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

[rebeccajo 14]

Right here it is, Pushbrk.

I can't help it if you don't understand.

"(B) Whoever uses—

(1) an identification document, knowing (or having reason to know) that the document was not issued lawfully for the use of the possessor,

(2) an identification document knowing (or having reason to know) that the document is false, or

(3) a false attestation,

for the purpose of satisfying a requirement of section 274A(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. "

http://www.uscodesurf.com/18/1546

[pushbrk 12,895]

Right here it is, Pushbrk.

I can't help it if you don't understand.

"(B) Whoever uses—

(1) an identification document, knowing (or having reason to know) that the document was not issued lawfully for the use of the possessor,

(2) an identification document knowing (or having reason to know) that the document is false, or

(3) a false attestation,

for the purpose of satisfying a requirement of section 274A(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. "

http://www.uscodesurf.com/18/1546

I certainly agree you're properly spelling out the proper US Criminal law and penalty. However, the OP in this thread is not in the USA and is NOT subject to US Criminal prosecution, so these penalties do not apply to her. US Courts don't have the ability to fine the OP because she is not in the USA. They cannot imprison her. They can only ban her from entering the USA.

What part of that is difficult to understand? Your citations do not apply to the OP. Period.

[rebeccajo 14]

Whatever, Mike.

The law is the law.

It's too pretty of a day to spend it here thumping the keyboard trying to get that through your thick head.

You wanna keep trying to scare the ####### out of everybody on this board with your ridiculous interpretations of immigration law, go right ahead.

[Niel&Femi 0]

here...lets make this visible

http://www.visajourney.com/examples/INS-Form-G-325A.pdf

this is the G-325....which you have to fill 4 of these out for yourself.

The question:

Former Husbands or Wives (If none, so state)Family Name (For wife, give maiden name)

First Name

Date and Place of Termination of Marriage

Date and Place of Marriage

Birth Date(mm/dd/yyyy)

[if there is none put none]

If the OP put NONE.......LIE....FRAUD

If the OP put her current husband and a termination date...it wouldve been a false date as there was no termination date at the time of filling out the form...guess what....LIE.....FRAUD

How about if they did not put any date there at the date of termnation of marriage, what would have happened?

[scandal 951]

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.

On this discussion, I tend to agree with pushbrk - with one reservation. You write "I'm sorry but you must be in the USA to be subject to criminal prosecution". That's not entirely true. The US of course maintains extradition treaties with many countries, and often returns to US soil those which it wants to prosecute under its laws, both for crimes committed physically in the US before the individual fled abroad and for cases where someone living abroad commits a US crime (e.g. tax evasion). I've not heard of a case of immigration fraud in which the US extradited a USC from overseas back to the US to face trial, but I wouldn't be surprised if that has happened either in an egregious case, or in a routine case where they want to make an example of someone to keep the rest of us on our toes.

With that nit-pick out of the way, the general substance of your discussion with rebeccajo is correct.

I think the confusion is that there are two people facing possible sanctions in a K visa petition: The USC petitioner, and the non-USC beneficiary. And, there are two systems which can mete out potential penalties: the Immigration and Criminal systems.

I think pushbrk is right that the non-USC faces absolutely no jeopardy under US Criminal law. She is simply not subject to US law and it's not relevant to her.

She does face the wrath of the immigration system. Their penalties range all the way from rudeness on the telephone and RFE's.... up to multi-year bans and lifetime bans.

As to the USC, he needs to be concerned both about the Immigration and Criminal penalties.

The difference between our topic here and the news article shared by rebaccajo is that in the news article the non-USC beneficiary had already arrived on US soil, and thus became eligible for criminal prosecution as well as loss of immigration privileges. It's truly not an apples to apples case.

[pushbrk 12,895]

Whatever, Mike.

The law is the law.

It's too pretty of a day to spend it here thumping the keyboard trying to get that through your thick head.

You wanna keep trying to scare the ####### out of everybody on this board with your ridiculous interpretations of immigration law, go right ahead.

You're just plain wrong. The law is the law AND the law spells out who is subject to prosecution under the law. The OP is not subject to the jurisdiction of any criminal court in the USA. Her fiance could be but she isn't. She's subject to penalties but not those imposed by criminal courts inside the USA. You citations are penalties exacted by criminal courts inside the USA. They don't apply.

[scandal 951]

here...lets make this visible

http://www.visajourney.com/examples/INS-Form-G-325A.pdf

this is the G-325....which you have to fill 4 of these out for yourself.

The question:

Former Husbands or Wives (If none, so state)Family Name (For wife, give maiden name)

First Name

Date and Place of Termination of Marriage

Date and Place of Marriage

Birth Date(mm/dd/yyyy)

[if there is none put none]

If the OP put NONE.......LIE....FRAUD

If the OP put her current husband and a termination date...it wouldve been a false date as there was no termination date at the time of filling out the form...guess what....LIE.....FRAUD

How about if they did not put any date there at the date of termnation of marriage, what would have happened?

I would expect they would get an RFE. If they had indicated a previous marriage, and not indicated the date when that marriage ended, it should never have cleared adjudication by USCIS, and would have resulted in an RFE to provide the termination date. Until the RFE would be returned, the case would wait and not be approved.

[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.

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.

On this discussion, I tend to agree with pushbrk - with one reservation. You write "I'm sorry but you must be in the USA to be subject to criminal prosecution". That's not entirely true. The US of course maintains extradition treaties with many countries, and often returns to US soil those which it wants to prosecute under its laws, both for crimes committed physically in the US before the individual fled abroad and for cases where someone living abroad commits a US crime (e.g. tax evasion). I've not heard of a case of immigration fraud in which the US extradited a USC from overseas back to the US to face trial, but I wouldn't be surprised if that has happened either in an egregious case, or in a routine case where they want to make an example of someone to keep the rest of us on our toes.

With that nit-pick out of the way, the general substance of your discussion with rebeccajo is correct.

I think the confusion is that there are two people facing possible sanctions in a K visa petition: The USC petitioner, and the non-USC beneficiary. And, there are two systems which can mete out potential penalties: the Immigration and Criminal systems.

I think pushbrk is right that the non-USC faces absolutely no jeopardy under US Criminal law. She is simply not subject to US law and it's not relevant to her.

She does face the wrath of the immigration system. Their penalties range all the way from rudeness on the telephone and RFE's.... up to multi-year bans and lifetime bans.

As to the USC, he needs to be concerned both about the Immigration and Criminal penalties.

The difference between our topic here and the news article shared by rebaccajo is that in the news article the non-USC beneficiary had already arrived on US soil, and thus became eligible for criminal prosecution as well as loss of immigration privileges. It's truly not an apples to apples case.

The law states "whoever". It does not differentiate between that person being in or out of the US.

Show me where the law states that fraudulently misstating one's marital status on a document for obtaining a visa can gain one the ban, and this conversation will be over.

[Niel&Femi 0]

There something I notice in all this discussion, the OP asked the question for you to advice most don’t do that you rather started to condemn the poor lady, I believe that is why she could not come back again since most of you are already sentence her to condemnation for life, when most of you are not there when the interview is being conducted, you don’t know what they fill in the form, you don’t know what are the questions the interviewer asked her, you are just there to castigate her, as if you are the presiding judge of the matter. Please give her a chance and explained things to her instead of condemn please rethink

Thanks and cheers

[luckytxn 2,264]

I am loving the lawyers here. Of course they may have done something wrong and of course the penalties may be severe.

The OP can be extradited if a crime has been commited that warranted it but it is an expensive process to do so. The country the Op is in would have a hearing first to determine if they will let her be extradited.

The OP can be banned for life but of course the OP may be given the benefit of the doubt and told to reapply or allowed to wait until the court papers show they are free and clear to marry. Everyone is just spitting in each other faces in games of one upmanship here. Just saying the same things over and over is not gonna make it happen. Now that y'all have scared the OP senseless why don't everyone let them get on and see what actually happens. I for one would be waiting to see the outcome.

[scandal 951]

The law states "whoever". It does not differentiate between that person being in or out of the US.

Show me where the law states that fraudulently misstating one's marital status on a document for obtaining a visa can gain one the ban, and this conversation will be over.

You are absolutely right it states "whoever". And the "whoever" absolutely applies to "whoever" is subject to the Law's jurisdiction.

But the jurisdiction has limits, I'm sure you'd agree. It does not apply to minors, mentally deficient, or others incapable of understanding the law. It also does not apply to a non US person living outside the US. I suppose that in this situation you could make the case that once the non-US beneficiary (the Filipina lady who began this thread) submitted forms (her attestation of being single and willing to marry) as part of the I-129F filing, she brought herself under US legal jurisdiction. That may be technically true (I'm not sure it is), but since she's not a US person, the only way it could be enforced would be through extradition and I doubt this case meets the standard of either US or Philippines government for extradition. Hence, even if she is theoretically subject to the US Criminal code, from a very practical perspective she is not.

As to your second statement, I've never claimed that she's subject to a lifetime immigration ban. I honestly don't know if that is true. Many others have stated it here, I'm not sure on what basis. I don't know what the relevant immigration penalty is for misstating the marital status though I'm sure it's severe. (Note that I have written "misstating" without using the word 'fraudulently' , as you did, since I'm cringing whenever people keep tossing it in. We simply aren't in a position to make that statement, as I've taken pains to show in previous posts.)

What I think pushbrk and I are both trying to tell you is not that you have the wrong law: you've got the right criminal statue, all right. But that's only one part of the system, and the possible penalties. The criminal system metes out its penalties (fines, prison time) and the immigration system metes out its penalties (denials, bans). Regardless of the jurisdiction of criminal courts to the non-USC beneficiary, there's no doubt that she's subject to immigration penalties. The fact that these penalties are not on your weblink only means that website isn't addressing that whole area, not that it doesn't exist or isn't pertinent.

[GloriaLuvsMoto2 0]

The law states "whoever". It does not differentiate between that person being in or out of the US.

Show me where the law states that fraudulently misstating one's marital status on a document for obtaining a visa can gain one the ban, and this conversation will be over.

So would that mean the OP will be jailed for this?

what a pity theyre just trying to be together.. sigh...

[Anna and Jeff 3]

There something I notice in all this discussion, the OP asked the question for you to advice most don’t do that you rather started to condemn the poor lady, I believe that is why she could not come back again since most of you are already sentence her to condemnation for life, when most of you are not there when the interview is being conducted, you don’t know what they fill in the form, you don’t know what are the questions the interviewer asked her, you are just there to castigate her, as if you are the presiding judge of the matter. Please give her a chance and explained things to her instead of condemn please rethink

Thanks and cheers

This was the title. "Got denied on my interview b'coz of not having my decision yet at the court from my previous marriage, Give me some help!!!"

So true. It makes one not want to post any questions here for fear of being ridiculed by others. I also think there are many here who are prejudiced towards Filipinos for whatever reason so they react even worse. I know I am not the only one to see this as it was a problem in another thread which mods had to excise the prejudicial comments.

I have looked on the net and what happened to her is not unheard of. She will have to refile after the annulment. Cases of being banned for life are common for things such as marriage fraud but filling in a form inaccurately? Bullshit. The usefulness of this site is highly debatable right now. I can find the information elsewhere without the drama and the questions my wife has asked did not have an adequate answer. Oh well, it is free so what do we expect. - J

[scandal 951]

There something I notice in all this discussion, the OP asked the question for you to advice most don’t do that you rather started to condemn the poor lady, I believe that is why she could not come back again since most of you are already sentence her to condemnation for life, when most of you are not there when the interview is being conducted, you don’t know what they fill in the form, you don’t know what are the questions the interviewer asked her, you are just there to castigate her, as if you are the presiding judge of the matter. Please give her a chance and explained things to her instead of condemn please rethink

Thanks and cheers

Cheers! I agree with this.

I'm personally enjoying this thread because the discussion is fun, and I like the sound of my own voice just as much as the next guy.

For the record, I did attempt to give OP some direct advice on what to do in her situation, scroll back about 3-4 pages I think to find it.

[pushbrk 12,895]

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.

On this discussion, I tend to agree with pushbrk - with one reservation. You write "I'm sorry but you must be in the USA to be subject to criminal prosecution". That's not entirely true. The US of course maintains extradition treaties with many countries, and often returns to US soil those which it wants to prosecute under its laws, both for crimes committed physically in the US before the individual fled abroad and for cases where someone living abroad commits a US crime (e.g. tax evasion). I've not heard of a case of immigration fraud in which the US extradited a USC from overseas back to the US to face trial, but I wouldn't be surprised if that has happened either in an egregious case, or in a routine case where they want to make an example of someone to keep the rest of us on our toes.

With that nit-pick out of the way, the general substance of your discussion with rebeccajo is correct.

I think the confusion is that there are two people facing possible sanctions in a K visa petition: The USC petitioner, and the non-USC beneficiary. And, there are two systems which can mete out potential penalties: the Immigration and Criminal systems.

I think pushbrk is right that the non-USC faces absolutely no jeopardy under US Criminal law. She is simply not subject to US law and it's not relevant to her.

She does face the wrath of the immigration system. Their penalties range all the way from rudeness on the telephone and RFE's.... up to multi-year bans and lifetime bans.

As to the USC, he needs to be concerned both about the Immigration and Criminal penalties.

The difference between our topic here and the news article shared by rebaccajo is that in the news article the non-USC beneficiary had already arrived on US soil, and thus became eligible for criminal prosecution as well as loss of immigration privileges. It's truly not an apples to apples case.

The law states "whoever". It does not differentiate between that person being in or out of the US.

Show me where the law states that fraudulently misstating one's marital status on a document for obtaining a visa can gain one the ban, and this conversation will be over.

Your two sentences are separate issues. Even though the law states "whoever" other laws govern "jurisdiction". A court must have jurisdiction for a prosecution and subsequent penalty to result.

Addressing the issue of extradition, the keyword is "returns". The OP cannot be returned to US soil for prosecution. She's never been here.

Rebeccajo requests somebody to show her a law that states that fraudulently misstating one's marital status on a document for obtaining a visa can gain one "the ban". ( I assume she means the lifetime ban.) It's a fair request but I have made no such assertion and neither has Uscandual. Someone who has made such an assertion may wish to respond.

My assertion is simply that RJ's citations don't apply to the OP. She's simply barking up the wrong tree using criminal penalties as her argument. There are arguments against the OP getting a lifetime ban as there are arguments for just about anything but these are not them.

For the record again, I have asserted the OP may be subject to up to a lifetime ban for a material misrepresentation. The principal argument against that would relate to what constitutes material misrepresention in the eyes of USCIS or ultimately an immigration judge. The immigration judge would come into the picture in case of an appeal or waiver request.

The potential prosecution of the US Citizen petitioner is a separate matter. I think it's unlikely but have no further opinion on the matter.

When the OP/beneficiary presented herself to the IV unit inside the Embassy in Manila, one of the first things that happened was she was placed under oath and asked to swear the papers were factual and that her statements would be.

References DS 230 Oath/Affirmation above Consular officer witnessed signature. See red enlargment.

I understand that any willfully false or misleading statement or willful concealment of a material fact made by me herein may subject me to permanent exclusion

from the United States and, if I am admitted to the United States, may subject me to criminal prosecution and/or deportation.I, the undersigned applicant for a United States immigrant visa, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that all statements which appear in this application, consisting of

Form DS-230 Part I and Part II combined, have been made by me, including the answers to items 1 through 35 inclusive, and that they are true and complete to the

best of my knowledge and belief. I do further swear (or affirm) that, if admitted into the United States, I will not engage in activities which would be prejudical to the

public interest, or endanger the welfare, safety, or security of the United States; in activities which would be prohibited by the laws of the United States relating to

espionage, sabotage, public disorder, or in other activities subversive to the national security; in any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to or the control, or

overthrow of, the Government of the United States, by force, violence, or other unconstitutional means.

I understand that completion of this form by persons required by law to register with the Selective Service System (males 18 through 25 years of age) constitutes

such registration in accordance with the Military Selective Service Act.

I understand all the foregoing statements, having asked for and obtained an explanation on every point which was not clear to me.

It's not clear to me that K1 applicants actually sign part two of the DS 230 but they do sign the DS 156 which includes a statement indicating the applicant understands that false or misleading statements on the forms can result in a permanent refusal of a visa or denial of entry to the USA.

The combination of the two makes it clear that the OP would need to enter the USA to be subject to criminal prosecution or deportation.

Edited February 7, 2009 by pushbrk