I601A Warning

[blondietuco 1]

We got approved for an I601A waiver (wife).  She went for her consular interview at the US Consulate in Honduras.  During the interview, they informed her that she was inadmissable due to 2126E basically smuggling another person into the United States.  The person in question is her daughter that was 16mos old at the time.  After a number of discussions with my lawyer, she does not feel the element of financial gain exists for this to be a legitimate barring circumstance.  Needless to say, we are refiling, and there is a very likely chance we go to the back of the line, and have to get the 601A re-approved, as well as the 212 waiver approved.  I have been in touch with more lawyers, some have heard of this, some have not, but the Immigration Advocate at my congressman's office said it before I did.  Another lawyer told me it is happening very often in Ciudad Juarez as well.  Unfortunately, it looks like the Trump administration has left the I 601A in place as a means to get people to essentially self deport.

[Visitor User 235]

I-601A approved to overcome the 3/10 year ban?

[blondietuco 1]

Just now, Visitor User said:

I-601A approved to overcome the 3/10 year ban?

Approved for accumulating unlawful presence. This happened after being notified of the scheduled consular interview at the consulate. Had interview appt, went to Honduras, had physical, went to interview on 2/20/2019, told no visa due to the smuggling charge. They don’t schedule the interview until after the waiver is approved. Now she’s stuck for who knows how long. 

[geowrian 22,335]

32 minutes ago, blondietuco said:

Needless to say, we are refiling, and there is a very likely chance we go to the back of the line, and have to get the 601A re-approved, as well as the 212 waiver approved.

The I-601A only covers unlawful presence. You need an I-601 for the new inadmissibility + now to cover the unlawful presence inadmissibility.

 

33 minutes ago, blondietuco said:

Unfortunately, it looks like the Trump administration has left the I 601A in place as a means to get people to essentially self deport.

The I-601A has helped many, many, many unlawfully present individuals obtain legal status without having to be separated for long periods while waiting for a regular I-601.

 

6 minutes ago, Visitor User said:

I-601A approved to overcome the 3/10 year ban?

For reference, the I-601A only covers unlawful presence. Nothing else.

[Visitor User 235]

37 minutes ago, blondietuco said:

Approved for accumulating unlawful presence. This happened after being notified of the scheduled consular interview at the consulate. Had interview appt, went to Honduras, had physical, went to interview on 2/20/2019, told no visa due to the smuggling charge. They don’t schedule the interview until after the waiver is approved. Now she’s stuck for who knows how long. 

Smuggling charge was on record when they ran the background check? Did she use a lawyer?

Edited February 28, 2019 by Visitor User

[blondietuco 1]

10 minutes ago, Visitor User said:

Smuggling charge was on record when they ran the background check? Did she use a lawyer?

Used a lawyer. There was no smuggling charge. Her daughter was sitting on her lap on a bus that crossed the border into Mexico in 2000. That is what they are calling smuggling. It’s absurd. 

[Ate 180]

31 minutes ago, blondietuco said:

Used a lawyer. There was no smuggling charge. Her daughter was sitting on her lap on a bus that crossed the border into Mexico in 2000. That is what they are calling smuggling. It’s absurd. 

 

The definition of "smuggler" does not require any element of financial gain to be applicable:

 

Any alien, who at any time knowingly has encouraged, induced, assisted, abetted, or aided any other alien to enter or to try to enter the United States in violation of the law, is inadmissible.

 

https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/AFM/HTML/AFM/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-17138/0-0-0-17444.html#0-0-0-1785

 

[geowrian 22,335]

Was this international travel event something disclosed to the lawyer before filing the I-130 or I-601A? Or at any point prior to departure from the US?

Edited February 28, 2019 by geowrian

[blondietuco 1]

2 minutes ago, Ate said:

 

The definition of "smuggler" does not require any element of financial gain to be applicable:

 

Any alien, who at any time knowingly has encouraged, induced, assisted, abetted, or aided any other alien to enter or to try to enter the United States in violation of the law, is inadmissible.

 

https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/AFM/HTML/AFM/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-17138/0-0-0-17444.html#0-0-0-1785

 

I’m aware of what they’ve used. My lawyer is the one who said the grounds were incorrect beyond the field manual. I’d also be willing to bet at least half the folks using this waiver had someone with them at the time. Are you an attorney offering assistance for a fee?  Are you saying my attorney is an idiot?  The waiver was working until about a year ago. I’m just trying to let folks know there was a new REDACTED field manual issued in early 2018 with a different initiative. And by the way, there used to be a requirement for financial gain. Sorry for seeming like an ###, but you seem to be taking a position of oh well you have a dumb ### lawyer and deserved to get ######. 

[blondietuco 1]

3 minutes ago, geowrian said:

Was this international travel event something disclosed to the lawyer before filing the I-130 or I-601A? Or at any point prior to departure from the US?

Yes it was. She fled her home country nineteen years ago. It was also disclosed in the affidavit to apply for the waiver to begin with. The event occurred 19 years ago. 

[geowrian 22,335]

To be precise, the FAM applies here, not the AFM. The AFM is part of USCIS under DHS. The FAM is part of DOS, which handles visas.

Specifically, this situation is defined under 9 FAM 302.9-7(B)(5) (https://fam.state.gov/fam/09FAM/09FAM030209.html)

"(CT:VISA-543;   03-27-2018)

(U) Encouraging, inducing, or assisting any other alien, even close family members, to enter the United States illegally can result in ineligibility y under INA 212(a)(6)(E). .  This is in contrast to the previous version of this law (INA 212(a)(31)) which was interpreted to exclude actions on behalf of close family members where the sole motive for the actions was family affection and not financial or other “gain.”"

 

Raises the question of why the lawyer was not familiar with the change as it was released to the public almost a full year ago.

Edit: I take that back. After some research, that provision has been there since at least 3/3/2016 (https://web.archive.org/web/20160417233010/https://fam.state.gov/fam/09FAM/09FAM030209.html), which was during the prior president's term.

Edited February 28, 2019 by geowrian

[Ate 180]

6 minutes ago, blondietuco said:

I’m aware of what they’ve used. My lawyer is the one who said the grounds were incorrect beyond the field manual. I’d also be willing to bet at least half the folks using this waiver had someone with them at the time. Are you an attorney offering assistance for a fee?  Are you saying my attorney is an idiot?  The waiver was working until about a year ago. I’m just trying to let folks know there was a new REDACTED field manual issued in early 2018 with a different initiative. And by the way, there used to be a requirement for financial gain. Sorry for seeming like an ###, but you seem to be taking a position of oh well you have a dumb ### lawyer and deserved to get ######. 

 

And you seem to be reading too much into what I wrote.  I'm simply sharing the definition of "smuggler" used by USCIS for the benefit of anyone reading this public forum.  No need to be so defensive.

 

[Visitor User 235]

1 hour ago, blondietuco said:

Used a lawyer. There was no smuggling charge. Her daughter was sitting on her lap on a bus that crossed the border into Mexico in 2000. That is what they are calling smuggling. It’s absurd. 

Was any immigrant petition filed on or before 4/30/01? She was a little baby though and not capable to making own decisions. I am not sure own blood related baby would be called smuggling? Did they qualify for Asylum? Also, wouldn't the baby be covered under consular processing as a child?

Edited February 28, 2019 by Visitor User

[blondietuco 1]

11 minutes ago, geowrian said:

To be precise, the FAM applies here, not the AFM. The AFM is part of USCIS under DHS. The FAM is part of DOS, which handles visas.

Specifically, this situation is defined under 9 FAM 302.9-7(B)(5) (https://fam.state.gov/fam/09FAM/09FAM030209.html)

"(CT:VISA-543;   03-27-2018)

(U) Encouraging, inducing, or assisting any other alien, even close family members, to enter the United States illegally can result in ineligibility y under INA 212(a)(6)(E). .  This is in contrast to the previous version of this law (INA 212(a)(31)) which was interpreted to exclude actions on behalf of close family members where the sole motive for the actions was family affection and not financial or other “gain.”"

 

Raises the question of why the lawyer was not familiar with the change as it was released to the public almost a full year ago.

 

12 minutes ago, geowrian said:

To be precise, the FAM applies here, not the AFM. The AFM is part of USCIS under DHS. The FAM is part of DOS, which handles visas.

Specifically, this situation is defined under 9 FAM 302.9-7(B)(5) (https://fam.state.gov/fam/09FAM/09FAM030209.html)

"(CT:VISA-543;   03-27-2018)

(U) Encouraging, inducing, or assisting any other alien, even close family members, to enter the United States illegally can result in ineligibility y under INA 212(a)(6)(E). .  This is in contrast to the previous version of this law (INA 212(a)(31)) which was interpreted to exclude actions on behalf of close family members where the sole motive for the actions was family affection and not financial or other “gain.”"

 

Raises the question of why the lawyer was not familiar with the change as it was released to the public almost a full year ago.

The lawyer probably goes by the difference between “can” and “shall”. One is concrete, the other allows for interpretation. Does not change the fact that thousands have availed themselves of this waiver and it is being shut down. None of this changes the fact that I served in the USMC, pay more in taxes than most members of Congress make. But I still get on by this ###### up country. So, yeah having my four year old asking me every day what happened to mommy might have me a bit raw. The 601A was meant to reduce family separation time. The 212 stuff has to be filed while outside the country. Seems contradictory, so even if the lawyer knew, that path was shut down. My stepdaughter got her Visa no problem. Whose to say  she didn’t smuggle her mother?

[Boiler 43,429]

The 1 601a came in about 6 years ago and gave people in the US with just the illegal presence issue basically a fast track method of avoiding the I 601 year of waiver processing.

 

As has been said it just applies to that and I have seen many many cases where the limitation has been misunderstood.

 

Having said that I am not sure about the smuggling aspect, I know that smuggling generally has no waiver except in this sort of case. I think I have seen this years ago.

 

You mentioned how they entered into Mexico, how did they enter the US?