Sponsor a Second Spousal Visa if History of First Leading to VAWA?

[wyvernrider 1]

I am a US citizen living in California. I have a history of sponsoring a spousal CR1 Visa. Marriage in 2016, divorce finalized early 2023. 

 

In 2021, due a history of bipolar disorder I had a severe psychotic break that led to criminal charges (nothing involving a minor of course). There was no conviction history for these charges as they went through a mental health pretrial diversion with records sealed and expunged. There was no plea or anything. This situation led to spouse filing for divorce and likely a VAWA.

 

I'm currently in a good relationship with someone else. We would likely be getting married next year. 

 

Would there be any estimated significant issues to sponsor someone again with this history? I plan on consulting with an immigration lawyer when the time comes to file the initial packet of course, but this has me a bit stressed thinking of complications.

Edited April 6, 2023 by wyvernrider

[TBoneTX 43,290]

Are you still on the hook for the ex's I-864?

[Boiler 43,622]

You will need to make sure Number 2 is fully aware of your past history as they are likely to be asked about it.

Edited April 6, 2023 by Boiler

[wyvernrider 1]

5 minutes ago, TBoneTX said:

Are you still on the hook for the ex's I-864?

I believe so from what I just read. 

[wyvernrider 1]

13 minutes ago, Boiler said:

You will need to make sure Number 2 is fully aware of your past history as they are likely to be asked about it.

Thank you for the advice. From what I have read, the nature of my charges being dismissed under mental health diversion without conviction or anything that could be possibly considered a conviction given no plea or such would not raise much concern with USCIS.

 

I want to be as cautious as possible though, so I will be sure to do this just in case.

[Sammy_2496 116]

Does your current partner know about all of this?

[wyvernrider 1]

1 minute ago, Sammy_2496 said:

Does your current partner know about all of this?

As I just mentioned, I would inform them when the time is best in an appropriate manner.

 

Please understand this is a very touchy subject as it was a first break of psychosis for a severe mental health condition I had no knowledge of prior. I am stably treated now to prevent it ever happening again.

[Sammy_2496 116]

Just now, wyvernrider said:

As I just mentioned, I would inform them when the time is best in an appropriate manner.

 

Please understand this is a very touchy subject as it was a first break of psychosis for a severe mental health condition I had no knowledge of prior. I am stably treated now to prevent it ever happening again.

I completely understand it is a touchy and sensitive subject. I just hope you inform them of this before any big steps in the immigration process take place. Good luck

[SteveInBostonI130 3,328]

5 hours ago, wyvernrider said:

Thank you for the advice. From what I have read, the nature of my charges being dismissed under mental health diversion without conviction or anything that could be possibly considered a conviction given no plea or such would not raise much concern with USCIS.

 

I would not count on that.  USCIS's background checks discover even sealed records.  And diversion pleas seems to count as a "convictions" in federal background checks.

 

https://ccresourcecenter.org/2019/07/22/diversion-pleas-qualify-as-convictions-under-federal-background-check-law/

 

As someone already mentioned, you should fully discuss this with your future spouse.  Not only for immigration purposes, but also to empower them to make the decision for themselves.  I would not want something like this hidden only to find out years later, and I am sure you would feel the same if the roles were reversed.

 

As you stated, you do not need to have that conversation right away - pick the right time.  But also do not spring this on them at the last second.  

 

Edited April 6, 2023 by SteveInBostonI130

[wyvernrider 1]

11 minutes ago, SteveInBostonI130 said:

 

I would not count on that.  USCIS's background checks discover even sealed records.  And a diversion pleas seems to count as a "convictions" in federal background checks.

 

https://ccresourcecenter.org/2019/07/22/diversion-pleas-qualify-as-convictions-under-federal-background-check-law/

 

As someone already mentioned, you should fully discuss this with your future spouse.  Not only for immigration purposes, but also to empower them to make the decision for themselves.  I would not want something like this hidden only to find out years later, and I am sure you would feel the same if the roles were reversed.

 

As you stated, you do not need to have that conversation right away - pick the right time.  But also do not spring this on them at the last second.  

 

Yes, they would be able to see the record, but it would not be counted as a conviction. The link you posted yourself supports what I am saying. This specific type of diversion does not involve any plea of guilt or anything related. 

 

https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-f-chapter-2

"If the accused is directed to attend a pre-trial diversion or intervention program, where no admission or finding of guilt is required, the order may not count as a conviction for immigration purposes.[10]"

 

I am fully aware of the importance of the partnership and communication in a relationship. That will not be an issue. The focus of this thread is regarding the legal process itself of obtaining the Visa in this situation.

Edited April 6, 2023 by wyvernrider

[pushbrk 12,158]

19 minutes ago, wyvernrider said:

Yes, they would be able to see the record, but it would not be counted as a conviction. The link you posted yourself supports what I am saying. This specific type of diversion does not involve any plea of guilt or anything related. 

 

https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-f-chapter-2

"If the accused is directed to attend a pre-trial diversion or intervention program, where no admission or finding of guilt is required, the order may not count as a conviction for immigration purposes.[10]"

 

I am fully aware of the importance of the partnership and communication in a relationship. That will not be an issue. The focus of this thread is regarding the legal process itself of obtaining the Visa in this situation.

You are getting good "personal advice" which you probably don't need and certainly didn't ask for.  For a spouse visa, the only petitioner criminal record that would be problematic is one that falls under the Adam Walsh Act.  IMBRA, which requires disclosure of criminal records, applies only to K1 fiancée visa petitions.  

 

Yes, USCIS will be able to see this record, but you will not hear from them about it.

[wyvernrider 1]

1 minute ago, pushbrk said:

You are getting good "personal advice" which you probably don't need and certainly didn't ask for.  For a spouse visa, the only petitioner criminal record that would be problematic is one that falls under the Adam Walsh Act.  IMBRA, which requires disclosure of criminal records, applies only to K1 fiancée visa petitions.  

 

Yes, USCIS will be able to see this record, but you will not hear from them about it.

Thank you for your answer. Do you have any knowledge about any possible complications from a previous sponsored spousal visa potentially resulting in the immigrant having pursued a VAWA? Obviously, I'm not even certain if this was actually pursued.

[pushbrk 12,158]

1 minute ago, wyvernrider said:

Thank you for your answer. Do you have any knowledge about any possible complications from a previous sponsored spousal visa potentially resulting in the immigrant having pursued a VAWA? Obviously, I'm not even certain if this was actually pursued.

I thought I covered that in my first answer, when I used the word "only".

[wyvernrider 1]

3 minutes ago, pushbrk said:

I thought I covered that in my first answer, when I used the word "only".

Thank you. It wasn't clear that you meant to include VAWA under that context as VAWA does not involve charges being pressed, and the spouse did not do so.

[pushbrk 12,158]

4 minutes ago, wyvernrider said:

Thank you. It wasn't clear that you meant to include VAWA under that context as VAWA does not involve charges being pressed, and the spouse did not do so.

I meant to "exclude" everything but what I mentioned.