K1-Have you ever violated the terms of a U.S. visa, or been unlawfully present in, or deported from, the United States?

[Richard-Y-Abigail 18]

I, too, want to confirm that since she left before her 18th birthday +180 days, she will not be held responsible. Children cannot be legally responsible for what their parents have done. As I said, once 18, the child has to leave before the next 180 days. I wish this was better known.

[Used to be broken 148]

I would say YES

She was unlawfully present but it has no consequences. It did not accumulate.

) Construction of unlawful presence.-For purposes of this paragraph, an alien is deemed to be unlawfully present in the United States if the alien is present in the United States after the expiration of the period of stay authorized by the Attorney General or is present in the United States without being admitted or paroled.

You have an EWI = Entry without inspection. I suspect they will want to know full details of how the person entered the US.

Edited June 16, 2011 by brokenfamily

[ateneaalexander 10]

I´m the same boat BUT my fiance talked to a attorney i moved to the states when i was 15 illegally an i moved back to mexico after i turned 18, my birthday was june 13 and moved back to mexico november 27 so was before the 180 passed. and the attorney told my fiance i was good and technically i didnt brake any law since i didnt get deported either. also i was living with my dad and he works legally in the states . are her parents legally in the states?

[romnick 15]

This is a NO NO answer.The child was here illegally under age, USCIS knows exactly what they were talking about when making those rules which was the reason they stated with the exception of a child under the age of 18.So why asking for trouble where there is none?.I am sure by saying 'yes' you will have another responsibility of looking for more evidences to drive home your point.Anything under 18 doesnt count but talking with an expert in this situation may likely help.All the best

Edited June 16, 2011 by romnick

[dindo and patty 20]

This is essentially a three part question:

1. Have you ever violated the terms of a U.S. visa? No, because she never had a visa

2. Or been unlawfully present in the United States? No, because of the exception for minors

3. Or deported from the United States? No, she has never been deported

Though your concern is highly understandable, I completely agree with other posters here who stated why bring trouble where there isn't any. Whichever decision you make on answering the question, I recommend to be prepared in documenting it through some sort of affidavit or statement of facts...just my two cents

ON DS156 FOR QUESTION, Have you ever violated the terms of a U.S. visa, or been unlawfully present in, or deported from, the United States?; MY FIANCEE WAS BROUGHT INVOLUNTARILY TO THE US BY HER PARENTS WHEN SHE WAS 12 YRS OLD. NOT ON VISA, AND WAS NEVER DEPORTED OR CAUGHT BY IMMIGRATION, NOW SINCE SHE WAS BROUGHT HERE, STOOD HERE FOR TWO YEARS AND THEN HER PARENTS TOOK HER BACK, DOES THIS MEAN SHE SHOULD ANSWER "YES" SINCE SHE WAS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE USA TO THIS QUESTION? OR IS THIS RELATED ONLY TO VISAS AND DEPORTATION?

[edgarmanzo0916 3]

i want to thank everyone for their suggestions though it does seem logical "not to bring any trouble when there isnt any" according to their laws on EWIs. feel free to keep posting. thanks to all of you who have posted and will post =)

[advocator 0]

i want to thank everyone for their suggestions though it does seem logical "not to bring any trouble when there isnt any" according to their laws on EWIs. feel free to keep posting. thanks to all of you who have posted and will post =)

I'm thinking "NO" too, but if you want an immigration lawyer, try Steven Heller (www.us-visa.co.uk). He has links for calling depending on where you're calling from. He gave us good advice and talked to us several times before we finally hired him. I've also heard Laurel Scott in Texas is good. She has a weekly free chat on immigrate2us.com.

Good luck!!!

[Casprd 167]

Per the rules, the answer to me seems like no. Good Luck to you.

Per the rules, the answer should be yes, but the consequences are nill because of that statutes quoted.

[Spoom 8]

Personally, I would check Yes and attach a letter fully explaining (honestly, the IO will probably treat it as if it were a no, given the circumstances), but I agree that legally speaking you should be able to check No and make a coherent argument as to why if necessary.

[Gosia & Tito 199]

ON DS156 FOR QUESTION, Have you ever violated the terms of a U.S. visa, or been unlawfully present in, or deported from, the United States?; MY FIANCEE WAS BROUGHT INVOLUNTARILY TO THE US BY HER PARENTS WHEN SHE WAS 12 YRS OLD. NOT ON VISA, AND WAS NEVER DEPORTED OR CAUGHT BY IMMIGRATION, NOW SINCE SHE WAS BROUGHT HERE, STOOD HERE FOR TWO YEARS AND THEN HER PARENTS TOOK HER BACK, DOES THIS MEAN SHE SHOULD ANSWER "YES" SINCE SHE WAS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE USA TO THIS QUESTION? OR IS THIS RELATED ONLY TO VISAS AND DEPORTATION?

If I recall right (and others will correct me if needed), 'unlawful' means the person did not enter with a visa, regardless of having been caught and/or deported; which seems to be the case you relate. I agree with the other posting that this is something to check with a good immigration attorney. Perhaps by being a minor at the time is something that will be considered when the circumstances are detailed. The main thing for sure is that it is not a good idea to keep this fact concealed from the feds.

[JimVaPhuong 4,864]

People should not be interpreting the question based on what they think it should mean. The question on the DS-156 is:

Have you ever violated the terms of a U.S. visa, or been unlawfully present in, or deported from, the United States?

There is a difference between unlawful status and unlawful presence. You can have unlawful status but NOT have unlawful presence in the US. For example, someone whose I-94 has expired but who has a pending adjustment of status application will have unlawful status, but they do NOT have unlawful presence.

Minors do not accrue unlawful presence, though if they are EWI or their status has expired then they have unlawful status. The Adjudicators Field Manual describes it as an exception to unlawful presence as follows:

An alien whose

unlawful status

begins before his or her 18th birthday does not begin to accrue

unlawful presence

for purposes of section 212(a)(9)(B) of the Act until the day after his or her 18th birthday pursuant to section 212(a)(9)(B)(iii)(I) of the Act.

[Boiler 47,088]

It said:

unlawfully present

Not presence

She was unlawfully present, she did not accumulate unlawful presence.

[pushbrk 13,498]

It said:

unlawfully present

Not presence

She was unlawfully present, she did not accumulate unlawful presence.

That's my interpretation as well. Answering yes will, at most require an explanation. Then, the Consular Officer will properly apply the law, and there will be no negative consequence. Answering "no" risks a finding of material misrepresentation, carrying a significant consequence.

She was unlawfully present without accumulating any unlawful presence.

Edited June 17, 2011 by pushbrk

[TBoneTX 47,141]

Some good rationales for both the yes & no responses, si man. It will be interesting to hear what one or more immigration attorneys end up saying. OP, let us know.

[Brother Hesekiel 2,236]

Sorry Jim,

disagreeing with you here.

Yes, she was unlawfully present. But since she cannot be held responsible for the actions of her parents, unlawful presence is not being recorded until the child becomes an adult. Thus, stating it is the right way to do, but it will have no adverse effect on the petition.