Got denied on my interview b'coz of not having my decision yet at the court from my previous marriage

[payxibka 10,045]

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/08/15/State/Pr...ilty_in_i.shtml

Even this dude didn't get a lifetime ban.

Mostly because you can't.

It does not say what his immigration related result is/was ... only his criminal sentence

Read again.

Jubara, 43, faces a reduced sentence of several months in federal prison instead of the maximum five-year penalty he could receive on four counts of making false statements. He will be sentenced within three months.

I did and I think you need to ... as that is his criminal charge...

"His attorney, Tom Dale, said Jubara could be sentenced to time already served at the Orange and Seminole county jails. Jubara's guilty plea allows him to forgo a lengthy trial and speed up his deportation."

That is the only statement regarding his immigration penalty or future determination of ineligibility....

Edited February 7, 2009 by payxibka

[rebeccajo 14]

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/08/15/State/Pr...ilty_in_i.shtml

Even this dude didn't get a lifetime ban.

Mostly because you can't.

It does not say what his immigration related result is/was ... only his criminal sentence

Read again.

Jubara, 43, faces a reduced sentence of several months in federal prison instead of the maximum five-year penalty he could receive on four counts of making false statements. He will be sentenced within three months.

Wont prison time be much much worse than a ban to enter US/get visa of whatever length of time?

Well, it sure won't be a picnic!

My point is there are penalties within the process for varying degrees of offenses. It's not unlike anything else within the law - you know, misdemeanors vs. felonies, etc.

It's been suggested to the OP that she may have incurred a lifetime ban. I doubt that - at least not for the signing of the G325.

False statements at the Consulate? Maybe. But it doesn't sound like she lied at the consular window. It sounds like she couldn't produce a document showing the prior marriage has legally ended. I don't see a statement from the OP saying she SPOKE OUT LOUD to the AO that she was free to marry.

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/08/15/State/Pr...ilty_in_i.shtml

Even this dude didn't get a lifetime ban.

Mostly because you can't.

It does not say what his immigration related result is/was ... only his criminal sentence

Read again.

Jubara, 43, faces a reduced sentence of several months in federal prison instead of the maximum five-year penalty he could receive on four counts of making false statements. He will be sentenced within three months.

I did and I think you need to ... as that is his criminal charge...

"His attorney, Tom Dale, said Jubara could be sentenced to time already served at the Orange and Seminole county jails. Jubara's guilty plea allows him to forgo a lengthy trial and speed up his deportation."

That is the only statement regarding his immigration penalty or future determination of ineligibility....

They've got this dude up on other charges.

They are trying to hold him the US till they can make those stick.

They are using lying on the forms as a way to keep him in the US till they can make the case against him on the other charges.

So the extant point is understanding what the maximum penalty is for lying on the forms.

Edited February 7, 2009 by rebeccajo

[pushbrk 12,882]

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/08/15/State/Pr...ilty_in_i.shtml

Even this dude didn't get a lifetime ban.

Mostly because you can't.

It does not say what his immigration related result is/was ... only his criminal sentence

Read again.

Jubara, 43, faces a reduced sentence of several months in federal prison instead of the maximum five-year penalty he could receive on four counts of making false statements. He will be sentenced within three months.

Yes, and he's being deported. The article doesn't indicate anything about whether he would ever be allowed to enter the US again. My statement about penalties for material misrepresentation was "up to a lifetime ban". I said it that way because I claim no detailed expertise on how USCIS treats these case.

The beneficiary in this case is not subject to criminal penalties in the US because she is not in the USA. The most severe penalty for her would be a potential lifetime ban. That could be potentially be appealed by the petitioner before an immigration judge, not a criminal courts judge. I doubt the petitioner would be prosecuted.

Point being, comparing criminal penalties for convictions in US criminal courts is a false analogy to the OP's circumstances and illustrates nothing about what her penalty may or may not be. Secondly, the examples used illustrate nothing about the abilty of the criminals mentioned to ever enter the US again.

On another subject, for clarity. The OP didn't execute 4 G325a forms. She executed one form. The form on paper requires only writing or "typing" the information one time. Pages 2-4 are carbonless copies of page one with slightly different routing noted on the bottom.

[faryan 4]

Ahhh, whatever this is, sure hope that it is just viewed as a misdemeanor than a felony by the immigration, in case the OP will refile after all paperwork in order. Then again, only then we might find out what will happen to her case, will she be banned, if so for how long, and also if she /petitioner can appeal.

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/08/15/State/Pr...ilty_in_i.shtml

Even this dude didn't get a lifetime ban.

Mostly because you can't.

It does not say what his immigration related result is/was ... only his criminal sentence

Read again.

Jubara, 43, faces a reduced sentence of several months in federal prison instead of the maximum five-year penalty he could receive on four counts of making false statements. He will be sentenced within three months.

Wont prison time be much much worse than a ban to enter US/get visa of whatever length of time?

Well, it sure won't be a picnic!

My point is there are penalties within the process for varying degrees of offenses. It's not unlike anything else within the law - you know, misdemeanors vs. felonies, etc.

It's been suggested to the OP that she may have incurred a lifetime ban. I doubt that - at least not for the signing of the G325.

False statements at the Consulate? Maybe. But it doesn't sound like she lied at the consular window. It sounds like she couldn't produce a document showing the prior marriage has legally ended. I don't see a statement from the OP saying she SPOKE OUT LOUD to the AO that she was free to marry.

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/08/15/State/Pr...ilty_in_i.shtml

Even this dude didn't get a lifetime ban.

Mostly because you can't.

It does not say what his immigration related result is/was ... only his criminal sentence

Read again.

Jubara, 43, faces a reduced sentence of several months in federal prison instead of the maximum five-year penalty he could receive on four counts of making false statements. He will be sentenced within three months.

I did and I think you need to ... as that is his criminal charge...

"His attorney, Tom Dale, said Jubara could be sentenced to time already served at the Orange and Seminole county jails. Jubara's guilty plea allows him to forgo a lengthy trial and speed up his deportation."

That is the only statement regarding his immigration penalty or future determination of ineligibility....

They've got this dude up on other charges.

They are trying to hold him the US till they can make those stick.

They are using lying on the forms as a way to keep him in the US till they can make the case against him on the other charges.

So the extant point is understanding what the maximum penalty is for lying on the forms.

Edited February 7, 2009 by faryan

[rebeccajo 14]

Point being, comparing criminal penalties for convictions in US criminal courts is a false analogy to the OP's circumstances and illustrates nothing about what her penalty may or may not be. Secondly, the examples used illustrate nothing about the abilty of the criminals mentioned to ever enter the US again.

Oh for crying out loud.

Both articles state the maximum penalty for lying on immigration paperwork. Seems to me that's what a lot of the discussion is about here.

And if citing the outcome of an actual trial is a false analogy - well gee - I guess all those cites that lawyers insert into their pleadings mean nothing.

Edited February 7, 2009 by rebeccajo

[pushbrk 12,882]

Point being, comparing criminal penalties for convictions in US criminal courts is a false analogy to the OP's circumstances and illustrates nothing about what her penalty may or may not be. Secondly, the examples used illustrate nothing about the abilty of the criminals mentioned to ever enter the US again.

Oh for crying out loud.

Both articles state the maximum penalty for lying on immigration paperwork. Seems to me that's what a lot of the discussion is about here.

And if citing the outcome of an actual trial is a false analogy - well gee - I guess all those cites that lawyers insert into their pleadings mean nothing.

Yes, they state the maximum criminal penalties in a US criminal court. The OP is never going to see the inside of a US criminal courtroom in this matter. You must actually be IN the USA to be subject to the courts and penalties described. Think "Guantanimo'.

If you want pertinent examples Google "USCIS lifetime ban" instead.

Edited February 7, 2009 by pushbrk

[rebeccajo 14]

Point being, comparing criminal penalties for convictions in US criminal courts is a false analogy to the OP's circumstances and illustrates nothing about what her penalty may or may not be. Secondly, the examples used illustrate nothing about the abilty of the criminals mentioned to ever enter the US again.

Oh for crying out loud.

Both articles state the maximum penalty for lying on immigration paperwork. Seems to me that's what a lot of the discussion is about here.

And if citing the outcome of an actual trial is a false analogy - well gee - I guess all those cites that lawyers insert into their pleadings mean nothing.

Yes, they state the maximum criminal penalties in a US criminal court. The OP is never going to see the inside of a US criminal courtroom in this matter. You must actually be IN the USA to be subject to the courts and penalties described. Think "Guantanimo'.

If you want pertinent examples Google "USCIS lifetime ban" instead.

Right.

Last time I looked, if I want to know what the penalty for an action is, I look that up.

I don't look up what I WANT the penalty to be and then try to fit the action into that.

[pushbrk 12,882]

Point being, comparing criminal penalties for convictions in US criminal courts is a false analogy to the OP's circumstances and illustrates nothing about what her penalty may or may not be. Secondly, the examples used illustrate nothing about the abilty of the criminals mentioned to ever enter the US again.

Oh for crying out loud.

Both articles state the maximum penalty for lying on immigration paperwork. Seems to me that's what a lot of the discussion is about here.

And if citing the outcome of an actual trial is a false analogy - well gee - I guess all those cites that lawyers insert into their pleadings mean nothing.

Yes, they state the maximum criminal penalties in a US criminal court. The OP is never going to see the inside of a US criminal courtroom in this matter. You must actually be IN the USA to be subject to the courts and penalties described. Think "Guantanimo'.

If you want pertinent examples Google "USCIS lifetime ban" instead.

Right.

Last time I looked, if I want to know what the penalty for an action is, I look that up.

I don't look up what I WANT the penalty to be and then try to fit the action into that.

What you do or don't do is your choice. "Try to fit..." is something from your imagination. If the actions fit, they fit. No need to try to make them fit. The fact remains, the person facing a potential lifetime ban as the subject of this thread is not in the USA and not subject to US Criminal Penalties, so they are simply irrelevant to the OP's circumstances or to the circumstance of anybody not yet in the USA or who has been deported. Those people are not (presently) subject to prosecution under US criminal law. They are subject to USCIS and Immigration Judges' decisions, not US Criminal law.

[scandal 951]

i agree totally it was not the smartest thing to file for a k-3 visa before having all the documents in hand no doubt of that. My concern remains the judgmental way we are approaching this issue. we can be firm in our views without being so i hate to say lacking in compassion, but that is what i am seeing here. If she did commit fraud shame on her she will reep the results but I am also looking at other members that may have situations close to this that wont ask for advice for fear of being crucified. Sin i know you are correct in the content but what if we toned down the level?

AN OPEN MIND IS ONE READY TO SEE THE POSSIBLE! NO MATTER HOW IMPROBABLE IT MIGHT BE!!!!

Exactly my point, MMW - No one but the original poster knows exactly what was completed, and what happened - but the judgment and assumptions are rampant through this thread.

Let me give you another scenario - My own - because had I not know what I know about the process and the law, I would be in this exact position. When my fiance and I started talking about filing and gathering the documentation, I told him we needed a copy of his divorce decree. He gave me what he had - he was divorced in 2004 (he thought) - I work in the legal field (not immigration, typically), and I looked at it and realized it wasn't a final dissolution - it was the original process. He thought he was divorced - his ex had served him, he thought it was done - When we tried to get a copy of the decree, it turned out that she never did it - she just served him and dropped it. So he had to hire an attorney and file for the divorce, and we are still (somewhat impatiently) waiting for the decree. If I didn't understand the legal documents, I could easily have filed, put the date of the petition on there, and gone forward with this process, thinking yes, he was divorced. In fact, he wasn't and I would have been in this same situation - Without knowingly committing fraud.

I am not saying that what this person did is right / wrong / they knew they were committing fraud at the time or not - But the person could easily have filed for the annulment, not fully understood the legal process, and filed the K1 thinking the divorce was final - when it was approved, and they started gathering documents for the interview, they could have realized that they needed the final decree, and realized what happened.

There is also the possibility that she told her fiance it was complete and that he filed, thinking and trusting that it was =

The possibilities are endless, and we are supposed to be here to support each other and help each other = Not serve as judge and jury without all the facts. Isn't one of the biggest principles in America that you are innocent until proven guilty? If this thread is supposed to be here to guide future people = then try to guide them without accusations and bias --- Much of which is evident here.

Yes, your scenario is very apt to this discussion. Thank you for sharing it. It is indeed quite clear to see from your case how it may be possible to petition for a visa, indicate on the forms that a marriage was terminated when in fact it was not yet terminated, have NO INTENT to make false claims, and thus not be committing any fraud.

That may or many not be the OP's case. We simply don't have enough information to judge.

There are many, many posts here arguing that they must have committed fraud, that this is black and white and airtight. That there is no possible other explanation and we must be imbeciles if we don't agree. one poster suggested something strange about my being careful bending over for soap should I ever be incarcerated. I honestly don't understand WHAT that has to do with anything. If I don't agree with you, are you going to come over to my house to beat me up? Honestly. This is a discussion - present reasoned arguments, as I am attempting to do, and I will listen to your opinion. Simply repeating 20 times in a posting "It's fraud! It's fraud! " will not be any more convincing than the first time it's stated.

People can yell fraud, fraud, all day long. Some of us are simply saying don't be quite so judgmental, we don't have all the facts to make such a rash finding. We are being called names and told to "go read the forms". Well, I have read the forms. I'm in a K-1 process myself, I feel fairly comfortable that I understand the burden placed on a petitioning couple.

A charge of 'fraud', by very definition,is a legal charge. In this case there are two relevant bodies of law: US Immigration law, and the US Criminal code.

The relevant offense, if one was committed, was perjury. Perjury is the act of KNOWINGLY making a false declaration or representation under oath, or in a legal or official proceeding that has the effect of being under oath. Completing an immigration petition falsely, and knowing that it is false, could be perjury, for which there are very severe penalties. Perjury is itself a criminal offense governed by the Criminal code. A judicial finding of perjury I am sure would automatically influence an immigration proceeding. Conversely, I would think that an acquittal of perjury cases ought to also result in positive findings in an associated immigration case, but I'm not sure that would be true. The immigration and criminal systems have different standards of proof and evidence. An immigration proceeding can reject visa applications merely on suspicion, they don't need the much stronger burden of proof needed for a criminal conviction.

Hence, I completely agree that the OP's case smells of rotten fish, is mighty suspicious, and in the hands of Immigration officials probably won't go far. If WE are suspicious, it stands to reason that they (the officials) will be as well. And that's enough to be denied. There is an appeals procedure in the immigration system, but that isn't likely to be helpful since again the burden to show innocence is on the petitioner and beneficiary, not on the system.

But... in the criminal system... that's an entirely different matter. The burden falls on the state to prove the crime.

And when you toss out the 'fraud' word - yes, you are talking about a crime. And in America, crimes need to be proven. In court. In front of judges and juries. To a legal standard. Beyond a reasonable doubt.

The crime of perjury has two elements, both necessary, neither sufficient on its own. There must be a relevant factual misstatement. And the accused must have known they were making a misrepresentation.

I can claim I am a frog. I can jump up and down and paint myself green. I can go to court, be sworn into a witness box, and state for the public record that I am a frog. This would be factually incorrect, I am obviously not a frog. But unless you can know my state of mind, know whether I BELIEVE I am a frog or not as I make that statement, you cannot prove the crime of perjury. If I actually believe I am a frog, I have not committed perjury. Only if in my mind I know that I am in fact lying, that I'm really and truly a weasel but not a frog, am I committing perjury. And then - the prosecution must be able to prove to the jury convincingly that they know this state of my mind.

Hence, the first element of perjury is usually very easy to prove - that's the black/white part. On an I-129F and related forms for the petition and visa application, someone is at a given moment in time either married or unmarried. And that's the point all the posters on this thread keep repeating ad nauseum. I have no problem with that. Yes, either the checkbox is filled or its blank, and in either way it's a factual misstatement. So what? That's only half the standard of perjury. I've seen almost NOBODY address the second element, which is the state of mind, the intent.

That is invariably the hard thing to prove in a perjury case. That's why perjury cases are relatively rare, they're damned hard to prove. You need to know the intent of the lier, not just the lie itself. Usually perjury can be proven only if the prosecution can elicit the accused admitting to their own state of mind. That's why wiretaps are often used, and that's why they'll raid the guy's house and grab his computer for email records and the like. Without a clear documented evidence of intent, there is no conviction. And without a conviction, legally, there is no finding of fraud. And in our system (thank goodness for the Constitution and Bill or Rights), if there is no legal finding of fraud, there WAS NO fraud - we are all seen as innocent unless proven guilty under the law.

So - is the OP in a heap of immigration trouble? No doubt.

Is this posting a troll? I would bet on it.

Is there fraud here? There may be. It would take a legal conviction to prove it, and I haven't seen enough evidence to see that it could be done.

All this to say - I don't like people tossing out things like "It's fraud! it's fraud!" willy nilly. Have you really thought about what that means?

[miss g 1]

i dont understand how or why they got approved but i realy think some of u need to take some sort of chill pill and stop being so ####### retentive and making a big song and dance about their issues,

whether they did it on purpose or deliberately lied.. being away from someone you love isnt the greatest feeling in the world and i dont wish it on anyone

Edited February 7, 2009 by miss g

[Peikko 1,575]

What I want to know is, why do so many posters in this thread care so passionately about the intentof the OP? Some here seem to be absolutely delighted that they have 'discovered' this lie, as if somehow it's going to positively affect their lives. It's not. I am quite sure the person at the embassy who denied this petition didn't do so with this sense of glee, I am sure they denied the petition with compassion. There are genuine feelings involved, real people.

I agree that it is right and proper to advise that what this couple did was wrong and 'could' result in a life time ban - as a warning to other people and as an advisory for the OP BUT personally I feel sorry for this couple and I hope they do try again. If I were them I would let USICS decide if what happened deserves a life time ban, not the members of VJ.

[rebeccajo 14]

i agree totally it was not the smartest thing to file for a k-3 visa before having all the documents in hand no doubt of that. My concern remains the judgmental way we are approaching this issue. we can be firm in our views without being so i hate to say lacking in compassion, but that is what i am seeing here. If she did commit fraud shame on her she will reep the results but I am also looking at other members that may have situations close to this that wont ask for advice for fear of being crucified. Sin i know you are correct in the content but what if we toned down the level?

AN OPEN MIND IS ONE READY TO SEE THE POSSIBLE! NO MATTER HOW IMPROBABLE IT MIGHT BE!!!!

Exactly my point, MMW - No one but the original poster knows exactly what was completed, and what happened - but the judgment and assumptions are rampant through this thread.

Let me give you another scenario - My own - because had I not know what I know about the process and the law, I would be in this exact position. When my fiance and I started talking about filing and gathering the documentation, I told him we needed a copy of his divorce decree. He gave me what he had - he was divorced in 2004 (he thought) - I work in the legal field (not immigration, typically), and I looked at it and realized it wasn't a final dissolution - it was the original process. He thought he was divorced - his ex had served him, he thought it was done - When we tried to get a copy of the decree, it turned out that she never did it - she just served him and dropped it. So he had to hire an attorney and file for the divorce, and we are still (somewhat impatiently) waiting for the decree. If I didn't understand the legal documents, I could easily have filed, put the date of the petition on there, and gone forward with this process, thinking yes, he was divorced. In fact, he wasn't and I would have been in this same situation - Without knowingly committing fraud.

I am not saying that what this person did is right / wrong / they knew they were committing fraud at the time or not - But the person could easily have filed for the annulment, not fully understood the legal process, and filed the K1 thinking the divorce was final - when it was approved, and they started gathering documents for the interview, they could have realized that they needed the final decree, and realized what happened.

There is also the possibility that she told her fiance it was complete and that he filed, thinking and trusting that it was =

The possibilities are endless, and we are supposed to be here to support each other and help each other = Not serve as judge and jury without all the facts. Isn't one of the biggest principles in America that you are innocent until proven guilty? If this thread is supposed to be here to guide future people = then try to guide them without accusations and bias --- Much of which is evident here.

Yes, your scenario is very apt to this discussion. Thank you for sharing it. It is indeed quite clear to see from your case how it may be possible to petition for a visa, indicate on the forms that a marriage was terminated when in fact it was not yet terminated, have NO INTENT to make false claims, and thus not be committing any fraud.

That may or many not be the OP's case. We simply don't have enough information to judge.

There are many, many posts here arguing that they must have committed fraud, that this is black and white and airtight. That there is no possible other explanation and we must be imbeciles if we don't agree. one poster suggested something strange about my being careful bending over for soap should I ever be incarcerated. I honestly don't understand WHAT that has to do with anything. If I don't agree with you, are you going to come over to my house to beat me up? Honestly. This is a discussion - present reasoned arguments, as I am attempting to do, and I will listen to your opinion. Simply repeating 20 times in a posting "It's fraud! It's fraud! " will not be any more convincing than the first time it's stated.

People can yell fraud, fraud, all day long. Some of us are simply saying don't be quite so judgmental, we don't have all the facts to make such a rash finding. We are being called names and told to "go read the forms". Well, I have read the forms. I'm in a K-1 process myself, I feel fairly comfortable that I understand the burden placed on a petitioning couple.

A charge of 'fraud', by very definition,is a legal charge. In this case there are two relevant bodies of law: US Immigration law, and the US Criminal code.

The relevant offense, if one was committed, was perjury. Perjury is the act of KNOWINGLY making a false declaration or representation under oath, or in a legal or official proceeding that has the effect of being under oath. Completing an immigration petition falsely, and knowing that it is false, could be perjury, for which there are very severe penalties. Perjury is itself a criminal offense governed by the Criminal code. A judicial finding of perjury I am sure would automatically influence an immigration proceeding. Conversely, I would think that an acquittal of perjury cases ought to also result in positive findings in an associated immigration case, but I'm not sure that would be true. The immigration and criminal systems have different standards of proof and evidence. An immigration proceeding can reject visa applications merely on suspicion, they don't need the much stronger burden of proof needed for a criminal conviction.

Hence, I completely agree that the OP's case smells of rotten fish, is mighty suspicious, and in the hands of Immigration officials probably won't go far. If WE are suspicious, it stands to reason that they (the officials) will be as well. And that's enough to be denied. There is an appeals procedure in the immigration system, but that isn't likely to be helpful since again the burden to show innocence is on the petitioner and beneficiary, not on the system.

But... in the criminal system... that's an entirely different matter. The burden falls on the state to prove the crime.

And when you toss out the 'fraud' word - yes, you are talking about a crime. And in America, crimes need to be proven. In court. In front of judges and juries. To a legal standard. Beyond a reasonable doubt.

The crime of perjury has two elements, both necessary, neither sufficient on its own. There must be a relevant factual misstatement. And the accused must have known they were making a misrepresentation.

I can claim I am a frog. I can jump up and down and paint myself green. I can go to court, be sworn into a witness box, and state for the public record that I am a frog. This would be factually incorrect, I am obviously not a frog. But unless you can know my state of mind, know whether I BELIEVE I am a frog or not as I make that statement, you cannot prove the crime of perjury. If I actually believe I am a frog, I have not committed perjury. Only if in my mind I know that I am in fact lying, that I'm really and truly a weasel but not a frog, am I committing perjury. And then - the prosecution must be able to prove to the jury convincingly that they know this state of my mind.

Hence, the first element of perjury is usually very easy to prove - that's the black/white part. On an I-129F and related forms for the petition and visa application, someone is at a given moment in time either married or unmarried. And that's the point all the posters on this thread keep repeating ad nauseum. I have no problem with that. Yes, either the checkbox is filled or its blank, and in either way it's a factual misstatement. So what? That's only half the standard of perjury. I've seen almost NOBODY address the second element, which is the state of mind, the intent.

That is invariably the hard thing to prove in a perjury case. That's why perjury cases are relatively rare, they're damned hard to prove. You need to know the intent of the lier, not just the lie itself. Usually perjury can be proven only if the prosecution can elicit the accused admitting to their own state of mind. That's why wiretaps are often used, and that's why they'll raid the guy's house and grab his computer for email records and the like. Without a clear documented evidence of intent, there is no conviction. And without a conviction, legally, there is no finding of fraud. And in our system (thank goodness for the Constitution and Bill or Rights), if there is no legal finding of fraud, there WAS NO fraud - we are all seen as innocent unless proven guilty under the law.

So - is the OP in a heap of immigration trouble? No doubt.

Is this posting a troll? I would bet on it.

Is there fraud here? There may be. It would take a legal conviction to prove it, and I haven't seen enough evidence to see that it could be done.

All this to say - I don't like people tossing out things like "It's fraud! it's fraud!" willy nilly. Have you really thought about what that means?

It's real easy to armchair quarterback all this stuff, isn't it?

And it's a lot of fun for some people to try and scare the beejeezus out of readers, whether they use the word 'fraud' or 'ban' or whatever.

[Anna and Jeff 3]

What I want to know is, why do so many posters in this thread care so passionately about the intentof the OP? Some here seem to be absolutely delighted that they have 'discovered' this lie, as if somehow it's going to positively affect their lives. It's not. I am quite sure the person at the embassy who denied this petition didn't do so with this sense of glee, I am sure they denied the petition with compassion. There are genuine feelings involved, real people.

I agree that it is right and proper to advise that what this couple did was wrong and 'could' result in a life time ban - as a warning to other people and as an advisory for the OP BUT personally I feel sorry for this couple and I hope they do try again. If I were them I would let USICS decide if what happened deserves a life time ban, not the members of VJ.

Second that. -A

[rebeccajo 14]

What you do or don't do is your choice. "Try to fit..." is something from your imagination. If the actions fit, they fit. No need to try to make them fit. The fact remains, the person facing a potential lifetime ban as the subject of this thread is not in the USA and not subject to US Criminal Penalties, so they are simply irrelevant to the OP's circumstances or to the circumstance of anybody not yet in the USA or who has been deported. Those people are not (presently) subject to prosecution under US criminal law. They are subject to USCIS and Immigration Judges' decisions, not US Criminal law.

What the heck do you think the US Government means when they state lying on forms can result in criminal prosecution?

Are they not saying that violation of immigration law can land you in criminal court?

A penalty is a penalty. I don't get why that is hard to understand.

[pushbrk 12,882]

What you do or don't do is your choice. "Try to fit..." is something from your imagination. If the actions fit, they fit. No need to try to make them fit. The fact remains, the person facing a potential lifetime ban as the subject of this thread is not in the USA and not subject to US Criminal Penalties, so they are simply irrelevant to the OP's circumstances or to the circumstance of anybody not yet in the USA or who has been deported. Those people are not (presently) subject to prosecution under US criminal law. They are subject to USCIS and Immigration Judges' decisions, not US Criminal law.

What the heck do you think the US Government means when they state lying on forms can result in criminal prosecution?

Are they not saying that violation of immigration law can land you in criminal court?

A penalty is a penalty. I don't get why that is hard to understand.

I'm sorry but you must be in the USA to be subject to criminal prosecution. The OP is a foreigner who was denied a visa. She is not subject to criminal prosecution in US Criminal courts. She is subject to USCIS and Immigration Judges' rulings. As such, the penalties resulting from criminal prosecution do not apply to the OP.