SkolVikes

Juany Mtz

Hello,

I just basically did this exact case for my in laws but was 100x harder. Since the uncle has been out of the USA for over 20 years, any ban for over staying will be over by now. The only way forward now is to file the I-130 and go through the motions. If there is any hicups don't panic. Once they have their interview they will be either get the visa or they won't. If they don't issue the visa they will inform you as to why. My in laws worked in the USA and over stayed their tourist visa and ended up getting their green card. There is an I-601 waiver if need be but you likely won't qualify unless the uncle has a wife or parents living in the USA (legal). If you have any questions reach out or tag me on here  Good Luck!

11 hours ago, Dovydas said:

 

Correct. I'm pretty sure I don't need a waiver and as I checked I-601, my mentioned section doesn't fall into categories who need to file it for AOS as well. But AOS is later, now need to focus on K-1 interview.

Make sure you have plenty of proof to verify that is a genuine relationship and good luck!

Hello,

A few nights ago I was sitting in my bed and watching youtube when I came across an interesting channel. It pertains to visa officers. This in particular one I am pasting worked as an officer for like 20 years IIRC. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwyHGb-oc64&t=3309s

What I am getting at is these people are trained professionals and know how to ask questions. So if you versed back exactly what the paper says they are going to want more detail. Being evasive isn't going to work. Whatever you initially told them you will likely want to stick to IMO. I haven't looked into the particulars of this case but I will say this: I petitioned for my wife then fiance about 12 years ago and filed a  I-601(over stay). To prove hardship was extremely difficult, and looking back at it I probably got lucky winning the waiver.  These officers are giving a lot of power, if I were you I would try to control the narrative of the interview to the best of your ability without over speaking and by sounding authentic. You're going have to sell yourself as you are your only advocate here. Make sure you make your intent of your initial visit known. Which was for "tourist" purposes (visiting family, sight seeing, etc.)

Yes, the fee is paid so now the card will come whenever. All I wanted to know was since they enter as a LPR if they can work upon admittance and you answered yes. Thanks

25 minutes ago, Lil bear said:

You wont get it until the fee is paid. Pay it now is easiest 

Get what? I am asking if they are legally allowed to work since the fee has been paid?

Just a quick update: They arrived today. We are all ecstatic!!, Quick question: The fee for the GC has been paid. Can you work prior to that coming in the mail? or must you wait to have the card in hand?

16 minutes ago, kokoro88 said:

Hi @SkolVikes

 

I have been following your post for months and I am so happy the outcome is positive, hope you reunite with your in laws soon.

 

Because this is the first time I find a case on VJ where someone successfully challenged a bar/inadmissibility from the Consulate (and without the help of an attorney!), I think this is a really good and positive reference for myself and others. 

 

If you don't mind, can you list out and elaborate a bit about all the communication channels you used to contact the different US agencies (and your experience from that, like if they ever replied or how long it took) to have them look into your case? I read through the post again and you mentioned Legalnet, email to Washington, email to Consulate...etc. 

 

Thank you!! 

Hello!

This is the 2nd time I challenge an inadmissibility, the first time was 12 years ago with my then fiance. They tried giving her a 10 year bar when it should have been a 3. It didn't matter at the end of the day because I still had to file a waiver. But non the less they made an error then too.

So when you petition for your parents there isn't a waiver for us in this scenario unfortunatelly. So when they were denied the initial time with a 10 year bar we just had to wait it out. We expected the 2nd time around we would get an approval but that didn't go as expected.  When they were denied the 2nd time I was in contact with the RIO consulate right away. I noticed any in debth answers I wouldn't get a reply back, it would take a while, or it was a reply with not the content I was looking for. I would then send more emails to them. I was worried that whoever was reading them wasn't passing my message along but I think due to my persistence that they seemed to escalate the matter to some sort of a supervisory level. The reason why I say this is I got a reply stating this: 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Sir or Madam,

The ineligibilities were applied by a Consular Officer of the United States and reviewed by the Immigrant Visa Chief Unit and confirmed. The Decision provided is final. You may contact the USCIS directly for information concerning possible waivers or exceptions.  Please review the link below for additional information.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

It was at this point I either take no for an answer or try something else. No lawyer wanted to touch the case that I could find with a denial.  I then reached out to LegalNet. I explained the entire case to them from start to finish. I got a generic reply back. Lost a lot of hope. Rio then reached out 9 months later stating they wanted to conduct another interview and that the charges "may" be dismissed. I knew at this point something changed. If Rio kept giving us a no, I knew it had to come from LegalNet. When I reached out to LegalNet after this Rio email I got a quick reply from them stating that the charges were dropped.

This particular case was a very very long journey and trying. I spent long nights studying and trying to figure out a way as I'm sure many of you do too. I really leaned on VJ to make this happen especially since Immigrate2us was gone. Where it all began. I wish I knew of the back door conversations that occured on this case but it's likely I'll never know. Big thanks to "HRQX"  This person informed me all about LegalNet where the journey began. I truly believe this is where I won the case. Also another big thanks to "Family" for providing all the support needed. Without this page this really wouldn't have been possible. In closing when one is searching for answers, people are looking for a glimmer of hope, unfortunatelly there was one that really wasn't very companssionate in their response and tried to rain on our parade. So if you are going through a similiar situation remain hopeful!, as this is a DIY page they may be right or may not. If I could be of assistance I will.

GOOD LUCK TO ALL!!

1 visa has been approved. Just waiting on the other now!

I emailed LegalNet in September, got a generic reply that same day. Today I got an email stating the following:

Dear ****************

Thank you for contacting LegalNet.

According to our records, your mother’s ineligibility under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) has been removed.  Please contact the U.S. Consulate in Rio de Janeiro for further instructions on how to proceed with the case.

Sincerely,

BJB

LegalNet

Department of State

Just wanted to provide every an update:

The last month and a half has been a roller coaster. Trying to communicate with the consulate has been awful. They really have refused to give us clarity with the matter. So on the https://ais.usvisa-info.com/ they were required to schedule Biometrics appointment. They couldn't scehdule the interview, we tried to find out why, but never got an answer. We were also told a new medical exam was required since it's been over 6 months. They completed the medical exam last week and when attending the biometrics appointment they were told that they didn't need to do it since it was still within a year. So they exited, and were told to schedule an interview now on https://ais.usvisa-info.com/. This was annoying since they could have flew to RIO and completed their medical and interview all at once. So this meant another plane trip and hotel. We followed up with the consulate by email wondering why this couldn't have all been done at once and if an interview was needed, we were informed an interview was no longer needed and to just send the passports in. So that's where we are at now. Passport being sent out!

1 minute ago, limegreenbowler said:

That would be a better question for an attorney who has a lot of experience in consular processing and knows the details of their case, but in general, a rebuttal would need to convince the officer that they legitimately entered as tourists and that something happened to cause them to violate their status within the first 90 days. 

No attorney wanted to touch this case lol.....At this point they will be told as they were told prior. Their intent was never to over stay...

5 minutes ago, ROK2USA said:

Did they disclose their work in the first application or only in the second application? 

I am interested in the result of this case... I wonder if they will approve the case after second interview or give the option of filing a waiver. 

The child when petition for a parent isn't a qualfying realtive for a waiver.. I am sure they did. That interview was around 12 years ago. Doubt they remember those questions but I am sure they filled that out on their DS-260.

1 minute ago, limegreenbowler said:

Immediate relatives applying through consular processing are absolutely subject to the 90 day rule. Nothing in any of the FAM sections posted has indicated anything to the contrary. However, in order to make a finding under the 90 day rule, the officer must present the applicant with finding and give them the opportunity to rebut during the interview. The officer does not have to accept the rebuttal. It's possible that the officer did not do this and your parents are getting a second interview to give them an opportunity to rebut the presumption of misrepresentation. If their rebuttals are not accepted, they'll just get the same finding. But honestly, none of us can say until the interview. I am also curious to hear how this goes.

What kind of rebuttal would in your eyes be acceptable?

11 minutes ago, Timona said:

 

 

1. For the bolded, which is which? I'm now confused. When did the ban end? Was it in 2021 or 2011?

 

2. I doubt if a lifetime bar will be lifted because someone was honest about illegal work. If that's that case, a lot of people with those bans will wish they go that route or anyone currently facing such will do the same and hope for similar result as yours. 

Originally petitioned in 2011 (around), Denied due to a 10 year bar.(over staying) Interviewed again in 2021 due to 10 year bar being over. Denied in 2021 due to 6C1 (212(a)(6)(C)(i). 

(1) The applicant arrived in the US on a B1B2 visa 

(2) The applicant stated that his or her intent was to visit the United States 

(3) Within one month of arrival, the applicant started working which is not permitted on a B1/B2 visa.  "

Like most applicants after the initial ban, expecting they were clear since the 10 years had elapsed my wife petitioned again...

8 minutes ago, Timona said:

 

No. I'm saying they only issue one ban, the greatest of all the laws you broke. I don't think bans are issued in pieces eg serve 10 years for X, then when X is up, 2 years for Y, then another 20 years for Z..I think its just "V years for misusing your visa."

 

I'm thinking in this sense: There are some bans that are lifetime. So, if you broke multiple laws of which lifetime is one of those, how are they going to sum them up? How are you going to issue lifetime ban for doing X, then 10 years for doing Y..Doesn't make sense and it's impossible. In this case, the greatest is lifetime. That's what you get. 

Yah, that's not what happened in this case. Original ban was 10 years for the over stay when they interviewed around 2010/2011. I guess if what you are thinking was the case the first ban should have been a lifetime due to working with 90 days of entering on a tourist visa. (Fraud). They only did the whole proccess again because their 10 year ban was over and that's when they were faced with the lifetime in 2021...

1 minute ago, Timona said:

I think a ban is applied overally, not in pieces. If it were to be applied in pieces, I'm sure a lot of people would have lifetime bans..

So you're thinking since they didn't include the lifetime ban in the original ban at the interview over 10 years ago is the reasoning we are getting a new interview?

1 minute ago, Timona said:

From your post history, looks to me like that ban had already ended and as such, no waiver was needed. My bet is the IO missed that, hence the new email. As such, I highly doubt if your email over the 90 day rule won anything. What won was that the ban had already ended. So when you sent your 90 day email, embassy read it then someone looked over your case to realize the ban was long up.

 

I'm quite sure that if a new B-2 entrant did this and then got a 10 year ban, that 90 day argument won't win anything. They'll have to wait till their ban is up. A tourist visa is a tourist visa. Whether within or outside 90 days, it shouldn't be used to work, or else everyone will be doing this. Who wouldn't want to earn a few dollars then return to their country? 

 

And in your earlier 2021 post, seems your in-laws came on tourists visas, worked for a good while before leaving. Your post from yesterday read like they were only here for 90 days. 

 

Anyways, the ban is up. Proceed as directed by the embassy @SkolVikes

 

@Chancy I don't understand your post above. Kindly elaborate.

 

Thanks to @Ban Hammer for merging the posts. Now everything is clear.

The 10 year bar was giving for the over stay... When returning for interview in 2021 the new bar was for working within 90 days when entering on a tourist visa, which is  a perm. bar.

I can only hope this is good news. I mean why have us schedule an interview after a denial? Months after the fact.

7 minutes ago, Rocio0010 said:

So you’re saying it’s ok to go against the law, provided you then disclose it?

When did I say that? You asked me the arguments and I provided it. Now if you want to argue my arguments I made, look elsewhere.

2 minutes ago, Nig said:

About two months ago I read about your denied case since then I started to pray with my friends for your fil and mil and I know that God will provide the victory ✌️I keep in pray until they have the complete victory 

Ty Nig, We are also from South Coast, Massachusetts!

Just now, Family said:

But @Crazy Cathas intuitive sense , so better have all your Other requirements ..cause the only fly in ointment would be unnecessary delay. ( I-864 and financial updated , carry all original civil docs , check that medical exam was correctly done…) 

All of this was done during the last interview in Q4 of 2021. The only issue is the DS-260 is set to expire in 10 days. When logging into Ceac everything is paid from prior and can't update anything. I will communicate this to RIO. When scheduling the Apointment it wasn't actually to attend the Interview, it's the Biometrics apointment that the website prompted us to do. We called biometrics and they stated if an interview is necessary one will be scheduled same day. So we will find out mid next month the results.

1 minute ago, Crazy Cat said:

I'll defer any additional comments until final action is taken.  I think there is more to come.

What do you "think" is coming?

42 minutes ago, Rocio0010 said:

I’m curious…

Arguments at the time were trying to get them to agree that the 90 day rule wasn't legally binding but more of a reference. Also was trying to sell the point that they were honest in disclosing their jobs and shouldn't be faced with this violation. Another argument was when they attended their first interview they were slapped with the 10 year bar and told to try again in 10 years and when they did were slapped with another bar. Which I found to be disingenious. Basically I was shot down by the consulate and was told that "Immigrant Visa Chief Unit" had reviewed everything and found that my in laws were in fact barred. (Never heard of the Immigrant Chief Unit, Even after researching it. Assuming it's some sort of a supervisory unit?)

2 hours ago, Crazy Cat said:

Is misrepresentation forgiven?  If they lied to an IP?  That was the basis for the denial.  

misrep was for working within 90 days.... I have that clarified by the consulate... here is the email...

"

Both applicants were found  found ineligible for a visa under the 90-day rule for making a misrepresentation that was willful, material, and for an immigration benefit, as defined by INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i). See 9 FAM 302.9-4. The applicant willfully and knowingly misrepresented themselves to a U.S. official and the misrepresentation was material:  

(1) The applicant arrived in the US on a B1B2 visa 

(2) The applicant stated that his or her intent was to visit the United States 

(3) Within one month of arrival, the applicant started working which is not permitted on a B1/B2 visa.  "

7 hours ago, Family said:

The Officer slapped together the 90 day rule & working without authorization …but when Refusal was reviewed ( internally) the Senior Officer realized IR ( immediate relatives) are WAIVED 90 day presumptions and are forgiven working without authorization , therefore NO inadmissibility…Officer made a mistake.

 

No different than if your in-laws had remained here all that time ( in the US ) and did AOS…they would be fine. 
 

So I am glad they cleared it up on their own. 

Thanks, your brilliance is appreciated. When I posted this denial months ago I wish you were around so I could have informed the consulate of this argument, I made other arguments to no success. These forums are a life saver! Will keep everyone posted.