GlobeHopperMama

Vaccine waivers are possible. If you visit Immigrate2us.net, you will find that at least two posters there who applied for them were approved. Vaccines are waived via the I-601 waiver, the same waiver that is used by people who have inadmissiblities due to prior immigration violations, criminal complications, etc. Honestly, the waiver is a massive undertaking and you have to be extremely convicted in your reasons for refusing the vaccines and ready to do a whole ton of work to submit the waiver, not to mention wait out the adjudication time. Fortunately, now that I-601s go to a centralized Lockbox in the US, adjudication times have come down a lot, but I've also not seen a vaccine waiver go through the Lockbox, only London I think, so it's possible the Lockbox will regard vaccine waivers much differently than consulates/London did in the past. I believe both approved vaccine waivers I saw were done on philosophical and possibly religious grounds.
Legalities aside, here's my personal take, as a person who has medical and philosophical oppositions to vaccines but had to go ahead and watch my husband be vaccinated by immigration 4 yrs ago despite the fact that he wasn't even eligible for the visa itself on other grounds, and who will probably watch it all happen again in a month.
1) My husband is the one getting vaccinated, not me. He's fine with my stance on vaccination (which is why our son's vaccines have been limited and far apart). But he doesn't personally care much himself, as someone who grew up in the mainstream medical establishment as the son of a doctor and a nurse. There are so many other issues to hash out in our marriage, and as long as we've been able to come to a compromise on our children's vaccines, that's really the only important thing IMO.
2) Immigration is such a "jump through the hoops" thing. We have a lot more to fight than vaccines, so I know that makes a difference, but I honestly feel like we just have to prostitute ourselves to this process if we want that visa in the end. We do so many things that we find ridiculous, but it's all part of the requirement for our spouse/fiance to have a shot at something that most of the world's population doesn't have an opportunity to do. Someday, when your fiance is in the US with a green card or preferably citizenship, if the immigration vaccine requirement is still a big issue to you (and honestly, sometimes it still gets me riled up, 4 years after we initially went through it), you can work for legislative change that makes it easier to exempt onesself from the vaccines on whatever grounds. But for now, I really suggest just letting your fiance float through the process the best you can without fighting too hard. Good luck!

Here are the expedite criteria from USCIS:
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=16a6b1be1ce85210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=db029c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD
Pregnancy in itself isn't normally considered a reason for expedite, unfortunately. If you face a surgery or an urgent medical procedure, related to the pregnancy or not, there may be a way to argue for expedite.
I know it's terrible to imagine giving birth to your first child with your husband in a totally different country. 4 years ago, I was in the same place as you are now. It was difficult, and I struggled mightily in those months leading up to the birth, but my husband was there by Skype the whole time and he even grabbed some video of my son's first moments of life, it's one of our favorite memories from that day/night. And when he finally met our son, 4 months later, it was such a beautiful moment, and it made all the heartache worth it. If you can, try as much as you can to mentally focus on this baby, on the happy memories that you will have together as a family as the baby grows up into a child, on the things you look forward to about being a mom, and try to let the immigration process be its own current. Which I know is way harder to do than to say. Being pregnant during immigration processing is just so scary and stressful, and it certainly doesn't do anything to alleviate the anxiety that can increase as a byproduct of pregnancy hormones but I found out the hard way that if you give in to that stress and the frightened, negative thoughts, it can make the final weeks and labor so much more difficult. Do all you can to be prepared for each stage of your husband's immigration process, research and make sure you have all documents in order, and then try to prioritize your health and pregnancy as much as you can. That way, whether you get to have your husband there or not, you will know you've done all you can for both the immigration process and for your baby's health. Even though being together for a baby's first days is ideal and much better than the alternative, there are lots of us who have been through it and found that the whole experience made us stronger!

It's really not that simple, unfortunately. Here's an example of how insanely complicated material misrep can be in immigration situations:
http://imminfo.com/Library/how_to_begin/material_misrepresentation.html
It's not about whether you lie for a non-immigrant vs. immigrant benefit, that's for sure. You're right. Either way, it's a lie for immigration purposes. But there's a requirement that the misrep be influential on the outcome/decision. This is why I say the denial/approval of the visa is relevant. I agree that leaving misrep unpunished in visitor visa situations is not just, but if the immigration inadmissibility situation were just, well...I have a lot of opinions but it is extremely unbalanced. Anyway, a not all lies to immigration are material. That's the simple summary. Whether this one is or not, I've never really been able to figure out, and I think can certainly be subject to consular discretion when it comes time to interview for the immigrant visa.

Definitely echo the others.
1) Get yourself really familiar with Immigrate2us.net. Tons of resources on proving hardship, filing waivers, etc.
2) Talk to a new lawyer who can interpret INA 212 a 9 B (one of the simpler inadmissibility statutes) a bit better. On April 24, 2008, your wife hit the 6-month mark of countable unlawful presence and the 3-yr ban activated. On October 27, 2008, she hit one year of unlawful presence and the 10-yr ban activated. So for 9B, she does have the 10-yr bar. Meanwhile, there is also a question of whether the misrepresentation is "material" or not. Only a really good lawyer would be able to say if this is the case. Was the tourist visa approved? That would make a difference. Anyway, Laurel Scott is the prime expert on waivers, but there are others who can also advise on your chances here. Two of the others whose knowledge on inadmissibility is top-notch are linked in my signature. Good luck!

Definitely echo the others.
1) Get yourself really familiar with Immigrate2us.net. Tons of resources on proving hardship, filing waivers, etc.
2) Talk to a new lawyer who can interpret INA 212 a 9 B (one of the simpler inadmissibility statutes) a bit better. On April 24, 2008, your wife hit the 6-month mark of countable unlawful presence and the 3-yr ban activated. On October 27, 2008, she hit one year of unlawful presence and the 10-yr ban activated. So for 9B, she does have the 10-yr bar. Meanwhile, there is also a question of whether the misrepresentation is "material" or not. Only a really good lawyer would be able to say if this is the case. Was the tourist visa approved? That would make a difference. Anyway, Laurel Scott is the prime expert on waivers, but there are others who can also advise on your chances here. Two of the others whose knowledge on inadmissibility is top-notch are linked in my signature. Good luck!

I can't seem to properly multi-quote but I just wanted to say two things:
1) If a person EWI and interviewed at Albania, there's a good chance Tirana got confused, especially based on the fact that the INA section referenced is not related to the person's history. Consular officers are well-trained, they are very familiar with lots of sections of the law, but immigration law is terribly complex. It is just so difficult for all of them to know every single minutia of the law, and some of us who deal with those specific sections every day in our own family's cases understand them better than someone who is dealing with every part of the spectrum of immigration law. I still think consular officers are under an immense amount of pressure and deal with it amazingly, but mistakes are made, all the time, and we often see them on online forums when people have odd problems. True, unless we're reviewing a person's entire case history, it's difficult to really know what's going on, but it's not outside the realm of possibility that a consulate mis-applies the law.
2) Some posters here may not be familiar with the procedure when a person from a non-Mexican country EWIs. They are not simply "kicked out" if caught entering without inspection because the US can't just toss somebody into Mexico if that person isn't clearly a Mexican national. Many non-Mexicans claim (and pretend) to be Mexican citizens at this point because getting simply kicked out at the border is preferable to what comes next if you're not Mexican, which that you get detained and placed in detention until DHS can properly deport you to your actual country of origin, or long ago when they dealt with tons of entrants of this type, people were simply given a court date and told to show up for removal proceedings, which in most cases they didn't, which is why they now have detention centers and long detentions. It's actually impressive that this particular person not only got released from detention after only a month, even with an asylum plea, but also that he was able to secure voluntary departure. Generous judge I guess.
Anyway, the only inadmissibility mentioned was the INA 212 a 9A reference, which is specifically for deportation rather than VD. So either he WAS formally deported at government expense and somehow mistakenly thinks he got VD, or the consular determination of inadmissibility was wrong. They wouldn't say it was INA 212 a 9A if they're actually holding this as a frivolous asylum claim, which I think falls under INA 208 or something like that.

I can't seem to properly multi-quote but I just wanted to say two things:
1) If a person EWI and interviewed at Albania, there's a good chance Tirana got confused, especially based on the fact that the INA section referenced is not related to the person's history. Consular officers are well-trained, they are very familiar with lots of sections of the law, but immigration law is terribly complex. It is just so difficult for all of them to know every single minutia of the law, and some of us who deal with those specific sections every day in our own family's cases understand them better than someone who is dealing with every part of the spectrum of immigration law. I still think consular officers are under an immense amount of pressure and deal with it amazingly, but mistakes are made, all the time, and we often see them on online forums when people have odd problems. True, unless we're reviewing a person's entire case history, it's difficult to really know what's going on, but it's not outside the realm of possibility that a consulate mis-applies the law.
2) Some posters here may not be familiar with the procedure when a person from a non-Mexican country EWIs. They are not simply "kicked out" if caught entering without inspection because the US can't just toss somebody into Mexico if that person isn't clearly a Mexican national. Many non-Mexicans claim (and pretend) to be Mexican citizens at this point because getting simply kicked out at the border is preferable to what comes next if you're not Mexican, which that you get detained and placed in detention until DHS can properly deport you to your actual country of origin, or long ago when they dealt with tons of entrants of this type, people were simply given a court date and told to show up for removal proceedings, which in most cases they didn't, which is why they now have detention centers and long detentions. It's actually impressive that this particular person not only got released from detention after only a month, even with an asylum plea, but also that he was able to secure voluntary departure. Generous judge I guess.
Anyway, the only inadmissibility mentioned was the INA 212 a 9A reference, which is specifically for deportation rather than VD. So either he WAS formally deported at government expense and somehow mistakenly thinks he got VD, or the consular determination of inadmissibility was wrong. They wouldn't say it was INA 212 a 9A if they're actually holding this as a frivolous asylum claim, which I think falls under INA 208 or something like that.

Actually, I would disagree slightly with this. A CO in Albania would not be anywhere near as experienced with EWIs as a CO in Juarez.

Yup, like the previous poster said, just make sure to chose a state that doesn't require too much in advance of the wedding. Some states require a certain amount of time between the marriage license and the wedding, some require other things to be done first. So just pick a location that makes it easy to get married as a tourist. Make sure to request a ton of copies of your marriage certificate afterwards. Between Canada's immigration process and anything you may need to accomplish in Panama (including someday if you have children and want to pass on your citizenships), you'll be burning through marriage certificates all the time.

Yup, like the previous poster said, just make sure to chose a state that doesn't require too much in advance of the wedding. Some states require a certain amount of time between the marriage license and the wedding, some require other things to be done first. So just pick a location that makes it easy to get married as a tourist. Make sure to request a ton of copies of your marriage certificate afterwards. Between Canada's immigration process and anything you may need to accomplish in Panama (including someday if you have children and want to pass on your citizenships), you'll be burning through marriage certificates all the time.

Why does the language issue keep popping up? It's really upsetting. Members who are ANSWERING aren't at fault in which forum the OP posted IN. Yes, okay, fine - the OP should post in "English" but the replies ... Good gosh. Forget it.
Uphill battle in daily life and looks like here as well.
Good day to all.

Which embassy was this? I've recently discovered that sometimes the consular officials determining inadmissibility are more clueless than others about the INA and what it means.
INA 212a9a does not require an I-601 waiver, it requires an I-212 waiver, but I don't believe it should apply to your case anyway because it's for those who were formally deported and if you took Voluntary Departure, you avoid that whole issue in the first place. My suspicion is just that the embassy is terribly confused. If your lawyer is unable to get them to review the decision, then as previously mentioned, an Advisory Opinion with the department of State in Washington is in order, but unfortunately only an attorney can file this, you can't do it on your own. At this point I would be urging the attorney to go in that direction since it seems the embassy is currently unresponsive.

Best way to deal with it is to stop looking at other people's dates and focus on your own. It drove me crazy. I would keep hounding USCIS and speak to a Tier 2 and get your Senator involved, whether or not it helps. Focus on your file as everyone's is different.

Yes, the other case may have been expedited. But also, it is helpful to think of it like this:
"Cases are looked at in the order they come in- they are not approved in the order they come in.".
Some cases are easier than others to approve, some cases require the USCIS staff to look at more paperwork, or the US petitioner has a common name and so name checks take longer etc.

I would agree with prior posts that whether you do K-1 or CR-1 (and personally I would go with the CR-1 after a Canada wedding), there is a risk of a misrepresentation ban.
I really disagree with this. CBP/ POE officials are some of the LEAST informed about the actual application of the INA when it comes to issuing visas. They know how to check for visas and screen people for entry on those visas to the US. But they typically don't know how misrepresentation at the POE can affect visa issuance, and they really aren't the ones who make that decision anyway. CBP/POE officers and even immigration judges routinely give people false hope, telling them to just go home and "apply the right way" and all will be fine, only for those people to get hit with lifetime bans when the consular officers apply the law to their cases.
Also, the honesty of saying those were wedding measurements is offset by the initial explanation that this was a brief visit. Also the immigrant intent displayed by the contents of the luggage will present an obstacle against most other arguments. There is a legal way to make a "timely retraction argument" and this could apply, but you're going to want a lawyer involved if you're attempting that path.
I would go in prepared for the worst and hoping for the best. Worst being that the incident at the POE will be construed as misrepresentation (and honestly, the final determination on this is made by the consular officers' review of the incident on record, not the POE officials' words during the incident). Best being no misrep, just get the immigrant visa and move on with your new life. If it is misrepresentation, there is an I-601 waiver available, in which you would need to detail the hardship your fiancee/wife would experience in the event you were banned from her country for life as the misrep ban (INA 212 a 6 c i) requires. It may be wise to consult an attorney experienced in inadmissiblity before you even apply for a visa, just to see if there's a way to mitigate any of the stuff that happened and avoid a determination of misrep in the first place. There are three linked in my signature. The first is one of the top in the field for truly insane and complicated cases like mine, but comes at a price. The other two handle a more full range of inadmissibility/waiver cases and are great people who do free initial consults. I would talk to one of them before you do anything, to get their take on the case and start planning the best path.

I would agree with prior posts that whether you do K-1 or CR-1 (and personally I would go with the CR-1 after a Canada wedding), there is a risk of a misrepresentation ban.
I really disagree with this. CBP/ POE officials are some of the LEAST informed about the actual application of the INA when it comes to issuing visas. They know how to check for visas and screen people for entry on those visas to the US. But they typically don't know how misrepresentation at the POE can affect visa issuance, and they really aren't the ones who make that decision anyway. CBP/POE officers and even immigration judges routinely give people false hope, telling them to just go home and "apply the right way" and all will be fine, only for those people to get hit with lifetime bans when the consular officers apply the law to their cases.
Also, the honesty of saying those were wedding measurements is offset by the initial explanation that this was a brief visit. Also the immigrant intent displayed by the contents of the luggage will present an obstacle against most other arguments. There is a legal way to make a "timely retraction argument" and this could apply, but you're going to want a lawyer involved if you're attempting that path.
I would go in prepared for the worst and hoping for the best. Worst being that the incident at the POE will be construed as misrepresentation (and honestly, the final determination on this is made by the consular officers' review of the incident on record, not the POE officials' words during the incident). Best being no misrep, just get the immigrant visa and move on with your new life. If it is misrepresentation, there is an I-601 waiver available, in which you would need to detail the hardship your fiancee/wife would experience in the event you were banned from her country for life as the misrep ban (INA 212 a 6 c i) requires. It may be wise to consult an attorney experienced in inadmissiblity before you even apply for a visa, just to see if there's a way to mitigate any of the stuff that happened and avoid a determination of misrep in the first place. There are three linked in my signature. The first is one of the top in the field for truly insane and complicated cases like mine, but comes at a price. The other two handle a more full range of inadmissibility/waiver cases and are great people who do free initial consults. I would talk to one of them before you do anything, to get their take on the case and start planning the best path.

You could do an FOIA, but as I said before, the final decision is made at the consulate when you interview for the visa. Right now, nobody can punch in info to a computer and tell you, "Yeah, you're banned under XXX section" or "No, you're fine". And FOIAs often take time, time that I doubt you want to waste sitting there finding out something you'll eventually find out anyway when you interview. The most you might find out is some notes on what they say happened that day. But being refused entry itself isn't a problem. It's just any potential that the info they put into their report will be construed as misrepresentation at the consulate when you go for an immigrant visa. Before you freak out or assume you're screwed, talk to one of those lawyers I recommended. They can help you go in with a level head. Maybe there's nothing to worry about. Maybe there is. Either way, there's hope. And truly, go into the interview prepared with legal advice.

I would agree with prior posts that whether you do K-1 or CR-1 (and personally I would go with the CR-1 after a Canada wedding), there is a risk of a misrepresentation ban.
I really disagree with this. CBP/ POE officials are some of the LEAST informed about the actual application of the INA when it comes to issuing visas. They know how to check for visas and screen people for entry on those visas to the US. But they typically don't know how misrepresentation at the POE can affect visa issuance, and they really aren't the ones who make that decision anyway. CBP/POE officers and even immigration judges routinely give people false hope, telling them to just go home and "apply the right way" and all will be fine, only for those people to get hit with lifetime bans when the consular officers apply the law to their cases.
Also, the honesty of saying those were wedding measurements is offset by the initial explanation that this was a brief visit. Also the immigrant intent displayed by the contents of the luggage will present an obstacle against most other arguments. There is a legal way to make a "timely retraction argument" and this could apply, but you're going to want a lawyer involved if you're attempting that path.
I would go in prepared for the worst and hoping for the best. Worst being that the incident at the POE will be construed as misrepresentation (and honestly, the final determination on this is made by the consular officers' review of the incident on record, not the POE officials' words during the incident). Best being no misrep, just get the immigrant visa and move on with your new life. If it is misrepresentation, there is an I-601 waiver available, in which you would need to detail the hardship your fiancee/wife would experience in the event you were banned from her country for life as the misrep ban (INA 212 a 6 c i) requires. It may be wise to consult an attorney experienced in inadmissiblity before you even apply for a visa, just to see if there's a way to mitigate any of the stuff that happened and avoid a determination of misrep in the first place. There are three linked in my signature. The first is one of the top in the field for truly insane and complicated cases like mine, but comes at a price. The other two handle a more full range of inadmissibility/waiver cases and are great people who do free initial consults. I would talk to one of them before you do anything, to get their take on the case and start planning the best path.

Can you ask for a refund, from your couples-friends? They seem to have given you really bad advice.

Get married in Canada, have your wife return the the US and file a cr-1 visa while you stay in Canada until the visa is issued.

Just to clarify some things mentioned above:
1) DACA does not result in a work visa. It does offer work authorization, but DACA is simply protection from deportation, it's not an actual visa. It's only valid for 2 years, and if after those 2 years, the govt decides to cancel the program, the immigrant is without status again at best, and on a shortlist for deportation at worst. It's not a magic cure-all, and definitely should be considered carefully.
2) There is no way to just adjust to a green card from DACA at the moment, especially for a person who entered the US without inspection.
3) Obama can not "pass" anything. Congress passes our immigration laws. However, the current administration did propose the I-601A "provisional waiver" and i think that's what you're talking about. It has already been set into motion, the final steps are in motion right now, and it should be implemented before the end of the year. However, one key qualifying factor is that you CAN'T have an interview scheduled at the consulate, which means you shouldn't have submitted the final packet to the NVC, since that's what triggers interview scheduling. So if you want to take advantage of this, you need to wait on that final packet. There are numerous signs that the provisional waiver is imminent. Any day between now and the last day of December.
In summary, DACA is a temporary band-aid solution. It's not as permanent as a green card. Provisional waiver is a possible solution with a much more long-term effect.
I understand the fear of going to CDJ or Mexico in general. My husband and I went to CDJ for a visa interview, I lived in Northern Mexico for a year, and my husband, who would have qualified for DACA had it been put in place while he was in the States, spent over 4 years living there after we married and lived to tell the tale. Honestly, I think a lot of stuff is overplayed in the media, but if that's enough to keep you from pursuing a green card even when you're eligible for a waiver and have a good hardship case, then go for DACA until you can work up the nerve to go through the consular process. Otherwise, keep in mind that literally thousands of people go through this process every year without any incursion with the media-sensationalized drug and cartel violence, and it could be worthy sacrifice in exchange for a green card!

Just to clarify some things mentioned above:
1) DACA does not result in a work visa. It does offer work authorization, but DACA is simply protection from deportation, it's not an actual visa. It's only valid for 2 years, and if after those 2 years, the govt decides to cancel the program, the immigrant is without status again at best, and on a shortlist for deportation at worst. It's not a magic cure-all, and definitely should be considered carefully.
2) There is no way to just adjust to a green card from DACA at the moment, especially for a person who entered the US without inspection.
3) Obama can not "pass" anything. Congress passes our immigration laws. However, the current administration did propose the I-601A "provisional waiver" and i think that's what you're talking about. It has already been set into motion, the final steps are in motion right now, and it should be implemented before the end of the year. However, one key qualifying factor is that you CAN'T have an interview scheduled at the consulate, which means you shouldn't have submitted the final packet to the NVC, since that's what triggers interview scheduling. So if you want to take advantage of this, you need to wait on that final packet. There are numerous signs that the provisional waiver is imminent. Any day between now and the last day of December.
In summary, DACA is a temporary band-aid solution. It's not as permanent as a green card. Provisional waiver is a possible solution with a much more long-term effect.
I understand the fear of going to CDJ or Mexico in general. My husband and I went to CDJ for a visa interview, I lived in Northern Mexico for a year, and my husband, who would have qualified for DACA had it been put in place while he was in the States, spent over 4 years living there after we married and lived to tell the tale. Honestly, I think a lot of stuff is overplayed in the media, but if that's enough to keep you from pursuing a green card even when you're eligible for a waiver and have a good hardship case, then go for DACA until you can work up the nerve to go through the consular process. Otherwise, keep in mind that literally thousands of people go through this process every year without any incursion with the media-sensationalized drug and cartel violence, and it could be worthy sacrifice in exchange for a green card!

This is not true - no accusation of this type exists.
The person entered the country for a visit and now the circumstances changed. He is free to avail himself of AOS.
OP - there is probably little to no risk of applying for adjustment of status now, but you haven't given all the facts of the case. We don't know if the beneficiary has a criminal history or was not actually eligible to use the VWP or anything like that. One risk no matter what is that if they are denied, there is no appeal.
The USC needs to be eligible for the Affidavit of Support, or have a co-sponsor that makes enough.

Ditto to the suggestion to visit immigrate2us.net
You may be at least able to prepare the petition yourself if you research VERY carefully and make sure to write the correct information on the petition. Immigrate2us can be helpful for this. That gives you time to save money for a good lawyer to do the waiver you'll most likely need, and not waste more time apart than you absolutely have to from this point. I suggest all of the lawyers listed in my signature. Not every immigration lawyer out there necessarily understands how to work with waivers and it's a field that constantly changes, so you need to pick a lawyer who specializes in waivers. Those three are all waiver specialists. If he was deported for unlawful presence in the US, he probably has a 10-year ban that needs to be waived, plus the deportation ban which is either 5 or 10 years depending on the terms of the deportation. The petition is the very first step and probably the simplest. After that it's going to be much more complex and you WILL want the assistance of someone skilled in knowing how to make good arguments. Good luck!

Actually I HAVE found the GUIDE section, but it lists 3 "documents" links I need for K1 Visa......where we have never done this before, it is quite confusing, as to EXACTLY (since we want it done properly)which documents they want for the initial application....I realize us NEWBIES must be a bother to you old hands...if that is the case perhaps you should ignore the bothersome posts and move on