i-601 for Belarus citizen

[tserber 0]

Hello. I am from Belarus and live here in US for 7 years.

I need advise about filing the I-601 for myself and getting the proofs that I will need for extreme hardship..

I am in front of the Judge at the moment, the i-601 was paid for but not filed yet.

My wife is USC, we have 1.5 years old son together, her mother and sister with her family lives here in the US. I am from Belarus, that plays a great role in my case.

I have an attorney but he is requesting me to do all the work.

My political asylum was denied and later dismissed by BIA. Reason for denial was adverse credibility finding.

I have approved i-130 by DHS.

Please, I would like help with some information regarding Belarus conditions, where can i get different kind of research on Belarus economical, political, health, living condition and crime problems.

Also what is the best for me to point out in my waiver( we dont have any medical conditions, no real estate, no carriers, my wife is planing on going to get her masters)

Thanks a lot.

[Sandra G. 5,023]

http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/belarus_statistics.html

[jaycali 415]

Your wife has to prove extreme hardship for herself (and any US citizen children) as to why they can't live in Belarus.. Not the other way around.

[momof1 205]

You didn't say what your inadmissibility is. It might help us to get a clearer picture if you tell us a detailed timeline of your entries into the US, how you entered, and any other pertinent information.

As for country conditions, always try to use US govt sources like country condition reports from travel.state.gov or travel warnings. They will have a hard time discounting information put out by the US govt. While Amnesty international and Unicef, amogst others, are credible sources they can easily be explained away.

You will need to explain why your wife can't move to Belarus AND why she cannot live in the US without you. Depending on your inadmissibility, your child may or may not be a qualifying relative for the waiver application.

I wanted to add that although our waiver was filed abroad, my husband also had denied asylum with adverse credibility finding. I won't lie to you but I don't want to squash your hopes either. The denied asylum, according to experienced waiver lawyers, is a major aggravating factor in a waiver case. Why that is I have no clue. I just know that it is.

To give you some hope, my husband was inadmissible for fraudulent entry under the visa waiver program, visa overstay, deportation after his denied asylum claim. The only aggravating factor was the denied asylum. Tons of positive discretionary factors, terrorism at a recent peak when the waiver as filed in 2007/2008, and a life threatening medical condition for our then 4 year old child.

Personally, I wouldn't pay a lawyer a single cent if he wasn't preparing the waiver for me. What are you paying for if you need to do all of the research yourself? What exactly is he contributing? I paid our lawyer $5k to prepare our waiver and she wrote a 17 page brief outlining our hardships, helped and directed me in collecting needed personal documents and guided me in writing my qualifying relative letter. That's what you pay a lawyer for...not to do everything yourself.

[tserber 0]

You didn't say what your inadmissibility is. It might help us to get a clearer picture if you tell us a detailed timeline of your entries into the US, how you entered, and any other pertinent information.

As for country conditions, always try to use US govt sources like country condition reports from travel.state.gov or travel warnings. They will have a hard time discounting information put out by the US govt. While Amnesty international and Unicef, amogst others, are credible sources they can easily be explained away.

You will need to explain why your wife can't move to Belarus AND why she cannot live in the US without you. Depending on your inadmissibility, your child may or may not be a qualifying relative for the waiver application.

I wanted to add that although our waiver was filed abroad, my husband also had denied asylum with adverse credibility finding. I won't lie to you but I don't want to squash your hopes either. The denied asylum, according to experienced waiver lawyers, is a major aggravating factor in a waiver case. Why that is I have no clue. I just know that it is.

To give you some hope, my husband was inadmissible for fraudulent entry under the visa waiver program, visa overstay, deportation after his denied asylum claim. The only aggravating factor was the denied asylum. Tons of positive discretionary factors, terrorism at a recent peak when the waiver as filed in 2007/2008, and a life threatening medical condition for our then 4 year old child.

Personally, I wouldn't pay a lawyer a single cent if he wasn't preparing the waiver for me. What are you paying for if you need to do all of the research yourself? What exactly is he contributing? I paid our lawyer $5k to prepare our waiver and she wrote a 17 page brief outlining our hardships, helped and directed me in collecting needed personal documents and guided me in writing my qualifying relative letter. That's what you pay a lawyer for...not to do everything yourself.

My asylum was denied in front of the immigration judge based on adverse credibility findings. After appeal was dismissed in BIA i was given deportation order.

Then Motion to Reopen was filed because I had I-130 approved. Motion was granted, but DHS in their opposition to the motion made a statement that due to misrepresentation in front of the judge(neither judge nor BIA used "misrepresentation" statement in their decisions) i would need Waiver I-601(212(i)) to be admissible.

I already paid the Lawyer $4.5K. Can I report to the Bar if he is not willing to do anything?

What did you mean by aggravating factor? Bad or very Bad?

[aaron2020 11,651]

My asylum was denied in front of the immigration judge based on adverse credibility findings. After appeal was dismissed in BIA i was given deportation order.

Then Motion to Reopen was filed because I had I-130 approved. Motion was granted, but DHS in their opposition to the motion made a statement that due to misrepresentation in front of the judge(neither judge nor BIA used "misrepresentation" statement in their decisions) i would need Waiver I-601(212(i)) to be admissible.

I already paid the Lawyer $4.5K. Can I report to the Bar if he is not willing to do anything?

What did you mean by aggravating factor? Bad or very Bad?

What was the basis of the "adverse credibility findings?" Did you lie? Did you not provide sufficient proof? Big difference between the two.

If you can't tell us what the basis was for the "adverse credibility findings," there is no way we can help you. The category is too broad.

[canadian_wife 1,795]

I agree, more info for a better answer

What was your basis for your asylum case? And why was that finding made against you?

HOw did you enter the US? Did you leave an re-enter at any time?

GOod luck

[momof1 205]

Adverse credibility simply means they don't believe you. It doesn't mean you lied, committed fraud or filed a frivolous claim. Those words actually have to be used in the IJs denial. Having said that, an adverse credibility finding does put doubt on what you have said previously and what you will say in the future. We didn't find the credibility finding to be a hindrance to our case. I should add that we took appeals up to the 8th circuit in hopes of reversing the ruling... Which was unsuccessful. The waivers were still approved.

For the aggravating factors, they are negative factors in your case. They can be things that do not show good moral character, multiple petitioners, likelihood of becoming a public charge, denied asylum claim...etc. You will have to attempt to flip those negatives to positives.

I have to ask what you are paying that money to your lawyer for. Did you discuss beforehand what they would do for that money?

Edited March 31, 2012 by momof1

[tserber 0]

CHARGE:

Notice: Sec. 237(aXlXCXi), I&N Act [8 U.S.C. 51227(a)(tXCXi)] -

Nonimmigrant - violated conditions of status (lead respondent)

APPLICATION: Asylum; withholding ofremoval; protection under the convention Against Torfure

The respondents have appealed from the Immigration Judge's February 20,2007 , decision

finding them removable and denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and

relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), The Immigration Judge also granted the rider

respondent voluntary departure.

This case was last before us on February 12,2008, when we remanded for the preparation

of a full decision. Apparently, the Immigration Judge's original oral decision had never been

transcribed because on April 8, 2008, the Immigration Judge returned the case to us with the audio

cassette containing the full, oral decision recorded on February 20,2007. That decision is now

included in the record and is the subject of this appeal.

We affirm the Immigration Judge's adverse credibility finding for the reasons stated in her

decision. For example, we agree that the similarity of the language of the lead respondent's statement

with that of the portions of the statement of his friend, xxxxxxxx, raises significant concems

regarding the lead respondent's credibility. There are strong similarities between the first four

paragraphs of the lead respondent's statement and the first five paragraph's of xxxxxxx's statement

There is some confusion in the record regarding the date of the Immigration Judge's decision.

Immigration Judge identifies the decision date as ddddddd, but the decision itself is date'd

February 20,2007. For ease of reference, we will use the February'20.2007. because that date

appears on the transcribed oral decision.

describing the conditions in Belarus (Exhs. 2, 6). Even more troubling is the similarity between

statements that describe events that the lead respondent purportedly experienced. For example,

paragraph l0 of the lead respondent's affidavit is nearly identical to paragraph 19 of xxxxxxx's

affidavit (Exhs. 2, 6). Similarly, paragraph22 of the lead respondent's statement is extremely similar

to paragraph 2l of xxxxxxxx's affidavit (Exhs. 2,6).' The lead respondent and xxxxxxx both testitied

that the lead respondent did not see xxxxxx's affidavit before preparing his own, although xxxxxx

had given the lead respondent sample language to assist him in the preparation of this application. We

also recognize that the lead respondent and xxxxxxx were involved in many of the same events,

although the lead respondent's paragraph 22 refers to an incident that involved only him. We agree

with the Immigration Judge's conclusion that the repeated identical language indicates that the

lead respondent's application was not genuine, particularly given that xxxxxxx's application was

filed before the lead respondent's (Exh. 6). Based on the totality of the circumstances, the

Immigration Judge's adverse credibility finding was not clearly erroneous. ,See section 208@Xi XBXiii)

oftheAct,8U.S.C.$1158(b)(BXiii);seealso8C.F,R.$1003.1(dX3Xl). Furthen,absent credible

testimony, the evidence in this case is insufficient to meet the respondents' burden of proof.

8 u.s.c. $ 208(bxl)(BXii).

We find, therefore, that the lead respondent has not established eligibility for asylum.

Because the lead respondent has not established eligibility for asylum, it follows that he has not

satisfied the higher clear probability standard of eligibility required for withholding of removal. See

1NS v, Stevic,467 U,S. 407 (1984); see also 8 C.F.R. $ 1208.16(b). In addition, we find that the

respondents have not submitted suffrcient evidence to establish that it is more likely than not that

they will be tortured upon return to Belarus. See 8 C.F.R. $ 1208.16©. Therefore, the respondents'

appeal will be dismissed.

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.

About the lawyer: My lawyer agreed to help me with preparation of waiver and court representation

[aaron2020 11,651]

CHARGE:

Notice: Sec. 237(aXlXCXi), I&N Act [8 U.S.C. 51227(a)(tXCXi)] -

Nonimmigrant - violated conditions of status (lead respondent)

APPLICATION: Asylum; withholding ofremoval; protection under the convention Against Torfure

The respondents have appealed from the Immigration Judge's February 20,2007 , decision

finding them removable and denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and

relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), The Immigration Judge also granted the rider

respondent voluntary departure.

This case was last before us on February 12,2008, when we remanded for the preparation

of a full decision. Apparently, the Immigration Judge's original oral decision had never been

transcribed because on April 8, 2008, the Immigration Judge returned the case to us with the audio

cassette containing the full, oral decision recorded on February 20,2007. That decision is now

included in the record and is the subject of this appeal.

We affirm the Immigration Judge's adverse credibility finding for the reasons stated in her

decision. For example, we agree that the similarity of the language of the lead respondent's statement

with that of the portions of the statement of his friend, xxxxxxxx, raises significant concems

regarding the lead respondent's credibility. There are strong similarities between the first four

paragraphs of the lead respondent's statement and the first five paragraph's of xxxxxxx's statement

There is some confusion in the record regarding the date of the Immigration Judge's decision.

Immigration Judge identifies the decision date as ddddddd, but the decision itself is date'd

February 20,2007. For ease of reference, we will use the February'20.2007. because that date

appears on the transcribed oral decision.

describing the conditions in Belarus (Exhs. 2, 6). Even more troubling is the similarity between

statements that describe events that the lead respondent purportedly experienced. For example,

paragraph l0 of the lead respondent's affidavit is nearly identical to paragraph 19 of xxxxxxx's

affidavit (Exhs. 2, 6). Similarly, paragraph22 of the lead respondent's statement is extremely similar

to paragraph 2l of xxxxxxxx's affidavit (Exhs. 2,6).' The lead respondent and xxxxxxx both testitied

that the lead respondent did not see xxxxxx's affidavit before preparing his own, although xxxxxx

had given the lead respondent sample language to assist him in the preparation of this application. We

also recognize that the lead respondent and xxxxxxx were involved in many of the same events,

although the lead respondent's paragraph 22 refers to an incident that involved only him. We agree

with the Immigration Judge's conclusion that the repeated identical language indicates that the

lead respondent's application was not genuine, particularly given that xxxxxxx's application was

filed before the lead respondent's (Exh. 6). Based on the totality of the circumstances, the

Immigration Judge's adverse credibility finding was not clearly erroneous. ,See section 208@Xi XBXiii)

oftheAct,8U.S.C.$1158(b)(BXiii);seealso8C.F,R.$1003.1(dX3Xl). Furthen,absent credible

testimony, the evidence in this case is insufficient to meet the respondents' burden of proof.

8 u.s.c. $ 208(bxl)(BXii).

We find, therefore, that the lead respondent has not established eligibility for asylum.

Because the lead respondent has not established eligibility for asylum, it follows that he has not

satisfied the higher clear probability standard of eligibility required for withholding of removal. See

1NS v, Stevic,467 U,S. 407 (1984); see also 8 C.F.R. $ 1208.16(b). In addition, we find that the

respondents have not submitted suffrcient evidence to establish that it is more likely than not that

they will be tortured upon return to Belarus. See 8 C.F.R. $ 1208.16©. Therefore, the respondents'

appeal will be dismissed.

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.

About the lawyer: My lawyer agreed to help me with preparation of waiver and court representation

So essentially, the US government thinks that you lied on your asylum application but can't prove that you lied. Your story was so similar to another person that it highly improbable that the same events happened to the both of you.

Your lawyer knows the detail of your case. He's in the best position to help you. Since we are not privy to the Immigration Judge's decision, it is extremely hard to advise you on what to do. However proceed with caution if you used this lawyer for your initial asylum petition. It's very foolish to submit an asylum application that show a great deal of similarity to the events that happened to another individual as it is difficult to believe that some many similar events happened to two different people.