Deportation Papers Say One Thing, Embassy Says Other re. Waivers

[icolbowca 0]

All,

My mother-in-law went through the consular interview the other day and as expected was denied the immigrant visa. She had overstayed a previous visit and upon re-entry thereafter was "caught" and deported (2006). She was determined inadmissible under 212(a)(6)©(ii) and (7)(A)(i)(II) and deported at the POE under the following:

-- for a period of 5-years under Section 235(b)(1) or 240 of the Act...

I fully expected that I'd have to complete and submit an i-601 to waive the finding for fraud and misrepresentation; however, at the Embassy they made a determination that she was found inadmissible under 212(a)(9)(A)2 and 212(a)(9)(B)2 for a period through 15 Feb 2016 and that she'd have to submit both an i-601 and i-212.

My questions... having fulfilled her 5-year ban, why are we now presented with a 10-year ban and a requirement to complete an i-212? Why was there no mention of the fraud and misrepresentation ban at the interview?

Is it that by virtue of her crimes she automatically fell under other statutes of the law that were not delineated in her initial removal papers? And, given the 15 Feb 2016 date annotated by the consular officer at the interview, am I to understand that after that date her record is "clean" and faces no bans whatsoever?

--

[Boiler 44,224]

The Consulate determine what if any bans you have.

All the POE do is tell you what law they are deporting you under.

Deportation waivers are I 212's.

I have seen cases where people are subject to multiple bans, they do not have to list all the bans applicable, they only need one.

I do not see how you could be a qualifying relative for a ban?

Edited November 16, 2013 by Boiler

[icolbowca 0]

@ Boiler

The QR is my father-in-law (LPR). I'm just the one doing all of the papers for everything/everyone. Thanks for the response.

[JayJayH 546]

Are you sure she was determined inadmissible under 212(a)(6)©(ii)?

212(a)(6)©(ii) is inadmissibility for a false claim to U.S. Citizenship. This is much more serious than a "simple" misrepresentation inadmissibility. Falsely claiming US citizenship is a lifetime bar, with no waiver or appeal. The 5 year bar is a standard removal bar. If she has a false claim to US citizenship in her file, she is never returning to the US, short and simple.

[icolbowca 0]

@ Yang-Ja

It's 212(a)(6)©(i)

I referenced the wrong one... thanks for pointing it out!

[JayJayH 546]

@ Yang-Ja

It's 212(a)(6)©(i)

I referenced the wrong one... thanks for pointing it out!

Phew.

Ok the good news is that she never falsely claimed to be a US citizen - A lifetime ban with no waiver or appeal.

The bad news is that she was removed under 212(a)(6)©(i) - A lifetime ban with limited possibility for a waiver.

The other good news is that 601 and 212 waivers generally have the same criteria, meaning if her 601 waiver is approved, the 212 waiver should be approved also.

However, these waivers are notoriously difficult to get.

Your in-laws should consult with an competent immigration lawyer, experienced in waivers of inadmissibility. Visit our friends over at www.immigrate2us.net - that forum is more focused on inadmissibility and waivers, whereas VJ is in large a DIY forum. This is not a DIY case. This is lawyer territory. Your MIL's chances for a waiver approval will depend entirely on the level of hardship suffered by your FIL, vs the seriousness of the misrepresentation for which she is barred. I would not trust this case in the hands of anyone other than a highly competent, experienced lawyer.

As far as the 5 year bar, as boiler said, removals can often come with a multitude of bans and inadmissibilities. The CBP at POE will generally only reference the 5 year, because this is the standard removal bar. In addition, the CBP is not responsible for issuing visas or granting I-601 waivers. The CBP will just remove you under the appropriate paragraphs, and let you figure out the full magnitude when you go to the US consulate abroad to apply for a new visa.

Edited November 16, 2013 by Yang-Ja

[belinda63 2,993]

The way I am reading this is she overstayed and then left. She may have had deportation proceedings started against her prior to her leaving. She then came back, possibly without going through an authorized port of entry, and got caught.

Very serious. You need a very strong immigration attorney.

[Boiler 44,224]

I would disagree about the difficulty in getting a waiver approved, The success rate is pretty high especially if you do the research use a lawyer familiar with these waivers.

I2US has a list of recommended Lawyers,

Always a good idea to have a consult, just to make sure you know what you are doing.

[JayJayH 546]

I would disagree about the difficulty in getting a waiver approved, The success rate is pretty high especially if you do the research use a lawyer familiar with these waivers.

I2US has a list of recommended Lawyers,

Always a good idea to have a consult, just to make sure you know what you are doing.

Overstay waivers, yes. Misrep waivers, not so much. Depends on the misrep vs hardship involved.

A competent and experienced lawyer can make all the difference.

[icolbowca 0]

All,

She wasn't being deported prior to leaving. Here's the breakdown. She had two prior visits on a B-2 Visa no issues. On the third visit she overstays by a year and then leaves. But the trick they play (which was common until we transitioned to a computer-based tracking system for entry/exits) was to return the passport back to Colombia and have and entry stamp that showed her leaving prior to hitting the one year mark. She renews her Visa and comes back three years later and that's when upon entry immigration realizes the discrepancy in exit dates in the computer system. So, they ding her for an overstay exceeding one year and for false misrepresentation on the renewed Visa.

There are several factors that may assist me in getting the waiver... (1) her overstay is the result of a VAWA issue that her daughter was going through. (2) She's old/retired then and now, so at no time was there any gain on her part via work or what not. (3) She's been upfront and forthcoming on everything with the immigration and consular officers. (4) The entire family is lawfully present in the USA right now and the QR (her husband) is going on 80.

Bottom line... the rash decisions made on her part to overstay and misrepresent were the result of a situation where her daughter was getting the ####### kicked out of her by another man (US court has sided with daughter on VAWA case)... and the domino of these effects have left the family in a situation with a husband now without a wife dependent on others and getting older, and nobody without any money.

I'm hoping that the sum of these events will be enough to make an extreme hardship case.

Thanks for your help.

[Boiler 44,224]

I have heard of that one, people still try it.

1. Did she apply for an extension?

2. That is more an issue for the Affadavit of Support, I looked at this for my Parents but the cost/availability of insurance killed it.

3. Well, she wasn't. She tried to travel on a void visa.

4. Certainly helps, Husband is primary but you can add your hardships.

[JayJayH 546]

It's generally easier to prove hardship for an 80 year old, than it would be if the QR was in their 20s or 30s. Health issues are often given the most weight in waiver cases. Again, I would consult with a lawyer.

[icolbowca 0]

She did not apply for an extension. Irony is that it would have been easier and cheaper to simply apply for an extension than to get that fake stamp. I cough it up to complete idiocy on her part. Unfortunately, I wasn't part of the family at the time... on #3 wasn't disavowing her of anything... my angle on that is that she had a clean record until she made a series of poor decisions based on external factors; when she was confronted she cooperated fully.

I'd have to take go into more debt than I can handle to use a lawyer, which is why I've done everything on my own up to this point (the USCIS and NVC fees are already a burden).

[Boiler 44,224]

Sounds like something they should be paying for.

[icolbowca 0]

I know right... I do it for my wife (she's the good sister), the children, and a general obligation to the family.