10 years ban or not?

[schizzo_fg 1]

Yes, waiting for receipt, hoping to convince IJ to re-open my case with just receipt of acceptance of I-130 and marriage license. We have children togeher, so hightened burdeon proof of bona fide marriage is there !!!

[Shauneg 762]

You obviously think you know what you're doing and argue everything anyone says to you on here. You knew you shouldn't have been here for ten years and are now trying to find a way to stay, though you voluntarily chose to depart. Why did you not bring up all these issues to the IJ at the time? I really don't know your purpose of being on here....

[Hypnos 6,576]

An IJ is unlikely to re-open your proceedings just by virtue of an I-130 filing; they will probably want to see it approved first.

Based on the totality of your circumstances I would say any relief you apply for is likely to be denied, but IANAL.

[Boiler 43,428]

I do not understand your lawyers strategy but the lawyer has the full facts

Edited June 16, 2015 by Boiler

[schizzo_fg 1]

You obviously think you know what you're doing and argue everything anyone says to you on here. You knew you shouldn't have been here for ten years and are now trying to find a way to stay, though you voluntarily chose to depart. Why did you not bring up all these issues to the IJ at the time? I really don't know your purpose of being on here....

1) I know what I'm doing because I have had an attorney all along. 2) I wasn't as aware or as knowledgeable as I'm now back in those years. All I feared was the 10 year bar. That I remember being told. I was not willing to risk and leave a young wife expecting a kid and risk to be stuck outside for 10 years. If I only knew that the ban wasn't even an issue back then, I would have just left and gotten back later, but I didn't know back then.

[schizzo_fg 1]

An IJ is unlikely to re-open your proceedings just by virtue of an I-130 filing; they will probably want to see it approved first.

Based on the totality of your circumstances I would say any relief you apply for is likely to be denied, but IANAL.

Nothing is over until it's over! With immigration, especially! Ice has agreed to not oppose my MTR. Will be filing a joint motion to re-open, the judge will be more than inclined to re-open without ICE prosecuting opposition.

[zuluweta 250]

A person who VD before or on a date IJ says to leave does not require

I 212 waiver, however OP I think a mistake was made & corrected, someone

caught it , also one cannot depart to Canada to restart time in the US the

same goes with Canadian visas. You are almost at the end of the road now

2015.....Many little curves in your case you need an atty to sort things out

& even front load on Advisory Opinion arguments for you

Why almost at the end of the road now? OP's unlawful presence began sometime in 2005 but stayed unlawfully in USA then was arrested by local police or ICE in 2012. OP has not been outside USA for 10 years.

[schizzo_fg 1]

Why almost at the end of the road now? OP's unlawful presence began sometime in 2005 but stayed unlawfully in USA then was arrested by local police or ICE in 2012. OP has not been outside USA for 10 years.

You don't seem to give-up, do you? I like you, you're like me!!! Look carefully at these screenshots below, no need to keep beating your head against the wall, colleague!

The I-212 form instructions say it specifically!

Is it clear now, Zuluweta?

[zuluweta 250]

You don't seem to give-up, do you? I like you, you're like me!!! Look carefully at these screenshots below, no need to keep beating your head against the wall, colleague!

The I-212 form instructions say it specifically!

Is it clear now, Zuluweta?

I was not writing about your voluntary departure but your unlawful presence from 2005 up to 2014.

Assuming you voluntarily departed in 2014, that means you've only spent 1 year outside the US out of your 10-year ban.

[Boiler 43,428]

The first few pages is misleading and mainly irrelevant.

He is the US he has no 10 year ban.

[Shauneg 762]

I was not writing about your voluntary departure but your unlawful presence from 2005 up to 2014.

Assuming you voluntarily departed in 2014, that means you've only spent 1 year outside the US out of your 10-year ban.

From what I understand he's still here in the states...

[zuluweta 250]

OP makes confusing statements. In the first post, OP talks about consular interview hence my inference that OP is outside the USA.

So if OP is still in USA, unlawful presence for someone who entered on a visa (F-1 in this case) would be forgiven if married to US citizen spouse. Why the obsession with unlawful presence and the 10-year bar? Why did the judge grant voluntary departure instead of closing the removal proceedings to allow OP to adjust status? Something's up.

[Boiler 43,428]

I do not understand your lawyers strategy but the lawyer has the full facts

Exactly.

[NigeriaorBust 4,087]

You were a full time student between 2005 and 2014 ?

[schizzo_fg 1]

Admitting you back into the country may have been a mistake they didn't catch at first but USCIS corrected their mistake by issuing you a denial letter of your application for F-1 reinstatement. So by willfully staying in the US even after receiving the denial letter from USCIS, you aggravated your own mistakes which now put you in your current situation.

DSO told me ahead of time that I had a poor likelihood of success for my re-instatement request (I-539), so DSO decided to make me depart the country and re-enter with a new I-20. This required the creation of a new SEVIS record for me, a new I- 20 and a new SEVIS ID #.

I requested a new "Initial" I-20 from DSO. I then traveled to Canada. On the way back, at the POE the prior SEVIS record termination showed-up in the Consolidated Consular Database (CCD) and the Interagency Border Inspection System (IBIS) as a possible ground for ineligibility for a visa or admission. When the "hit" appeared at my admission to the US re-entering from Canada, the CBP officer resolved the "hit" before granting me the benefit. He exercised favorable discretion.

My F-1 visa was still valid, so I asked to be admitted in F-1 status and it was granted. At the time I was re-entering from Canada it was 2004, USICS had not sent the 2005 letter of denial F-1 re-instatement yet.

It's hard for me to believe that this is a mistake that later was corrected by USCIS. Once again, the letter of denial dated september 2005 from USCIS simply states that my I-539 filed in 2004 for re-instatement was denied because I didn't pursue a full course of study from 2004 on (which is a mistake as I had plenty of courses I was attending).