JAB75

Does the AWA only impact applicatnts who are RSOs? What about people with past misdemeanor convictions who served a term of probation but were never given a registration requirement?

That is a good question. Think of it this way. Both the registration laws and the AWA act as it pertains to this topic both apply to the individual based on the wording of the respective laws. Nothing in the AWA act mentions registration, only a very vague description of crimes which, oddly, the USCIS, the department least equipped to do so, is left to determine what crimes apply. So the answer is no, but most, if not all crimes against a minor requiring registration will also be considered a "specific offense against a minor" for the AWA. Many sex crimes not against a minor will require registration but not be applicable to AWA as it pertains to this topic. However, prior to the AWA act and still law is the requirement that any relevant criminal history of the petitioner must be disclosed to the beneficiary.

"Sections 402(a) and (b) of the Adam Walsh Act amended sections 101(a)(15)(K), 204(a) (A) and 204(a) (B)(i) of the Act to prohibit U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents who have been convicted of any "specified offense against a minor" 1 from filing a family-based visa petition on behalf of any beneficiary, unless the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security determines in her sole and unreviewable discretion that the petitioner poses no risk to the beneficiary of the visa petition. The Secretary has delegated to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) the authority to determine whether or not a petitioner convicted of a specified offense against a minor poses no risk to the beneficiary.

"The term 'specified offense against a minor' means an offense against a minor that involves any of the following:

(A) An offense (unless committed by a parent or guardian) involving kidnapping.

(B) An offense (unless committed by a parent or guardian) involving false imprisonment.

© Solicitation to engage in sexual conduct.

(D) Use in a sexual performance.

(E) Solicitation to practice prostitution.

Video voyeurism as described in section 180 I of title 18, United States Code.

(G) Possession, production or distribution of child pornography.

(H) Criminal sexual conduct involving a minor or the use of the Internet to facilitate or attempt such conduct.

(I) Any conduct that by its nature is a sex offense against a minor.

In the case of whether one will need to register as a sex offender, for how long, and whether their info is posted on the Megans Law website will depend on the state law where the crime was committed or where the person relocates to. Another section of the AWA attempted to make the laws concerning registration uniform nationally, but many states, some big ones, found compliance too expensive and some laws under AWA lacking any evidence they were effective and so opted out. The cost of implementing it would be significantly more than the federal funds the AWA act mandates be withheld from states that are not in compliance. The number of registrants nationwide is approaching 1 million. California has nearly 100,000 alone. Lots of previously minor offenses have been put on the registerable list, so people previously arrested, in many cases decades ago, for things like urinating in public, streaking in college, flashing, 18-19 year olds who were arrested for having sex with 17 or 16 year old girlfriends, and other minor non-touch offenses are getting knock on the door and having their info put on the Megans list website essentially destroying their lives. This has spawned many suicides and vigilante murders and beatings. People are forced to move out and sell their homes, separated from friends and family.

And AWA is now further destroying families by separating wives and children of registrants that have chosen to live abroad and start a new life. I was deported after 15 years living in another country after ICE informed my adopted country of my crime from many, many years ago, which was a misdemeanor in my state and not even a crime in my newly adopted country. And now, it appears in all likely hood, I can't even have my fiance follow me here. As a previous poster mentioned, it is impossible to prove someone is "no risk", even those with no criminal history.

So judging by the comments here and all the refusals which can be found posted at the USCIS website (plus Angie Y Shane's comment about being the first American approved, which happened in 2009, 3 years after the AWA came into effect) I would say it looks like maybe 1-50 or maybe 1-100 get approved.

From what kind of fresh hell does this cruel evilness come from?

Hmm, thats a really interesting BIA brief you pulled up.

But when you read it carefully it really doesnt apply to anybody except the specific people in it. Plenty of people are currently applying for and getting K1s and subsequently AOSing with AWAs.

The brief details one specific mans struggles way back in 06.

snipping pieces from the brief_

entered the United States on May 9, 2007, as a K-1 nonimmigrant fiancée of a United States citizen. The respondent’s husband, Mr. Jackson, had filed a Petition for Alien Fiancé(e) (Form I-129F) on behalf of the respondent, which was approved by the United Stateson October 5, 2006

The respondent and Mr. Jackson married on June 13, 2007. Based on this marriage, the respondents filed applications for adjustment of status on July 15, 2007

“Director”) sent the respondents a request for evidence and notice of intent to deny the applications for adjustment based on Mr. Jackson’s May 17, 1979, conviction for sexual abuse--- pursuant to the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006,

decision dated October 22, 2010, the Director found that Mr. Jackson had been convicted of a “specified offense against a minor--Director acknowledged the evidence submitted but determined that it did not meet the required burden of proof. The Director therefore concluded that Mr. Jackson was ineligible to have the visa petition approved on October 5, 2006.

Consequently, the nonimmigrant K visas with which the respondents entered the United States were not valid

Because the respondents were inadmissible as aliens who did not possess valid visas, their applications for adjustment of status were denied.

In this case, the United States citizen petitioner was found to have been ineligible to have his family-based visa petition approved because of his May 17, 1979, conviction. Consequently, the respondents’ nonimmigrant visas were not valid, and they were inadmissible to the United States at the time of entry.

The punchline here is the final paragraph- USCIS at the time incorrectly approved his K1 visa and admitted the woman and child into the US- they realized it when they went to do the AOS paperwork. They fixed it and reversed it declaring them inadmissible. Sad story.

If they had done it properly the woman and child would have been denied the K visa and never made it to the US, married and been put through such turmoil- so again, very very sad story for the family.

The only up side I can see after reading such is that the USCIS has been refining the process since the law was enacted and heart wrenching stories like that (can you imagine getting your visa, moving across the world, marrying and then being told- oh wait we take it back you are in deportation proceedings now gasp////?) are not heard of that often.. Seems like they have the process somewhat more organized now..

This looks like a case where the K visa was granted just after the law went into effect but before they implemented the policy on how top handle them, so revoked it retroactively.

I recall a few users here posting there AWA being approved after a very very long time.

This is the only thread that comes up in the search here- its from 2010 http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/277330-got-approved-k-1-awa-filer/, but the search here hasnt worked right for a long time. I know theres been others since cause this is definitely not the couple I was thinking of..

Theres also plenty of attny websites boasting successful petitions.

Honestly though all that is pretty much meaningless. Everyones case is different. In regards to AWA it does not matter what the statistics are- what the guy next to you sent it. The are looked at on an individual basis.

For many though it can seem hopeless because the wait is so long, so like Hypnos said they chose to move to elsewhere rather then being apart. But in no way is it a definite 100% denial rate.

Thanks for the info. If, in fact, no petition has ever been approved, that would not be meaningless.

Moving elsewhere isn't really an option either, as part of AWA requires RSO's to report international travel 21 days beforehand. ICE then informs the destination country of the travel plans, then the destination country refuses entry. Hopeless is the word.

If subject to the Adam Walsh Act then the bar is extremely high to get a petition approved.

I've seen many couples in that situation choose to move to a foreign country rather than continue the near-futile attempts to bring the alien here.

So you have never heard of one approved then?

I see several petitions posted at the USCIS website showing denial, but have yet to see any approved. Anyone ever heard of one approved?

Thanks in advance.