Jump to content

josandme

Members
  • Content Count

    40
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About josandme

  • Rank
    Member
  • Member # 91969
  • Location Tulsa, OK, USA

Immigration Timeline & Photos

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. thx, already read that though. It didn't really answer my question as to whether only the last year is used or all 3 must qualify unless im missing something
  2. what are the actual requirements in regards to this? I know about the 125% poverty level but can anyone send me a link to what the actual rules or law is? I have read last years income must meet that level. but then why do they require the last 3 years? Must all years be above that level?
  3. This sounds like an arrival and he was deemed inadmissible. Was this before or during your relationship? If that is correct was he ordered removed? If so he has a ban for a period of time, at least 5 years. If he HAD a visa and it was revoked or cancelled when he tried to arrive in usa there will me some numbers written in his passport. what are they? for example, 212) (a)(7)….
  4. I see where they apply that law, was a shot in the dark 😕 Its sad that a person has done nothing wrong, has only good intentions and can suffer such a harsh penalty only because they tried to do it the right way. thanks for those who replied subject closed
  5. Thank you sir for response. That is basically correct. Except the removal is lawful. It is the ban they attach to a first time removal that is, (as I read the law) unlawful. I agree this is not a subject to be decide on VJ. It was only my intent to see if I was being clear with the argument of my opinion, and hopefully a few lawyers might chime in there onion. 😊 To me that means it has been challenged before and decided. Can you give me reference as to where it is well settled? you are correct it is SOP, but as I read the law it is being applied incorrectly. And yes it would have sweeping consequences if I am right. It looks to me like they have twisted the actual intention of the law just a bit and use it as justification.
  6. readers but no comments... hmmmmm let me try to be more specific Section 235 applies so that the officer may order her removed. Act 212 does NOT apply in this instance. She was never PREVIOUSLY REMOVED. The officials at the border gave her BOTH papers at the same time. Telling her she would be removed, (section 235) then telling her she was banned for trying to enter after she had been removed. act 212 a9. Act 212 was written to in effect “punish” a person who had been previously removed from the US and had knowingly tried to re-enter being inadmissible under the law. (intending to immigrate for example) After the 235 interview the officer could then place the 212 ban on that person to prevent another attempt. The law plainly says, in bold and capital letters, it is for ALIENS PREVIOUSLY REMOVED, and under (i) who again seeks admission within 5 years of the date of such removal. This law obviously does not apply in this instance. She was never “Previously Removed”. She was ordered removed but that order had not been yet completed. Therefore the officer has overreached himself and did not follow nor apply the law correctly. Thus the consequences of 212 must be rescinded.
  7. while I understand your point, it is not a 601 or a 212 issue so I didn't put it there. beyond the normal but perhaps someone reading about visa issues may learn from it?
  8. First, not sure where this goes on this site but since it originated from a b2 I will put it here. I am preparing to send a petition to reconsider to cbp. I need to base it in law. (or at least make an effort since im not an attorney) I want to know before I send it if it make sense, And to the attorneys here I am very curious what your thoughts are. ( this will be edited to try and save space) The officer found Her inadmissible as stated on form I-831, page of 2 of 2 as stated on lower right corner, “to wit: You cannot overcome the presumption of being an intended immigrant, therefore you are not a bona fide visitor to the United States.” He denied entry based on 212(a) which means he thought she was going to remain in usa. He then ordered her removed under 235(b)(1) (we're good to here but now the kink) He gave her a removal order that states: You have been found inadmissible...… blah blah… of section 212(a) of the INA or deportable...… blah blah VWPP (irrelevant here).. blah blah. In accordance with the provisions of section 212 a)(9) of the act you are prohibited from entering, attempting to enter or bein in US. For a period of 5 years from the date.. blah blah.. in proceedings under 235(b)(1) or 240 of the act. Act 212 (a)(9) says (9) 12ALIENS PREVIOUSLY REMOVED.- (A) Certain aliens previously removed.- (i) Arriving aliens.-Any alien who has been ordered removed under section 235(b)(1) or at the end of proceedings under section 240 initiated upon the alien's arrival in the United States and who again seeks admission within 5 years of the date of such removal (or within 20 years in the case of a second or subsequent removal or at any time in the case of an alien convicted of an aggravated felony) is inadmissible. SECTION 235 (b)(1) SAYS, b) 2/ Inspection of Applicants for Admission.- (1) Inspection of aliens arriving in the United States and certain other aliens who have not been admitted or paroled.- (A) Screening.- (i) In general.-If an immigration officer determines that an alien (other than an alien described in subparagraph (F)) who is arriving in the United States or is described in clause (iii) is inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C) or 212(a)(7) , the officer shall order the alien removed from the United States without further hearing or review unless the alien indicates either an intention to apply for asylum under section 208 or a fear of persecution. Section 235 applies so that the officer may order her removed. Act 212 doe NOT apply in this instance. she was never PREVIOUSLY REMOVED. The officials at the border gave her BOTH papers at the same time. Telling her she would be removed, (section 235) then telling her she was banned for trying to enter after she had been removed. act 212 a9. Therefore the officer has overreached himself and not followed the law, so the consequences of 212 must be rescinded. Do you follow that argument? If a person is deemed inadmissible, their petition to enter has at that point been decided. They are then deported under 235 b. To give them after that a 212 a9 ban is like double jeopardy. Obviously a person would not immediately attempt to enter again after they had just been advised of their fate. And since the law says a person attempting to enter has not yet actually "entered" thence no legal rights afforded them by US law, When would a "removal" have occurred? well, what ya think?
  9. @TBoneTX, Here is a perfect example of what I was referring to in my other post. This is HORRIBLE advice!!!!! It will result in a deportation and a ban, affecting them for years, making the situation substantially worse. "see how it goes"...…. like maybe the officer would feel sorry for them and allow them in???? People, please!! Give them CORRECT advice. You can not attempt to enter on a b2 with immigration intent. PERIOD.
  10. The plan of going to panama and filing for spousal visa seems like a good option to me. you would be together, in a safer place, and both could work while waiting for paperwork to crawl through the system. Or perhaps even talk to the embassy there (where you are now) for an expedited visa. The law says you CAN NOT enter the us with intentions of immigrating on a b2 visa. As you were told no-one here will tell you to do that. Now, im not a lawyer, and im not advising you what to do, but let me tell you what the law says, and what will happen if you follow the advice given above. Since the law says you can not enter the US on a B2 visa with the intentions of staying, if you tell the CBP officer your intentions, He will immediately cancel the visa of your husband, deport him, and he will be banned for 5 years. Read that again @Cmpalaz. Understand it well. The officer has no choice. The ban is included in the denied entry because of inadmissibility. Others here are advising you to be honest with CBP, and that is correct, but if you are honest expect consequences. Now, assuming you did get onto the country you have more options but that's a different subject. Let me tell you quite clearly though. If you did enter, and tried to adjust status, and they find evidence that you entered under false misrepresentation,or worse, fraud, that is a denial of adjustment and a lifetime ban. tread carefully. Better safe than sorry.
×
×
  • Create New...