deportation or denial of entry?

[JB11 0]

In the process now of preparing to file for a fiance visa but it is my understanding that if you were previously deported you will need to receive some kind of waiver for it. Now my question is in regards to my girlfriend either being deported or refused entry while on the VWP -- something we are unsure about right now.

Heres the situation:

- She was told is Australia by a US Consulate officer that she could still use the VWP after she was denied for a tourist visa, and was eventually picked up while entering San Francisco.

- She was told she was being "deported" by a ins officer who seemed to barely speak english

- She received no paperwork surrounding it, but was informed that she could no longer use VWP and would need a visa.

- She has a a# stamped in her passport

Does anyone know if this was a denial of entry or a deportation?

Thanks!

[SqdnGuns 21]

I thought an A# was only assigned for purpose of immigrating, not for someone who falls within the VWP?

[JB11 0]

I thought so myself which is another thing that makes me even more confused.

I also forgot to mention that it also said this prior to the a#:

SFR 1939 FEB 11 2008 - stamped

8CFR 217, 4 ( a ) ( i ); A# - written

[spauldingjeffrey 0]

I thought so myself which is another thing that makes me even more confused.

I also forgot to mention that it also said this prior to the a#:

SFR 1939 FEB 11 2008 - stamped

8CFR 217, 4 ( a ) ( i ); A# - written

8cfr 217, 4 is a code for united states code of federal regulations 217.4 paragraph A & I. and from what I can see it falls under deportation and inadmissibility. You can google the CFR or there is a link here http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title08/8-1.0....0.1.2.21.0.1.4

so as i see it you will probably need a waiver but with a K1 you will have to file the waiver at the request of the consulate. But I think if you file the K3 route you can file the waiver in the beginning.

Any body feel free to correct me if i am wrong

[Jason-Sasha 1]

I thought so myself which is another thing that makes me even more confused.

I also forgot to mention that it also said this prior to the a#:

SFR 1939 FEB 11 2008 - stamped

8CFR 217, 4 ( a ) ( i ); A# - written

8cfr 217, 4 is a code for united states code of federal regulations 217.4 paragraph A & I. and from what I can see it falls under deportation and inadmissibility. You can google the CFR or there is a link here http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title08/8-1.0....0.1.2.21.0.1.4

so as i see it you will probably need a waiver but with a K1 you will have to file the waiver at the request of the consulate. But I think if you file the K3 route you can file the waiver in the beginning.

Any body feel free to correct me if i am wrong

Wow! Awesome work, Jeff! very good info.

[spauldingjeffrey 0]

I thought so myself which is another thing that makes me even more confused.

I also forgot to mention that it also said this prior to the a#:

SFR 1939 FEB 11 2008 - stamped

8CFR 217, 4 ( a ) ( i ); A# - written

8cfr 217, 4 is a code for united states code of federal regulations 217.4 paragraph A & I. and from what I can see it falls under deportation and inadmissibility. You can google the CFR or there is a link here http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title08/8-1.0....0.1.2.21.0.1.4

so as i see it you will probably need a waiver but with a K1 you will have to file the waiver at the request of the consulate. But I think if you file the K3 route you can file the waiver in the beginning.

Any body feel free to correct me if i am wrong

Just wanted to add that if she did not see an immigration judge then she was not deported she was just refused entry. As for the A# it refers to why the immigration officer refused her entry.

[spauldingjeffrey 0]

I thought so myself which is another thing that makes me even more confused.

I also forgot to mention that it also said this prior to the a#:

SFR 1939 FEB 11 2008 - stamped

8CFR 217, 4 ( a ) ( i ); A# - written

8cfr 217, 4 is a code for united states code of federal regulations 217.4 paragraph A & I. and from what I can see it falls under deportation and inadmissibility. You can google the CFR or there is a link here http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title08/8-1.0....0.1.2.21.0.1.4

so as i see it you will probably need a waiver but with a K1 you will have to file the waiver at the request of the consulate. But I think if you file the K3 route you can file the waiver in the beginning.

Any body feel free to correct me if i am wrong

Wow! Awesome work, Jeff! very good info.

Thanks for the compliment Jason-Sasha! I am in the coast guard and believe it or not we have to be pretty well versed in Immigration laws.

BTW Congrats on the successful Interview! Don't let the Canadian flag on my profile fool you my Fiancee is also a Russian citizen. I have been to the Russian forum you guys are crazy over there!!

Good Luck with your new life!

[emt103c 10]

Actually the A# is usually a sign that the person has an "Expedited Removal" which is for all intents and purposes a Deportation. It has all of the same implications.

The A# (which is several digits long; I think the OP left it out for privacy reasons) is a registration/ID number. A#'s at least used to be on all forms sent to petitioners by the USCIS. My husband was issued one for his I-130 and it was used to identify him on the I-129F when I used it as his ID# on the application. It keeps the applications in order. He was assigned a separate one for his Expedited Removal, even though he had one for his previous applications. I hear rumor that they've stopped doing this, but it's still on all of our paperwork.

In order to be certain what they did, whether it was a deportation or not you will either want to do a Freedom of Information Act Request or an FBI fingerprint check, or both. These could list if she has a deportation against her or not. They should have given her a stack of papers referring to what exactly they had done, but those sometimes get lost in the shuffle. Those papers, if she can find them, would detail any charges or accusations they may have made to support their decision to deny her entry.

These links should be helpful:

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/admin/fl/foia/

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/fprequest.htm

[spauldingjeffrey 0]

Actually the A# is usually a sign that the person has an "Expedited Removal" which is for all intents and purposes a Deportation. It has all of the same implications.

The A# (which is several digits long; I think the OP left it out for privacy reasons) is a registration/ID number. A#'s at least used to be on all forms sent to petitioners by the USCIS. My husband was issued one for his I-130 and it was used to identify him on the I-129F when I used it as his ID# on the application. It keeps the applications in order. He was assigned a separate one for his Expedited Removal, even though he had one for his previous applications. I hear rumor that they've stopped doing this, but it's still on all of our paperwork.

In order to be certain what they did, whether it was a deportation or not you will either want to do a Freedom of Information Act Request or an FBI fingerprint check, or both. These could list if she has a deportation against her or not. They should have given her a stack of papers referring to what exactly they had done, but those sometimes get lost in the shuffle. Those papers, if she can find them, would detail any charges or accusations they may have made to support their decision to deny her entry.

These links should be helpful:

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/admin/fl/foia/

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/fprequest.htm

I stand corrected on the A# part great job!!

[blueblue 0]

Just wanted to add that if she did not see an immigration judge then she was not deported she was just refused entry. As for the A# it refers to why the immigration officer refused her entry.

To clarify, it isn't whether you see a judge or not that determines a deportation. POE officers can do an expedited removal which is effectively a deporation with all the consequences thereof. No need to see a judge.

As emt suggested, do an FBI fingerprint check to find out for sure on the deportation. It is faster than an FOIA.

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/fprequest.htm

[carslo 0]

Here is a well written in clear language article on overstays which lead to action on the part of the USA.

http://www.tindallfoster.com/ExportedSite/...atus%5B1%5D.pdf

As to the mention that visits to the USA are accummulative towards a ban; the articles states

"Note that days in unlawful presense must be consecctive; multiple periods of unlawful presense, each not exceeding 180 days and seperated by departure from the United States, are not aggregated for the purpose of three- and ten-year bands."

Maybe this will help.

Carlso

[carslo 0]

Here is a well written in clear language article on overstays which lead to action on the part of the USA.

http://www.tindallfoster.com/ExportedSite/...atus%5B1%5D.pdf

As to the mention that visits to the USA are accummulative towards a ban; the articles states

"Note that days in unlawful presense must be consecctive; multiple periods of unlawful presense, each not exceeding 180 days and seperated by departure from the United States, are not aggregated for the purpose of three- and ten-year bands."

Maybe this will help.

Carlso

oops wrong place, tries to remove but wasn't successful