jan22

Probably the most important piece of information in your post was your last sentence when you asked if your petitioner (your Dad) “ have to come back to the US”. Is he not in the US now? If so, is he outside on the US on a short visit or is he residing outside the US? If residing outside the US, does he intend to return to live in the US when you get your immigrant visa? Also, I am assuming that your family has checked to make sure your father did not meet the requirements fir transmitting US citizenship to you at birth?

OP is applying for an immigrant visa, I believe. Without knowing for sure the specific nature of your crime(s) — which we don’t need to, but you can review (preferably with a lawyer knowledgeable about waivers) to make sure there are no hidden issues that would effect your case — since your crimes were more than 15 years ago that would usually mean you just have to show you have been rehabilitated and that admitting you to the US is not contrary to the safety and security of the country.

Per OP’s first post, she was informed of the reason — 212(a)(6)(C)(1) — seeking to obtain an immigration benefit through fraud or misrepresentation. She was also informed as to what the only way forward is, which is to apply for a waiver of the ineligibility. The requested documents may or may not have anything to do with the fraud finding. They are needed, however, to have a complete application. A application must be complete so any possible areas of ineligibility are identified before an applicant can move forward with the waiver application.

Have you had a new medical? They will not/cannot issue your visa with a medical that is more than 6 months old.

No more sure way than any other visa category. There has to be not only an available appointment but also a visa number still available the month the interview is scheduled. But, I still believe the F4, which is close to being DQ-ed will be faster. I would, if financially feasible, still also recommend filing the IR-5 petitions just to be sure.

Hopefully, you remembered to always refer to your parent as your sibling and used all the right pronouns! If so, it does appear that the case slipped through some cracks in the NVC system. It’s a semi-automated process, which is one of the reasons for the provision that provides notification of potential case closure and gives a year for response before a case is actually closed. Regardless of you posing as your uncle and NVC’s error, my opinion in the final paragraph of my first response concerning whether to continue the F4 or start two new cases — requiring two fees and two sets of all documents with potentially two separate timelines for a while — remains the same. Hope you get this all worked out for your family soon.

It was not necessarily an error on NVC’s part if you were the only one contacting NVC about the case. They want to receive contact from the actual parties involved in the case (your parents and your uncle). That’s why all of the information/instructions from NVC talk about what “you” need to do to keep “your” case active. Technically, you are, legally, a third party to your parents’ case and should not be provided any information about it — unless you’re a lawyer and have been documented as their legal representative. Assuming your uncle is willing to still move forward with the case — since he is the one who will need to provide all the updated documentation — it will be cheaper and faster to continue with this case than start all over again. (And, by the way, you can’t close the F4 case. Only your uncle can withdraw the petition.). If the fees are not an issue, you can still file I-130s (two — one for each parent) as a back-up in case your uncle does not want to/can no longer move forward with his case for them.

If she’s a German national, does she still have residency in Italy? Usually, the requirement is for the interview to be in the country of nationality or current residence. Sounds like both of these would be Germany, in your case.

Only if the VWP entry is deemed to be transiting the US or the person is actually a resident of Mexico.

This is one of the somewhat-unknown aspects of the Visa Waiver Program, designed to prevent someone using their full 90-day VWP entry, make a short trip to Mexico, Canada, or the Caribbean (i.e., contiguous territories), and then return to the US for a new 90 day VWP entry. 9 FAM 201.1-4(C)(e)(2)(b) summarizes it by saying that a side trip to to Mexico (or other contiguous territories of the US) does not “reset” the 90-day VWP clock. The time in Mexico is added to the time in the US and, together, they cannot exceed 90 days. https://fam.state.gov/fam/09FAM/09FAM020101.html#:~:text=After the initial admission into,and%2For adjacent islands does There is a provision (section 3, immediately following (2)(b) cited above) for using the VWP to transit to another country. If the re-entry to the US occurs after the initial 90-day VWP entry, you have to show that the intent in returning to the US was not to circumvent US immigration law. Not sure, but I suspect that CBP would not accept that was the case, since OP was made aware of the issue of returning from a contiguous territory on what sounds like a fairly recent trip, and seemingly is planning another trip with exactly the same issue. (Sorry, OP — just trying to present a view from the CBP officer’s perspective). Plus, it’s hard to describe a one-month initial entry into the US and a one- month return entry as “transiting” the US. And, OP — just to clarify, on your last trip, they didn’t give you a new visa at the border — they granted you a new entry under the VWP. It doesn’t sound like you’ve had an actual visa during your travels. Ideally, to comply with US visa law, you would apply for a B2 visa, use it to enter the US for a month and then go to Mexico. When your Mexico trip is finished, you would again seek entry under your visa and spend the final month in the US before going back to Germany. Barring that, flying to a country outside the contiguous territory and then joining your boyfriend in Mexico would officially reset your timeline. But — there are some difficulties with this plan. Sorry if this gets confusing…will try to be as clear as possible. The side trip to another country would have to be at the beginning of the Mexico portion without a return to the US until the final month (e.g., US — Guatemala (or some place withe easy flights to Mexico) — Mexico — US) or it could be determined that you overstayed your VWP entry by not leaving US and contiguous territories within 90 days (if, for example, you went US— Mexico — other country — US). Another possible problem with this plan is, if you put the other country first, follow it with the Mexico portion, and then try to enter the US by land from Mexico, you might run into the issue that you are not seeking entry into the US via a VWP participating carrier. Best plan, IMO, is to apply for a B2 visa before beginnng your trip. Applying in Mexico will not stop the VWP clock, but might get you admitted back into the US. If you get the wrong CBP officer, though, you might be denied entry and possibly lose VWP. More importantly, the visa interview appointment wait times in the Embassy/Consulates in Mexico range from 414 to 728 days — so, you most likely would not even get a visa interview in time — and might not be approved. Appointment wait times in Germany range from 14 days (Munich) to 37 days (Berlin) to 48 days (Frankfurt).

Although I could be wrong, I think it will be very helpful for your waiver application that your mother actually did complete her 2 year requirement. Applying for the waiver should not cause any issues with you entering the US for visits. In a warped way, it might actually help that you need the waiver — once you’re married to a US citizen, the concern might be that you would enter the US and immediately apply to adjust status. You cannot do that without the waiver, so possibly adjusting status isn’t possible! Good luck!

OP: FYI, when the J1 is sponsored by a Fulbright — i.e., is US government funded — a waiver is very difficult to get approved. Perhaps they’ll be a little more flexible with the J2 dependent…you can only apply and find out. I don’t want to sound harsh, but you didn’t “age out” from the J2. You benefited from it for the full duration of the J1 program, if I understood your post correctly. After that, a choice was made to not comply with the requirements for which the J1 was granted for 20 or so years, which is only now an issue that must be addressed for immigration to the US. I would urge you not to approach the waiver application with the primary reason being aging out of being a dependent of the J1 — if that was a reason for a waiver, every dependent would just wait until they turned 21 to avoid the requirement. The “J” visa is designed to be an “exchange” visa. The visa holder comes to the US to experience US culture, education, environment, the people and attitudes, etc. There are specific targeted programs for some countries to facilitate interactions between the countries in certain areas. The goal is for that person to then take what they have learned about/from the US back to their home country and share it, resulting in a better understanding between the people of both countries. Lofty goal that may or may not work — but has no chance if the visa holder and family never return to the home country to share their experiences.

Because they never returned to the “home country” (or last legal residency) from which the J1/J2 was issued.

Is this a fundraiser for the charitable event, i.e., are they selling tickets for it? If so, in addition to the other issues already discussed, he could not participate using a B visa. One of the requirements is that the event be free to those attending.

Why are you dealing with NVC if you are adjusting status? NVC is involved only for those applying for immigrant visas. The reason NVC labeled the determination as “preliminary” is because they have no authority to make a final, legal decision in a case. It means that they looked at the dates in your case and, to them, it appears that you benefit from the CSPA protection, but it is the interviewing officer that will make the final determination at the interview.

Has this call occurred yet? I hope not, as I believe this is a scam. There is no NVC “Outreach Team” that will phone people to pursue their case — they have plenty of work without doing that! There are also several typos/non-standard English errors in the short e-mail. I would be very cautious about providing the information that they say you will need to provide for the call. With that info, they can be “you” and contact NVC and get other info about your family that they could use for fraudulent purposes. At a minimum, I would ask them for a number you could call back to confirm it is actually from NVC before talking to them.

Even if she applies tomorrow, the current wait time for an appointment for a tourist visa interview in Quito is 365 days and Guayaquil is 268 days.

YES. To qualify, you had to be unmarried until the visa was issued and you entered the US.

As everyone who responded here has said — there is nothing that can be done to make you eligible for a visa based on this petition. Again, it was dead the moment you got married. Without an approved, valid petition, you do not qualify for an immigrant visa.

Not at all possible. Even if you divorced your spouse, you wouldn’t qualify. The petition died the moment you got married. There is no legal way to resurrect it.

NVC has no authority to determine you no longer qualify for the visa (which you don’t). As long as you proceed with the case, pay the fees, and submit the documents, they will process your submissions and, ultimately, schedule the case for a visa interview at the Embassy — where it will then be denied, since you no longer qualify for a visa as an unmarried child of an LPR.. The baby’s case cannot be continued as a derivative — if the principal applicant doesn’t qualify, neither does the derivative.

If both parents were US citizens at the time the child was born, you will be filing under 301(c) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1401(c)). Unlike other applications under sections of the law that require physical presence for a number of years, the 301(c) requirement is merely that at least one of the two US citizen parents resided in the US at any point prior to the birth of the child — for any length of time at all. So, your documentation is more than enough to meet that.

Under Section 222(f) of the INA, visa records are “inviolable” (confidential) and are protected from disclosure. Section (b)(3) of the FOIA exempts information from disclosure when it is protected by other federal statutes — which visa records are. (Scroll down to the “Please note” paragraph in item 7 on the State Dept FOIA site: https://foia.state.gov/Request/Guide.aspx#FreedomofInformationActFOIAFOIAExemptions.) The only response to a visa FOIA request will be a copy of what you submitted and a copy of anything that was provided to the applicant at the interview. You will not get a copy of the officer’s case notes. BTW, the exemption from release also would apply if the officer’s notes are based on another agency’s information (e.g., information from law enforcement sources). That information would be exempt from release by the State Dept even without the confidentiality of the visa record. They do not “own” the information and cannot determine if it should be released or not — that decision rests with the agency/entity that created the information.

Generally, there is no time limit for follow-to-join, unless a child involved will turn 21. See 9 FAM 502.1-1(C)(2): https://fam.state.gov/fam/09FAM/09FAM050201.html. Unless you can still access the cases for spouse and children on the NVC website and submit documents, etc., you will need to get an answer from the consulate in how to proceed.

Even though the leaflet is 2013 doesn’t mean it isn’t accurate information. This has been an established part of the re-entry permit process since at least the early 1990’s and is still a part of the process. If, however unlikely it would be, the re-entry permit is denied, the individual would go through the same process discussed here many times — return to the US, be interviewed at the POE, explain the absence (and, in this case, show the I-131 receipt), and get admitted to the US. The worst case scenario would be a referral to an immigration judge.