USCIS... DENIALS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN...

[pushbrk 12,105]

if you are a sex-offender and you are convicted and you apply for a K1 visa the USCIS will deny you! the Adam Walsh Act is clear that you are excluded unless you can prove that you are NOt a threat to your fiancee'! i hope that you can satisfy them if you apply...

any ideas?

is anyone interested in bringing a lawsuit against USCIS for this issue?

I know I'm late to this thread but two items of clarification. First, US Citizens don't apply for K1 visas. They file I-129F petitions. It's the petition that will get denied. Second, suing USCIS for enforcing the law (Adam Walsh Act) would be like suing your local police department for enforcing the sex crime law violated in the first place. They are simply following and enforcing the law.

Edited March 8, 2010 by pushbrk

[A and T 82]

I know I'm late to this thread but two items of clarification. First, US Citizens don't apply for K1 visas. They file I-129F petitions. It's the petition that will get denied. Second, suing USCIS for enforcing the law (Adam Walsh Act) would be like suing your local police department for enforcing the sex crime law violated in the first place. They are simply following and enforcing the law.

They should still be required in a resaonable time frame to provide a yes or no answer. Also they could help themselves by making a post of who under IMBRA will really be considered and who won't.

They really need to be more specific , if they don't respond, how long should a person go before sueing them? What is a reasonable time frame? 1 year? 2 years ? how long would you wait personally?

If you are a dangerous person, then you should remain in jail. If you are not in jail, or did no time in jail , then clearly you are not a threat. If they think you still are, then they should take that issue up with directly with law enforcement , or state reps .

[Old Dominion 26]

I agree - USCIS should be more forthcoming and it isn't even trying. They are saddled with a congressional action that needed to be more specific. As to suing, since there is no "right" for a USC to bring someone to the US, no rights are being violated by the terrible delays.

[purpleorchid 0]

Obviously, the AWA is going so far!

The real criminal, they will violate the law by any way regardless whatever enforcement on them. The SORNA derived from AWA is a great waste of fund, which should used for cracking down on those real criminal but focuse on the routine. It is a shame!

[Deputy Purple 1,294]

Obviously, the AWA is going so far!

The real criminal, they will violate the law by any way regardless whatever enforcement on them. The SORNA derived from AWA is a great waste of fund, which should used for cracking down on those real criminal but focuse on the routine. It is a shame!

You are making a common mistake, assuming that SORNA & AWA are really about protecting children. The fact is that they are not. Neither is the Center for Missing & Exploited Children. It's really just politicians who have found an easy way to get voters behind them.

AWA & SORNA are both reactionary after the child has already been abused. Find one part of either that works towards prevention.

The Registries tell parents to be on the look-out for the stranger pervert hiding down the block but it's a fact that more than 90% of sex offenses against children are committed by "insiders" who are either family members, considered to be close trusted friends of the family or in some other position of trust within the child's life such as teacher or babysitter.

The Registry gives parents a false sense of security so they are more likely to let their guard down. While keeping an eye on the guy down the street who has never had any contact with their child they are overlooking the all of the adults in their child's life on a daily basis.

[purpleorchid 0]

You are making a common mistake, assuming that SORNA & AWA are really about protecting children. The fact is that they are not. Neither is the Center for Missing & Exploited Children. It's really just politicians who have found an easy way to get voters behind them.

AWA & SORNA are both reactionary after the child has already been abused. Find one part of either that works towards prevention.

The Registries tell parents to be on the look-out for the stranger pervert hiding down the block but it's a fact that more than 90% of sex offenses against children are committed by "insiders" who are either family members, considered to be close trusted friends of the family or in some other position of trust within the child's life such as teacher or babysitter.

The Registry gives parents a false sense of security so they are more likely to let their guard down. While keeping an eye on the guy down the street who has never had any contact with their child they are overlooking the all of the adults in their child's life on a daily basis.

Bob,

Sorry for a Jackaroo here don't know how to edit the post. I agree with you said "It's really just politicians who have found an easy way to get voters behind them."

http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/...hes-white-house

Sorry to say,many of the registries were convicted dated back to decades ago, who poses no risk to society and no thread to re-offend but get stigma attached to him all his life long.

[Tech-MoLeidy 1]

you know the best thing for you is just live with ur fiance wherever she at try to migrate there if you really loves your fiance. Im just saying!

I read every post in this thread because I enjoyed the bantering. I found some posts are written quite well with intelligence and more than a bit of insight. While other ones, uh.....well.... tended to be written by those who might have better luck not trying to argue with folks much smarter than themselves (I think you know who you are). I must say that I have to go with the one post above as my favorite. I'm just sayin'

Oh and by the way has anyone else noticed that the original poster SEEMS to wear his status as a "Sex Offender" as a badge by creating a profile with the name s.o. and then posting a question with regard to the issue?

As for my stand on the issue.... Look, sure there are some of those who get screwed by the laws the way they are written. Sure there are those out there who have gotten caught skinny dipping or knockin' boots with their 17yo girlfriend while they're 19yo or something. But don't you think that if that were the case with the original poster and our buddy nonabilitytoconverse that they would be raring to fight against it long before they ever have to deal with this privilege being taken away? I mean that's like me getting my identity stolen and then getting angry with the mortgage company about it only when I get turned down for a house having known the whole time. My fight would have long ago been with the credit bureaus.

Now of course if I was just a bad credit risk, than I might tend to get angry at the mortgage company for not giving me a break and having rules against loaning people like me money. You see what I'm saying?

I just don't think this is the setting that a wrongly stigmatized sex offender would choose to conduct poll to find support in his efforts to be treated as an equal. So in my book that puts him and his staunchest defenders in the groups of people I don't take a likin' to.... thieves, child molesters and men who beat or rape women or defend those who do (to include lawyers).

For those of you who are, or choose to fight for those who are, wrongly stigmatized by the law...More power to you, but this isn't the place nor is USCIS the agency to take that fight to. I do wish you good luck however....

Tech-Mo

[Old Dominion 26]

I read every post in this thread because I enjoyed the bantering. I found some posts are written quite well with intelligence and more than a bit of insight. While other ones, uh.....well.... tended to be written by those who might have better luck not trying to argue with folks much smarter than themselves (I think you know who you are). I must say that I have to go with the one post above as my favorite. I'm just sayin'

Oh and by the way has anyone else noticed that the original poster SEEMS to wear his status as a "Sex Offender" as a badge by creating a profile with the name s.o. and then posting a question with regard to the issue?

As for my stand on the issue.... Look, sure there are some of those who get screwed by the laws the way they are written. Sure there are those out there who have gotten caught skinny dipping or knockin' boots with their 17yo girlfriend while they're 19yo or something. But don't you think that if that were the case with the original poster and our buddy nonabilitytoconverse that they would be raring to fight against it long before they ever have to deal with this privilege being taken away? I mean that's like me getting my identity stolen and then getting angry with the mortgage company about it only when I get turned down for a house having known the whole time. My fight would have long ago been with the credit bureaus.

Now of course if I was just a bad credit risk, than I might tend to get angry at the mortgage company for not giving me a break and having rules against loaning people like me money. You see what I'm saying?

I just don't think this is the setting that a wrongly stigmatized sex offender would choose to conduct poll to find support in his efforts to be treated as an equal. So in my book that puts him and his staunchest defenders in the groups of people I don't take a likin' to.... thieves, child molesters and men who beat or rape women or defend those who do (to include lawyers).

For those of you who are, or choose to fight for those who are, wrongly stigmatized by the law...More power to you, but this isn't the place nor is USCIS the agency to take that fight to. I do wish you good luck however....

Tech-Mo

Exactly: "I just don't think this is the setting that a wrongly stigmatized sex offender would choose to conduct poll to find support in his efforts to be treated as an equal. So in my book that puts him and his staunchest defenders in the groups of people I don't take a likin' to.... thieves, child molesters and men who beat or rape women or defend those who do (to include lawyers)."

[A and T 82]

Exactly: "I just don't think this is the setting that a wrongly stigmatized sex offender would choose to conduct poll to find support in his efforts to be treated as an equal. So in my book that puts him and his staunchest defenders in the groups of people I don't take a likin' to.... thieves, child molesters and men who beat or rape women or defend those who do (to include lawyers)."

The statement really makes no sense not all sex offender are rapist, big difference in a lot of the things that can get you labeled an offender vs touching or having sex with small children.

Also, all citizens should have the legal right to due process , so its really not for any person to judge without all the facts. This thread is a giant troll board, a sex offender posts, then everyone after posts how terrible and how un deserving, etc this person is, without knowing anything about them at all

So, shame on you all that condem without facts. You don't see other people that have been denied , have long posts with people saying " oh well thats what you get"

Edited March 31, 2010 by nonversation

[Tech-MoLeidy 1]

The statement really makes no sense not all sex offender are rapist, big difference in a lot of the things that can get you labeled an offender vs touching or having sex with small children.

Also, all citizens should have the legal right to due process , so its really not for any person to judge without all the facts. This thread is a giant troll board, a sex offender posts, then everyone after posts how terrible and how un deserving, etc this person is, without knowing anything about them at all

So, shame on you all that condem without facts. You don't see other people that have been denied , have long posts with people saying " oh well thats what you get"

Well bless your heart nonversation, your point of view certainly has a noticeable level of vehemenacy to it. It’s a tough road to hall to persuade those who are so closed minded to an issue that their steadfast beliefs won’t let them show the slightest bit acclamation for your poignant admonishments. I give you credit for you tenacity.

Hey by the way……. You wouldn’t happen to want to buy a bus for any reason would you? I have a really cool bus for sale if you’re interested. I'll include a photo of it for you to check out......

[A and T 82]

Well bless your heart nonversation, your point of view certainly has a noticeable level of vehemenacy to it. It’s a tough road to hall to persuade those who are so closed minded to an issue that their steadfast beliefs won’t let them show the slightest bit acclamation for your poignant admonishments. I give you credit for you tenacity.

Hey by the way……. You wouldn’t happen to want to buy a bus for any reason would you? I have a really cool bus for sale if you’re interested. I'll include a photo of it for you to check out......

That bus does look nice, how often do you ride in it?

[toma1 10]

The troll that started this thread really struck gold here, didn't he...

"S.O." LOL... the only thing he did wrong was not wait until April 1.

Edited April 3, 2010 by toma1

[Tanya and Barry 59]

People want to blame politicians for making a law that attempts to protect children. Then of course they blame politicians if they don't make a law that attempts to protect children. Of course the laws are political in nature. They are written by politicians. It's been that way since 1783. If you don't think so you are very naive. If you don't like the law write your Congressman. Vote against him/her if they voted for it if you disagree.

As for as the SO debate. Actions have consequences. An SO complaining about having to wait for a decision illicits no sympathy from me. The USCIS is understaffed. They have too many petitions per adjudicator to process. There are non-offending folks who have waited a long time for their paperwork to be processed. If a SO has to wait that is OK with me.

[DeniseBill 4]

My 50 cents, I think sex offenders, as in any man or woman who has sexual contact with any other person against their will should be locked up in a dungeon never to be released again and suffer for the rest of their lives without any contact with the outside world untill they go to hell and suffer more.

[C0881 2]

My 50 cents, I think sex offenders, as in any man or woman who has sexual contact with any other person against their will should be locked up in a dungeon never to be released again and suffer for the rest of their lives without any contact with the outside world untill they go to hell and suffer more.

My personal opinion is that if people can change and improve, I will give them a chance. Certainly these people have to be responsible for what they did. But if they have done their time and they have changed to start a new life. I will give them a chance. I can't say I don't keep a record of wrong doings. I do. But I try to be fair to people who want to change and truly regrets what they did wrong.

Also, not all sex offenders are rapists [who have sexual contact with any other person against their will]. Somtimes under-aged teens have sex and get caught. The boyfriend became S.O. But I understand what S.O. means to the general public. The AWA law, to me, implies that S.O. petitioners need to provide strong proof and evidence to the USCIS that they are not a risk and threat to the beneficiary - and this application has no guarantee to be approved by USCIS. The best thing to do is to be prepared documentation-wise and hope for the best...

I am not a S.O. so other people please don't come after me to condemn me. There is no need to be emotional or personal.

Lastly I want to say although there is freedom of speech here, this IMBRA forum should aim at exchanging and sharing of immigration information and experiences related to the IMBRA and AWA category. This particular thread has been up for a couple months having all sorts of negative comments towards sex offenders. I am glad that people who responded to this thread [postive or negative] have sticked with this thread and not started another new threads. And I am glad that people have not stepped onto other threads [from AWA filers who are sharing critical information and progress] to post personal comments or condemn.