How does ADAM Wash ACT affect for a sex offender...

[missingyou_01234 0]

Please share me about ADAMS ACT...

Anybody who had a sex offense case in the past? Please let us know about your visa journey to inspire others....

Thank you so much....

[Carlawarla 1]

I don't know of any person, having been convicted of a sexual offence get a visa approval yet here on VJ, but there is another thread here where a few people who are going through the process have posted some comments.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=138175

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=154160

You might want to contact those individuals here on VJ that might have some updated information.

Hope this helps!

Edited November 17, 2008 by Carlawarla

[payxibka 10,045]

Please share me about ADAMS ACT...

Anybody who had a sex offense case in the past? Please let us know about your visa journey to inspire others....

Thank you so much....

If you "qualify" under the provisions of the Adam Walsh Act you are deemed INELIGIBLE to petition for a foreign fiance(e) or spouse. There has been a lot of conjecture from others about this law but nothing I would characterize as inspiring.

[s.o. 0]

when i filed in july 08' i knew that it would be an uphill battle but i had no idea what would really happen. the I 129 F petition is clear about IMBRA yet there is nothing about the Adam Wash Act. since i have become aware of the AWA, this was only in the last few months, i have wondered why does the USCIS just not deny everyone involved? it seems to me that the as american citizens we have the legal right to use the USCIS and to file petitions for this and that. we paid out filing fees and now we want service. when the AWA was signed into law this provision stating " ... pose no threat to... " is an obvious loophole allowing the sex offender/petitioner the possibility of being accepted. so here we are, the USCIS has to be careful in how they will respond to this issue as whatever decision's they make will be the presidence that all will be judged by and they have to avoid any wrong doing by depriving the petitioner of the legal right to file and expect a favorable response. perhaps all of we petitioners should get together and collectively put our concerns into written form and submit it to all parties involved? congress persons, ombudsmans, senators, uscis, homeland security and president obama. we are involved in this system and we should do all we can to get clear directions and favorable answers to our issues. please share your comments and opinions with us all...

[Old Dominion 26]

Any USC has a right to file. But there is no such thing as a right to get a "yes" answer to the petition. Adam-Walsh set new, and very unclear,restrictions on who can get a "yes." My hunch is that USCIS will be as cautious as possible in approving petitions coming from those who have a background of such questionable behavior. It's all about political posturing.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

Any USC has a right to file. But there is no such thing as a right to get a "yes" answer to the petition. Adam-Walsh set new, and very unclear,restrictions on who can get a "yes." My hunch is that USCIS will be as cautious as possible in approving petitions coming from those who have a background of such questionable behavior. It's all about political posturing.

Go figure. And here I am thinking it is about protecting innocent people.

[Old Dominion 26]

Any USC has a right to file. But there is no such thing as a right to get a "yes" answer to the petition. Adam-Walsh set new, and very unclear,restrictions on who can get a "yes." My hunch is that USCIS will be as cautious as possible in approving petitions coming from those who have a background of such questionable behavior. It's all about political posturing.

Go figure. And here I am thinking it is about protecting innocent people.

For grandstanding purposes, the USCIS is no doubt balking at ANY petitions coming from sex offenders. That is to protect USCIS, not the potential immigrants.

[Bobby+Umit 161]

Any USC has a right to file. But there is no such thing as a right to get a "yes" answer to the petition. Adam-Walsh set new, and very unclear,restrictions on who can get a "yes." My hunch is that USCIS will be as cautious as possible in approving petitions coming from those who have a background of such questionable behavior. It's all about political posturing.

Go figure. And here I am thinking it is about protecting innocent people.

For grandstanding purposes, the USCIS is no doubt balking at ANY petitions coming from sex offenders. That is to protect USCIS, not the potential immigrants.

I don't know, but would you want to be responsible for something happening to people you let in the US, or letting them in to wreck havoc on the US?

I agree with *Len*, it's about protecting people, not grand standing. Your mileage may vary

[Old Dominion 26]

A misunderstanding here -- USCIS does nothing to prevent overseas sex offenders from coming into the US. That is the job of the Dept of State. But USCIS appears to be applying the law to US citizens in every case where the petitioner was convicted of a sex offense no matter how innocent it might have been. That, to me, is posturing rather than selectively determining the gravity of the crime each was convicted of.

[Sinergy 3]

i would think and hope overseas sex offenders as well as US sex offenders would be denied.

Edited January 23, 2009 by Sinergy

[morocco4ever 63]

Any USC has a right to file. But there is no such thing as a right to get a "yes" answer to the petition. Adam-Walsh set new, and very unclear,restrictions on who can get a "yes." My hunch is that USCIS will be as cautious as possible in approving petitions coming from those who have a background of such questionable behavior. It's all about political posturing.

Go figure. And here I am thinking it is about protecting innocent people.

For grandstanding purposes, the USCIS is no doubt balking at ANY petitions coming from sex offenders. That is to protect USCIS, not the potential immigrants.

If that were the case why wouldn't the merely make the applicant sign a waiver that they won't hold the USCIS responsible for the actions of the petitioner?

I tend to agree with Len. I think they want to protect the innocent. They are human, whether we choose to believe that or not.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

Any USC has a right to file. But there is no such thing as a right to get a "yes" answer to the petition. Adam-Walsh set new, and very unclear,restrictions on who can get a "yes." My hunch is that USCIS will be as cautious as possible in approving petitions coming from those who have a background of such questionable behavior. It's all about political posturing.

Go figure. And here I am thinking it is about protecting innocent people.

For grandstanding purposes, the USCIS is no doubt balking at ANY petitions coming from sex offenders. That is to protect USCIS, not the potential immigrants.

And this is wrong how exactly? That might just make people think freaking twice before committing a sex crime. The laws are pretty evident. No pity from me at all.

[Old Dominion 26]

In general, I agree that sex offenders should be treated as harshly as possible, child molesters in particular. Yet not every guy or gal knows that if one is 18 or above (an adult) a 16-year-old is off limits.

[morocco4ever 63]

In general, I agree that sex offenders should be treated as harshly as possible, child molesters in particular. Yet not every guy or gal knows that if one is 18 or above (an adult) a 16-year-old is off limits.

It's a shame their parents haven't taken the time to educate them.

[Ban Hammer 13,343]

In general, I agree that sex offenders should be treated as harshly as possible, child molesters in particular. Yet not every guy or gal knows that if one is 18 or above (an adult) a 16-year-old is off limits.

that's odd, as i certainly remember learning about that when i was 17. and it was not via my parents either.