CR-1 Consular Processing - HIV Question

[JAGottlieb 1]

I understand that as of 2010 HIV is no longer a problem but I did find a area that affects a small number of consular processing applicants such as my spouse.  The instructions for I-693 for outside the USA say that when someone self identifies as HIV+, the doctor is to take 3 sputum samples for TB which take 2 months to process.  With this said, we don't want to be stuck over seas for 2 months.  We have completed numerous testing here in USA (X-Ray, CT, Lumbar Puncture, Sputum Cups).  ID doctor is confident in no TB.  Spouse has 3 months check ups due to HIV so we are not trying to evade the system in any way.  Staying over seas for two months would be of great harm to his health without access to his medication.  Do you have to disclose that you are HIV positive in your medical exam over seas?  Does anyone have any experience with this?  We will bring original CD of imaging with us (CT, Xray, MRI, etc.)  

 

Thank you so much for your help!

 

 

[Chewbacca 18]

During the medical exam the doctor will ask him about all the health problems he has/had. He should not lie about that. Being HIV+ will not prevent him from immigrate to the USA, but lying can. He should bring all the previous exams that he has but the doctor might still require him to do another set of exams. In my case the doctor asked me to do the X-rays of the lungs even after I showed her a recent CT scan of my chest (I was trying to avoid more radiation because of previous lung cancer).    

 

You can explain the situation and maybe the doctor can send the samples to another lab for faster processing (I'm to sure if that's possible).

 

Can you send the medication that he needs while he is overseas?

[Chewbacca 18]

You can take a look at this page. https://www.uscis.gov/archive/archive-news/human-immunodeficiency-virus-hiv-infection-removed-cdc-list-communicable-diseases-public-health-significance

 

They mention that after 2010 HIV infection does not make an alien admissible but he still needs to disclose the information during the medical examination. 

[JAGottlieb 1]

36 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

You can take a look at this page. https://www.uscis.gov/archive/archive-news/human-immunodeficiency-virus-hiv-infection-removed-cdc-list-communicable-diseases-public-health-significance

 

They mention that after 2010 HIV infection does not make an alien admissible but he still needs to disclose the information during the medical examination. 

Thank you, yes I have seen that page.... I can't find where it says it has to be disclosed on the medical exam.  My concern is they will delay two months for sputum cups. 

[Chewbacca 18]

3 hours ago, JAGottlieb said:

Thank you, yes I have seen that page.... I can't find where it says it has to be disclosed on the medical exam.  My concern is they will delay two months for sputum cups. 

They mention something on the questions part. But 'm not sure if this information is current. 

 

[NikLR 13,232]

Let's see.. Where it says must truthfully answer questions means disclosing.  There will be a questionnaire asking about this.  

[acajim 16]

I'll try to answer your questions in the most positive and complete way, so you guys can prepare when you go to the appointment:

 

I know of 3 cases, 2 guys who I befriended when we all were going this process, and myself. 2 appointments 2 years ago, and the 3rd appointment a year ago. We did not receive any information from the lawyers, although they knew the process, they didn't warn us at all, at least you're now aware. Your suppose has to disclose his status, not that they really need it, most likely they already know when they run the background check. The interview will be automatically cancelled, the clinic will collect 3 samples, 1 each morning, consecutive days, will release the results and send them to the consulate 2 months later. The consulate has 5 business days to process the results, will schedule a new appointment and will send the letter to the address in the U.S., (not Mexico), if your spouse or you have the email address registered in the system, the automated service will send a notification as soon as the appointment is schedule. Now the time in Mexico: Whatever the date is, try to go to the medical exam on Monday, that day your spouse will be sent to give the samples, that are collected in the early hours, around 6am, and remember that these are 3 consecutive days, so if for some reason you're there on Thursday, you need wait until Monday to start the samples. The results are ready right away, but the CDC requires a culture, which takes 8 weeks, why? I don't know. Assuming your spouse is going few days before, + 8 weeks, + 1 more week for processing, + the waiting time for the interview, and finally the time to get the visa, we could be talking about 3 to 4 months.

 

Call the insurance company, usually the will authorize 3 months for vacation time, just call right after it is refilled, so you have a total of 4 months. You can not send medicine by DHL or by mail, if the mexican customs find it, they'll confiscate it. Bring everything you mention, medical record, x-rays, sputum test results, vaccination record, everything helps. I brought all that (sputum test results, letter from doctor, list of vaccinations, X-rays on CD AND film, full medical record), the doctor was very impressed and even said they have only few minutes to spend with each patient, and she hoped all the applicants were as prepared as me...... and even with all those eulogies, I was stuck in Mexico for 3-1/2 months!, granted, that was 2 years ago, the process now is a little faster. Our visa was held 2 weeks after the interview before printing it. Now, there is no 2-week waiting time, they can issue the visa right away.

 

After the visa is issued, you have only 3 months for the applicant to enter the U.S., not the regular 6 months, and I don't remember when the clock starts, so you don't even have the whole 3 months. The point of entry has little to no information about the TB test, in my case, not even the local office had any information, supposedly you need to report to the department of health of your state within 1 months upon entry..... we didn't know, my 2 friends in CA were found when an agent (Health department, don't worry) knocked on their respective door. I was contacted by phone, the Health department requested my test results from Mexico and a blood sample.

 

Plan to stay that long, I hope they change the rules, we were told that they're trying to take the results from the U.S., like those you mention you already have, and waive the culture process, as long as the tests were done here. Unfortunately is very difficult to find this information, better to prepare, at least you now know the waiting time in Mexico most likely is long. In my friend's case, the first person of our group to go, he was prepared to stay 1 week, only a small backpack not even full of clothes and  a pair of shoes, he really suffered when he was struck with the news that he was staying a little longer, fortunately he was able to be rehired after he came back.

 

I hope I've answered your question, feel free to PM me.

 

Oh my! I just checked your user name and you have a date already!

 

Good luck, I can say that even if this last step seems hard, it is, but is worth it..... is the last step. good luck, good luck, good luck.

 

Acajim

[jle2234 68]

While it is daunting to risk possibly increasing your immigration process, you should consider your two options for what they are: 1) voluntarily disclosing the HIV+ status and risking an additional two months of processing, or 2) hiding the HIV+ status and risking denied immigration if the lie is discovered. Knowing that the HIV+ status will not affect the eventual immigration decision, I would suggest you avoid lying and unnecessarily threatening your case.

 

The doctor should discuss any medical conditions with your spouse at the appointment. I would advise that your spouse ask the doctor directly about whether the HIV+ disclosure will affect the case and/or processing time, and express concerns about their prognosis should a two-month delay be imposed.

 

If you do experience a two-month delay, you could request for your case to be expedited for medical reasons -- I don't know a lot about that process or if your spouse would be eligible.

[JAGottlieb 1]

9 hours ago, jle2234 said:

While it is daunting to risk possibly increasing your immigration process, you should consider your two options for what they are: 1) voluntarily disclosing the HIV+ status and risking an additional two months of processing, or 2) hiding the HIV+ status and risking denied immigration if the lie is discovered. Knowing that the HIV+ status will not affect the eventual immigration decision, I would suggest you avoid lying and unnecessarily threatening your case.

 

The doctor should discuss any medical conditions with your spouse at the appointment. I would advise that your spouse ask the doctor directly about whether the HIV+ disclosure will affect the case and/or processing time, and express concerns about their prognosis should a two-month delay be imposed.

 

If you do experience a two-month delay, you could request for your case to be expedited for medical reasons -- I don't know a lot about that process or if your spouse would be eligible.

Thank you so much for your reply and reading this, greatly appreciated!

 

There would be more severe medical consequences by staying in Mexico for 6 months.  He needs to get chemo here in the USA.  If HIV is not disclosed, how would they find out since they do not test for this anymore?  Since HIV is no longer a ban from the USA, why would it need to be disclosed?  How would this be different from someone that is HIV+ but unaware they are infected and does not get tested for such on the medical exam?  Both would be coming in to the USA as HIV+ people.  They would not be able to expedite the two months because that is how long it takes for Sputum cups to result.  We have done those twice here in the USA and its the same time frame in the USA.  We are not trying to cheat as we KNOW he is NOT TB positive based on extensive testing here in the USA.  In the bigger picture, this would be whats best for him medically to get back here ASAP for needed medication that cannot be brought to Mexico as it is done via infusion.  Hope this makes sense.  Thanks again for reading!

 

Merry Christmas,

 

Adam

[geowrian 22,339]

Where he would be better treated does not matter to the physician or CO. I'm not trying to be mean, but that argument could be made for nearly any condition in many countries. They will look at the medical condition and determine the necessary action under the INA and DOS policy.

 

50 minutes ago, JAGottlieb said:

If HIV is not disclosed, how would they find out since they do not test for this anymore?

Since HIV is no longer a ban from the USA, why would it need to be disclosed?

How would this be different from someone that is HIV+ but unaware they are infected and does not get tested for such on the medical exam?

Whether or not they test for a specific condition does not change the truthful answer.

Because it asks about health conditions such as this. See the excerpt above.

Because they are aware of it.

 

I see what you're saying, but it's coming off as trying to find a justification/rationalization for not disclosing it, not that it's not the correct and honest/complete response.

Trying to bypass this can result in huge consequences, including a (waivable) permanent misrepresentation bar, or having any immigration benefits revoked if it is discovered later and determined to have been a material misrepresentation. Do not lie or deceive with any part of immigration, ever.

[JAGottlieb 1]

27 minutes ago, geowrian said:

Where he would be better treated does not matter to the physician or CO. I'm not trying to be mean, but that argument could be made for nearly any condition in many countries. They will look at the medical condition and determine the necessary action under the INA and DOS policy.

 

Whether or not they test for a specific condition does not change the truthful answer.

Because it asks about health conditions such as this. See the excerpt above.

Because they are aware of it.

 

I see what you're saying, but it's coming off as trying to find a justification/rationalization for not disclosing it, not that it's not the correct and honest/complete response.

Trying to bypass this can result in huge consequences, including a (waivable) permanent misrepresentation bar, or having any immigration benefits revoked if it is discovered later and determined to have been a material misrepresentation. Do not lie or deceive with any part of immigration, ever.

This is what I am trying to find info on though.  Where does it say that HIV has to be disclosed? I can't find this information anywhere.  All I find in the 693 directions is that "if applicant self identifies as hiv positive".  After 2010 I can't find anything saying that HIV has to be disclosed.  If they don't check for it and not required to disclose, then they couldn't hold you responsible for such.  Source below.  Sending from mobile device sorry for being short.  Thank you!

INA: ACT 212 - GENERAL CLASSES OF ALIENS INELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE VISAS AND INELIGIBLE FOR ADMISSION; WAIVERS OF INADMISSIBILLITY

Sec. 212. [8 U.S.C. 1182]

(a) Classes of Aliens Ineligible for Visas or Admission.-Except as otherwise provided in this Act, aliens who are inadmissible under the following paragraphs are ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to the United States:

(1) Health-related grounds.-

(A) In general.-Any alien-

(i) who is determined (in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services) to have a communicable disease of public health significance; ^1b

(ii) ¹except as provided in subparagraph (C) ^1a who seeks admission as an immigrant, or who seeks adjustment of status to the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, and who has failed to present documentation of having received vaccination against vaccine-preventable diseases, which shall include at least the following diseases: mumps, measles, rubella, polio, tetanus and diphtheria toxoids, pertussis, influenza type B and hepatitis B, and any other vaccinations against vaccine-preventable diseases recommended by the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices,

(iii) who is determined (in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services in consultation with the Attorney General)-

(I) to have a physical or mental disorder and behavior associated with the disorder that may pose, or has posed, a threat to the property, safety, or welfare of the alien or others, or

(II) to have had a physical or mental disorder and a history of behavior associated with the disorder, which behavior has posed a threat to the property, safety, or welfare of the alien or others and which behavior is likely to recur or to lead to other harmful behavior, or

(iv) who is determined (in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services) to be a drug abuser or addict, is inadmissible.

(B) Waiver authorized.-For provision authorizing waiver of certain clauses of subparagraph (A), see subsection (g).

(C) ¹EXCEPTION FROM IMMUNIZATION REQUIREMENT FOR ADOPTED CHILDREN 10 YEARS OF AGE OR YOUNGER.--Clause (ii) of subparagraph (A) shall not apply to a child who--

(i) is 10 years of age or younger,

(ii) is described in section subparagraph or (G) of section  101(b)(1)(F), and  ^1c

(iii) is seeking an immigrant visa as an immediate relative under section  201(b), if, prior to the admission of the child, an adoptive parent or prospective adoptive parent of the child, who has sponsored the child for admission as an immediate relative, has executed an affidavit stating that the parent is aware of the provisions of subparagraph (A)(ii) and will ensure that, within 30 days of the child's admission, or at the earliest time that is medically appropriate, the child will receive the vaccinations identified in such subparagraph.

 

[geowrian 22,339]

6 minutes ago, JAGottlieb said:

This is what I am trying to find info on though.  Where does it say that HIV has to be disclosed? I can't find this information anywhere.  All I find in the 693 directions is that "if applicant self identifies as hiv positive".  After 2010 I can't find anything saying that HIV has to be disclosed.  If they don't check for it and not required to disclose, then they couldn't hold you responsible for such.  Source below.  Sending from mobile device sorry for being short.  Thank you!

I don't believe it is asked on any standardized form, but I would be very surprised if the panel physician did not ask a question where failing to disclose it would be a complete, truthful answer.

"Do you have any known health conditions?"

"Are you on any medication or receiving treatments for any conditions?"

These are pretty SOP questions, IIRC.

[jle2234 68]

1 hour ago, JAGottlieb said:

Thank you so much for your reply and reading this, greatly appreciated!

 

There would be more severe medical consequences by staying in Mexico for 6 months.  He needs to get chemo here in the USA.  If HIV is not disclosed, how would they find out since they do not test for this anymore?  Since HIV is no longer a ban from the USA, why would it need to be disclosed?  How would this be different from someone that is HIV+ but unaware they are infected and does not get tested for such on the medical exam?  Both would be coming in to the USA as HIV+ people.  They would not be able to expedite the two months because that is how long it takes for Sputum cups to result.  We have done those twice here in the USA and its the same time frame in the USA.  We are not trying to cheat as we KNOW he is NOT TB positive based on extensive testing here in the USA.  In the bigger picture, this would be whats best for him medically to get back here ASAP for needed medication that cannot be brought to Mexico as it is done via infusion.  Hope this makes sense.  Thanks again for reading!

 

Merry Christmas,

 

Adam

I want to start by saying that I am very sympathetic to your situation.

 

At my medical exam, I was asked to list my known medical conditions twice: one on a written form, and once verbally to the doctor. So, even though your spouse will not be tested for HIV, failing to disclose their HIV+ status would be a violation that could affect the outcome of your petition. As to if or how they would find out about your spouse's failure to disclose... I'm honestly not sure. I don't know what all they look at for a potential immigrant. But I would urge you to consider how much worse off your spouse's health will be if they are unable to receive proper medical care for an indefinite amount of time due to a denied immigration petition.

 

Are you able to discuss this matter with a lawyer? I would be interested in knowing whether IR-1/CR-1 is the only route for your spouse. There are visas available for individuals requiring medical treatment in the U.S. I'm curious as to whether that would be a better option for your case, and if you could apply for AOS from there.

[JAGottlieb 1]

1 hour ago, jle2234 said:

I want to start by saying that I am very sympathetic to your situation.

 

At my medical exam, I was asked to list my known medical conditions twice: one on a written form, and once verbally to the doctor. So, even though your spouse will not be tested for HIV, failing to disclose their HIV+ status would be a violation that could affect the outcome of your petition. As to if or how they would find out about your spouse's failure to disclose... I'm honestly not sure. I don't know what all they look at for a potential immigrant. But I would urge you to consider how much worse off your spouse's health will be if they are unable to receive proper medical care for an indefinite amount of time due to a denied immigration petition.

 

Are you able to discuss this matter with a lawyer? I would be interested in knowing whether IR-1/CR-1 is the only route for your spouse. There are visas available for individuals requiring medical treatment in the U.S. I'm curious as to whether that would be a better option for your case, and if you could apply for AOS from there.

Thank you for your message!  Yes, the CR-1 route with a I-601a waiver is the only route for us since he was EWI at 15 years old.  Attorney started this process with us two years ago.

[jle2234 68]

18 hours ago, JAGottlieb said:

Thank you for your message!  Yes, the CR-1 route with a I-601a waiver is the only route for us since he was EWI at 15 years old.  Attorney started this process with us two years ago.

The ideal is that you should not lie or hide any information during the immigration process. In your situation, your spouse's health is at risk, so you are considering hiding information. It's important to note that this is illegal, and I don't think anyone here will advise you to break the law during the immigration process. But since you are considering it, it really comes down to you and your spouse weighing risks vs. rewards for your two options.

 

If your spouse discloses their HIV+ status, the risk is that the petition for immigration will be delayed by two months.

 

If your spouse knowingly fails to disclose their HIV+ status, the potential reward is that they are granted immigration without delay; but the risks is that, if the failure to disclose is discovered, your petition could be denied and your spouse's immigration could be delayed for longer than two months.

 

I am sympathetic to your case and wish I could give you a clear answer, but no one here can make this decision for you.

 

Should your spouse choose to hide their HIV+ status, it will be a conscious decision to break immigration law and risk the petition. Will they find out? It's hard to say. You'd have to consider many factors, such as whether your spouse or others have been public regarding the HIV+ status (ex. on social media, with employers), whether your spouse has signs or symptoms that may be observed by an experienced medical professional, etc. etc. As the medical exam includes a blood draw, you and your spouse would also have to consider whether there is a legal and/or moral obligation to inform those handling your spouse's bodily fluids of the HIV+ status (if special precautions are required to protect from blood borne pathogens).

 

If I were in your position, I would sit down with my spouse and have a very serious conversation about all the options and potential outcomes. I would lean towards disclosing the HIV+ status along with the results of all the testing your spouse has had done to date, and any documentation you have showing that the two-month delay would be detrimental to your spouse's health. I would also consider having a third party call anonymously to ask about options or exceptions for individuals who are HIV+.

 

Good luck!