, so we have no intention of trying to do so.

We're just hoping they're willing to follow their own guidelines and grant him the visa because he's in remission. And I'm hoping that the physician will at least be kind, for my fiance's sake. He's been through a lot, and not all the doctors he's seen have been gentle.

Aww! I don't have any advice to offer about waivers/inadmissability, but I will tell you that I had about 6 million really honest-to-God bad feelings regarding my fiance's interview and I was all but convinced at one point that he'd never get the visa, but he did. I think your fiance' will too; in this particular situation, really strong negative feelings don't necessarily predict the outcome!

As for the I-94... honestly, I don't think it will matter. Your fiance' ISN'T a danger to anyone or to himself and he is/was certainly well enough to enter the US. Plus, he could definitely argue that given the wording of the I-94 question, he didn't answer incorrectly. PLUS, I don't know how it's done in London, but my fiance' had applied for a visitor visa about 1 1/2 years ago and was denied. No one asked him about that at his interview, even though his passport has a huge US VISA DENIED stamp in it. There's a chance they won't even know/care what he wrote so long ago on the I-94.

Good luck!

Hon, I've got my green card. I've been through the medical, and not had a problem, and I was nothing but honest. I also had my medical here in the US, which may or may not have made a difference.

My psychiatric evaluation was performed by the head of psychiatry in the British Army, for what it's worth. I guess if they deemed me mentally stable enough to join the army, they deemed me as someone with a negligible chance of reoccurence.

As I recall, it doesn't ask "have you self-harmed?". It asks if you are a danger to yourself or others. Which I am not. I would think that after two clear years, the OP's fiance is safe to say that he no longer represents any kind of danger to himself or others either.

If I understand correctly, your fiance did/does have a mental condition for which he got/gets treatment, but as to not jeopardize his possibility of entering the US, he lied on the application by saying he didn't/doesn't.

[
Hon, I've got my green card. I've been through the medical, and not had a problem, and I was nothing but honest. I also had my medical here in the US, which may or may not have made a difference.

My psychiatric evaluation was performed by the head of psychiatry in the British Army, for what it's worth. I guess if they deemed me mentally stable enough to join the army, they deemed me as someone with a negligible chance of reoccurence.

As I recall, it doesn't ask "have you self-harmed?". It asks if you are a danger to yourself or others. Which I am not. I would think that after two clear years, the OP's fiance is safe to say that he no longer represents any kind of danger to himself or others either.


[/quote]


AHH ok.....congrats on getting your greencard

You don't understand correctly, but this is exactly why I'm worried.

He didn't fill out an application--he entered the US with his passport when visiting the country as a tourist. On the little card they give you on the airplane, all it asked was "do you have a mental illness?" or something really general like that. He didn't know exactly what he should answer, but figured that unless he was psychotic or a danger to himself/others, there was no reason for them to even care. There were no opportunities for him to consult a psychiatrist and attorney in-flight, so he gave an answer he thought was in line with what they wanted to know about him.

It turns out that this question has a much broader scope on the visa application, which includes a medical and mental status examination, so now we know that he needs to disclose his entire history. Which he will do.

Clearly you think there's dishonesty here, so obviously there's a significant chance the CO will think so too. This means we're screwed, as I've already noted. But thanks for your characterization of my fiance as a cheater and a liar--I can't tell you how much I appreciate it, as I'm sure you knew I would.

Don't let dmartmar bother you, tigretigre. He enjoys going into topics whose titles sound controversial and seeing who he can tick off or insult.

So, it appears that TracyTN has the list -- who's posts are worthy of response and who's posts are not ---

yep that's right!

But seriously, was there any need for hurting tigretigre's feelings like that? I'm sorry, I hate to see that so I said something. So sue me. *shrug*

Tsk tsk. Somebody must be out of their meds.

Makes ya wonder too if it had been someone else that responded to dmartmar (as many of us do for the same reason) if ktmmansgal would of even unleashed


tigretigre
I agree with Tracy, ignore.......that was a typical unwarrented response from dtmartmar

always remember before slagging someone else off ... that your post is above criticism!

What a wave of response --- I am of the belief that everyone has a viewpoint and "yes" a finger was pointed in the comment back to tigretigre but, it may have also made tigretigre take another look at her situation from a different angle --- there have been several posts just like the one that appeared to hurt some feelings --- In defense of any post that does not come across as "Everything will be OK" is that we spare some feelings at the interview by sharing both the positive and negative aspects of a situation so a person is well informed and prepared for anything -- because a big ANYTHING always seems to happen --- all we have is information to arm ourselves with in preparation for this whole nightmare of a VISA process --- As evidenced I don't read every post on this site But some of you folks just stand out from time to time ---

guess i don't stand out from time to time because you would realize that i'm not of the mindset that 'everything will be ok' whenever someone posts about an issue ... hence my response here ...

tracy merely suggested that tigre ignore dmart ... it was clear that he didn't have a grasp of the actual situation and he likes to spin things! a persona attack on tracy was not warranted, IMHO.

Thanks for your backup documentation to prove you standout --- gimygirl is officially added to the list ---but in all reality if you have a thousand +posts you are already there ---

I just ride the wave here ---- answer questions to the best of my ability, give advice on things I have been through and all in all, find the sagas that sometimes ensue to be entertaining and sometimes quite sad --- I am here to read about experiences I have not gone through yet, so I am prepared for those I will be going through --- I have met some folks that I will continue to communicate with after all this is over but when my Hubby gets here and we get that green card --- I will be done and soooooo ready to begin a normal life which does not include Visa Journey --- As for TracyTN her visa journey has not even begun --- I wish here all the luck when it does and hope that she can sail through it without a glitch due to her broad understanding of all the ins and outs through the rest of our experiences --- and appears she has pretty tough skin (no correct that -- she uses that Airbonne product so her skin is likely smooth and supple --- whatever --- I thank you all for responding -------

I guess I am too then by that logic, considering my 1000's of posts and they arent all off topic This is all getting a bit ridiculous if you ask me. Many of us stay around to help others. If thats not having a life then Im guilty and proud If we all left once we completed this journey then there would be a lot left flayling in the wind.

No life here either Lorelle.

Besides that, it gives us something other than porn to look at.......

Now you tell me,.....

I wondered where the porn forum was here. I've wasted months trying to find the naughty piccys here.

Never did I imply that you folks didn't have a life outside VJ --- For myself, I am just very excited to get back to what normal life was pre-our Visa process --- Doing a couple 50-mile bicycle rides a month, getting back to the design work I have put off --- Building a deck together on our house --- And Yes, If someone were to email me from a previous post, I would certainly answer it -- but ,using this as my local support group to help me deal with this separation and the process hopefully will not be necessary ---- Oh and the last thing I forgot to tell you I will be doing when I finish my journey is to write that "Horror Story" about the Visa Process that I have been living for the last year --- anyone willing to add some input?

--- I personally use this computer for work way too much to want to sit down for any reason once huybby is here and we can do the things we did separately now together --- If your thing is this or porn what ever turns your crank ---

And indeed I would be lost without such guidance.

Certainly our situation is open to dmartmar's interpretation--which is why I posted in the first place, by the way. My whole point is that I want to avoid the CO from jumping to the same conclusion, when the reality is that even legal and medical professionals are confused about this aspect of immigration law. Please don't insult me by suggesting his comments were intended to be some kind of "tough love" approach to helping me evaluate the situation, when all he did was restate the issue while casting aspersions on my fiance's character.

Other folks here have been offering me encouragement, yes, but they have also been offering me suggestions based on their own experiences and it's been very helpful. One of the best uses of this site is as a clearinghouse for anecdotal information on how various types of cases usuallly turn out, which is very different from being a clearinghouse for sugarcoated reassurances that everything will be fine. I have no doubt that if someone here had been denied a visa in a situation like that of my fiance's, they'd share that experience. That would be helpful. Dmartmar simply interpreted our situation in the worst possible light, then posted that interpretation as if it were established fact, and in the form of an accusation. How is that helpful? It isn't, and it was never intended to be, and I think that's what got peoples' dander up here. Especially if it is true that dmartmar has a history of posting nastygrams just to get a rise out of people.