Denied IR-1 under 212(a)(2)(A)(1) - CIMT

[W199 554]

7 hours ago, lz7782 said:

Hello everyone.

 

After 22 months of waiting for the paperwork for my spousal visa to be processed, we had a bit of a shock when I was denied for having a crime involving moral turpitude on my record. The only reason this was a shock was that our attorney had advised that while the consular officer could make a mistake, this was a point of law and we should be ok.

 

The technical argument is that the offence does not directly map to an offence in the US, and it is divisible, so some aspects can be considered a CIMT and some cannot. The court records no longer exist as this took place so long ago (and I have confirmation from the court on this point). The closest offence under US law is explicitly not considered a CIMT. The brief from our attorney argued:

 

 

The consular officer disagreed with this, and did not give me any real detail as to why. Our attorney remains confident that she is correct, and we have submitted an enquiry to LegalNet as she believes this is a mistake on a point of law, and not a judgement from the consular officer.

 

If anyone has been in a similar situation, or has knowledge of how this will all work, I'd really appreciate hearing about your experiences. There is very little online about LegalNet, but we've been warned that they are not currently operating within their target timeframes for resolution.

 

I think I'll make a good candidate for a waiver based on rehabilitation, but would obviously prefer not to have to wait another two years with the ongoing risk that the waiver is also denied.

 

Well, no criminal ever thinks they are guilty or what they did was so bad, and every lawyer thinks they are right especially when you pay them.  

 

Its weird that you think your crime should not count as CIMT, yet you do not want to even anonymously disclose it (which could be useful as some may have experience or such with it).  

 

>> The closest offence under US law is explicitly not considered a CIMT. The brief from our attorney argued:

I don't see why this is relevant or even a point of law.  "closest" implies it is not the same crime so that doesn't apply.  Law doesn't work by "closest crime".  Its very specific.   And I don't know any law or requirement that the CIMT law does not apply if you are convicted of a CIMT in your country but in USA, it would be considered a different type of crime.  

 

>> so some aspects can be considered a CIMT and some cannot.

You are admitting that some aspects of it are CIMT. Therefore, I don't see why you think the officer made a mistake.

 

The visa officer has a wide range of discretion and arguing a technicality is not likely to be a way to win the case, IMO.  Seems like you should file a waiver with an abundance evidence of why they should overlook the crime, rather than telling them they made a legal mistake.  But that is just my guess, you should follow your attorney.

 

 

 

 

 

[Ban Hammer 15,025]

it's rather difficult for anyone to offer meaningful advice when the full story is not given.

[Lemonslice 5,419]

Please fill your timeline. 

 

 

https://www.visajourney.com/timeline/profile.php?id=495006

[Lemonslice 5,419]

Not fun and extra wait, but better than dealing with ICE later because someone feels you shouldn't have been approved.  Will be cleaner that way. 

[TBoneTX 49,268]

The OP may have hit the limit of posts for a brand-new member.

[JeanneAdil 7,476]

Has the case been returned to the USA ?

 

as Legalnet says they 

 

(U) LegalNet will not provide a substantive response to the categories of inquiries listed below.  Instead, LegalNet may provide a standard form response, listing communication channels potentially available for such inquiries.

(6)  (U) Matters relating to visa cases that have already been returned to a USCIS Service Center;

 

https://fam.state.gov/fam/09FAM/09FAM010304.html

 

otherwise your inquiry will go straight to Legal Advisor for Consular Affairs (L/CA)

(U) Inquiries regarding INA 212(a) ineligibilities (other than security-related grounds) will be forwarded to L/CA;

Edited January 2 by JeanneAdil

[lz7782 0]

I posted on here in December at a very difficult time for both me and my family. I was asking for anybody that had experience with a very specific situation, as I couldn’t find any information about current LegalNet timeframes or how an enquiry to the LegalNet team works in practice.

 

It was a very unpleasant experience tbh. I was shamed, mocked and had multiple posters prying into something I had made clear I didn’t want to expand upon, on the pretext of offering advice that I hadn’t asked for and didn’t need.

 

I honestly will never understand what the internet does to people, but I did not find this to be a friendly or helpful forum and I wasn’t going to ever post on here again, but the enquiry to LegalNet was successful, and I wanted to post the details to offer help to anyone who finds themselves in a similar situation.

 

As I said in my original post, I had an attorney who had written a brief ahead of my interview to explain that my crime was not one of moral turpitude. When I was denied my visa, her view was that the law had been misapplied.

 

If you do want to send an enquiry to LegalNet, this is one of the few reasons that they will look at a decision taken by a consular officer. They will not overrule a matter of judgement.

Quote

 

c.  (U) LegalNet will provide substantive responses only to the following categories of inquiries:

(1)  (U) Legal questions about a specific case when the applicant or representative has attempted to contact post at least twice without receiving a final response, and where 30 days have passed since the second inquiry (unless action is required sooner to avert significant harm to the applicant);

(2)  (U) Legal questions about a specific case in which the applicant or representative has received a final response from post, but believes it to be wrong as a matter of law;

(3)  (U) Legal questions about specific cases involving T visas, U visas, Diversity visas, or adoption visas; and

(4)  (U) Legal questions about specific cases involving the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) or the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).

 

 

https://fam.state.gov/FAM/09FAM/09FAM010304.html#M103_4_2

 

My interview took place December 22nd and we submitted our enquiry through the attorney on December 23rd.

 

LegalNet acknowledged receipt of the email on December 24th. After an enquiry is submitted, the first hurdle is for an administrator to decide whether or not the enquiry is within scope.

 

If it is in scope, they refer it to an attorney. If it is not, you probably won’t ever hear from them again.

 

On December 29th they confirmed the enquiry had been sent to an attorney to review with this email:

Quote

 

Thank you for contacting LegalNet.

Our office is reviewing your case and will respond when we have additional information to share.

Sincerely,

 

 

On January 23rd, after we asked for an update, they sent this email:

Quote

 

Thank you for contacting LegalNet.

Our office contacted the U.S. Embassy in London and you, or your client, should be receiving an update about your client's case.

Sincerely,

 

 

On 5th February, the embassy in London asked me to send my passport to them. It was received on February 9th, the visa was issued on Feb 12th and it arrived today.

 

All contact with LegalNet was through our attorney. I’d strongly recommend using an experienced attorney if you have any criminal record. Without her, we would not have had this positive outcome.

 

Good luck to anyone who finds themselves in a situation like this. The legal system is complex and it is easy for mistakes to be made. I hope the above information is helpful to someone.

[TBoneTX 49,268]

Iz7782,

 

Sincere apologies if you perceived any of the earlier replies to be unkind, shaming, or mocking.  I read them all again and honestly saw nothing that violated the site's Terms of Service.

 

The problem with anything "Internet" is that tone is difficult or nearly impossible to perceive.  When something strikes me the wrong way, I picture the author in person with me, putting his arm around me like a brother or uncle, telling me the posted words in person.  If I can then perceive the tone as kindly, or interested in helping, I then don't need to feel as bad as my first impression led me to feel.

 

Being new to the site, you naturally lack the advantage of knowing who's responding and what their typical approach is.  For what it's worth (a little at least, I hope), I can say that everyone here was replying sincerely and was trying to gain information necessary to deduce how to help you.  Some were diplomatic, some were blunt.  Few members here have had direct experience with LegalNet, and those who know anything probably saw it on this site years ago, so please understand that the folks here were trying their sincere best.

 

With that said:  Thanks a legitimate million for your detailed description of your process.  Yours is recent, obviously, so we now can update our knowledge and memories with good data points from your experience and recommendations.  In addition, thank you for your refreshing literacy in your posting.

 

Massive congratulations on your victory in a very difficult and stressful situation, and celebrate the visa!  You're welcome in any thread here for any reason in the future.