K1 Potentially Denied What Next?

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

In which a lawyer will usually always tell you that you need them because they want the money off of them. A lawyer will more than likely never tell someone that they have a case they can do on their own because then the lawyer will lose out on thousands of potential dollars.

I'm not saying it's horrible to consult an attorney, I'm just stating that it CAN be done on your own and everyone always just responds with "you're gonna need a lawyer", which scares people into thinking that they CAN'T do it on their own, even with enough research and preparing.

With all due respect, cases of misrepresentation of material fact require at least a consult and will have a much better success rate with guidance from an attorney.

I would rather pay for expert advice than wing it and have a lifelong ban, what a gamble.

I don't think you understand the severity of misrepresentation and it's consequences.

OP can not interpret the consulate findings and does not know how to sort through and apply the research he has already done.

One can research until the cows come home, there comes a time when a lawyer is needed.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Ebunoluwa

[RobRod 12]

Thank you.

[Unshakable Faith 493]

With all due respect, cases of misrepresentation of material fact require at least a consult and will have a much better success rate with guidance from an attorney.

I would rather pay for expert advice than wing it and have a lifelong ban, what a gamble.

I don't think you understand the severity of misrepresentation and it's consequences.

OP can not interpret the consulate findings and does not know how to sort through and apply the research he has already done.

One can research until the cows come home, there comes a time when a lawyer is needed.

But it CAN be done without a lawyer, and doesn't *require* a consult or the hiring of an attorney, that's the point I'm making. Just as we see on here, many people use an attorney for other things (although they are not waivers), and end up getting rfe's and whatnot. That's not saying there's a blanket assumption that every case can be overcome in a do-it-yourself process because some people aren't able to do the necessary research and put the time in to complete it, as you said. I'm just saying that a lawyer does not always have to be the answer like some people jump to say.

I very much understand misrepresentation and the consequences behind it, but it's not impossible to do on your own if you're able, that's my point.

Edited May 13, 2015 by FN&KO

[Hypnos 6,576]

Can it be done without a lawyer? Absolutely.

Is it a good idea with misrep on the table? Not really.

[Jawaree 717]

Liz Cannon don't need to trip up a potential client.str8 forward

I have known many that have done her consults that she got

tem waivers after denials with other attys...and I know others

she tell at consultation it cannot fly....seek a 2nd opinion.

Complicated cases should definately be consulted on because

a denial will lead to an appeal required in 30 days,and more money

[Hypnos 6,576]

Lizz Cannon is a straight shooter.

[listeriolysin 2]

A week .. 7 days? You can wait a year for the process but when something doesn't get updated in just one week you go nuts about it? You clearly state in your original post that is says READY - not denied, not anything else to even hint at a negative issue.

You can't wait without ... oh wait. You were also issue an inadmissibility letter.

Why don't you actually ask USCIS your status? It says ready not updated, and you were issued an inadmissibility form. Basically you were rejected, but it isn't updated online.

You have no validity to a waiver. Just 'cuz you want something very, very badly means nothing.

[coniefl 28]

What do you mean by family visa?

That's how she describes it because the whole family came here. It says in her passport B1/B2.

[coniefl 28]

http://asianjournal.com/immigration/material-misrepresentation-under-ina-212a6ci/

http://www.uscis.gov/iframe/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-2006.html

Focus on the numbers/letters 212(a)(6)©(i) ( their findings that she was in the USA before and was detained/deported), read the links above.

This is the key : her Ex-husband (husband at the time), altered the date on his visa, and was detained and deported in 2006, but my fiance was not present. It was a family travel visa that expired I think in 2003.

What do you mean by : but my fiance was not present......did she travel to the USA on a visa the her ex altered or not ? If she was issued a visa

and traveled or if she was issued one and did not use it or left when she was supposed to, it is easily verifiable.

Don't worry about their interview procedures but get a crystal clear understanding what EXACTLY transpired with your fiance and that visa to the USA with

her ex. Therein is your answer.

She was not present because the ex-husband returned to the US by himself after his visa had been expired and was detained.

[Asia 2,491]

That's how she describes it because the whole family came here. It says in her passport B1/B2.

That's not a family visa.

That's a tourist visa.

[coniefl 28]

I'm not sure if I'm breaking any rules here. Please tell me if I am. Here is a link to the pro bono page of the American Immigration Lawyers Association: http://www.immigrationadvocates.org/probono/partner/item.2440-American_Immigration_Lawyers_Association

Thank You for the Information.

[coniefl 28]

And how were any of them relevant? So best case she is re interviewed, what has been gained?

If she is re-interviewed when they ask her if she has been detained or deported she can answer something along the lines as "not that I am aware of", etc...

[coniefl 28]

I have some additional information from my Fiance.

Yesterday she went and seen an immigration attorney that is used for a company she works with, and they went over what transpired at the interview.

1. She is telling me at the interview they started asking questions to her 14 year old daughter about having been to the US etc, well the daughter was an infant at the time so my fiance answered the questions for her. She now thinks that when they were asking about being detained or deported that it is possible that it was directed towards her daughter's visit to the US. All the answers were 'no' because there was none. Then she shows me a card with a date stamped on it that is turned in at the airport when you leave the US, the attorney said that the card is what is used to show that you left the country within specified allotted visa stay. The card was never turned in for her infant daughter, my fiance still has it. The attorney suggested, as he had a similar situation with someone else, that she makes a copy of it, encloses a letter with a explanation, and give it to the secretary at the embassy. Also my fiance did not have her expired passport with her at the interview that shows the US visa stamp(s), the attorney also suggested including those and the visa pages that show the dates when she re-entered her country.

2. Another thing I find out, as someone suggested to go over everything, is my fiance is a dual citizen of Bolivia and Taiwan (I didn't just find this out), when she traveled to the US she used her Taiwan passport, the name in her Taiwan Passport is slightly different then what her name was at the time because of marriage, its not much of a difference, for example her Taiwan Passport has her name before marriage as Jane Mary Doe and her name after marriage is Jane Mary Doe de Jones. She used the Taiwan passport for multiple visas even though she was married on all occasions. I don't know if this a misrepresentation or if it could be counted as a misrepresentation from a previous account towards this visa.

Therefore could scenario 1 generate a deportation process if they think her daughter never left the US?

and

Could scenario 2 be a possible reason for a misrepresentation?

Sorry guys, I really havn't had any experience prior to this with Visas and the Immigration Process.

Edited May 13, 2015 by coniefl

[RobRod 12]

great job! Follow the advice of the attorney! time is important, so get right on it.

[coniefl 28]

great job! Follow the advice of the attorney! time is important, so get right on it.

She is doing it as we speak..