Visa/Waiver trap

[Lizzy 0]

You may have this resolved now, but if it helps...

I have a history of depression, including self-harm issues and suicide attempts. I ticked "No", because I had a pyschiatric evaluation which said I was fine.

you should of said yes on the form, ive been through the same thing.......i asked if i had an evaluation beforehand could i tick no..the Embassy doctor said you still have to check yes.

You have self harmed, thats what it askes you. I would of put yes..its going to look like your witholding the truth.

They check at the medical (they did me).

Edited July 26, 2006 by Lizzy

[tigretigre 0]

At the medical it will be kind of hard for my fella to hide what he's been through, so we have no intention of trying to do so.

We're just hoping they're willing to follow their own guidelines and grant him the visa because he's in remission. And I'm hoping that the physician will at least be kind, for my fiance's sake. He's been through a lot, and not all the doctors he's seen have been gentle.

[Karen_L 1]

I just have a really bad feeling

Aww! I don't have any advice to offer about waivers/inadmissability, but I will tell you that I had about 6 million really honest-to-God bad feelings regarding my fiance's interview and I was all but convinced at one point that he'd never get the visa, but he did. I think your fiance' will too; in this particular situation, really strong negative feelings don't necessarily predict the outcome!

As for the I-94... honestly, I don't think it will matter. Your fiance' ISN'T a danger to anyone or to himself and he is/was certainly well enough to enter the US. Plus, he could definitely argue that given the wording of the I-94 question, he didn't answer incorrectly. PLUS, I don't know how it's done in London, but my fiance' had applied for a visitor visa about 1 1/2 years ago and was denied. No one asked him about that at his interview, even though his passport has a huge US VISA DENIED stamp in it. There's a chance they won't even know/care what he wrote so long ago on the I-94.

Good luck!

[ChristinaM 0]

You may have this resolved now, but if it helps...

I have a history of depression, including self-harm issues and suicide attempts. I ticked "No", because I had a psychiatric evaluation which said I was fine.

you should of said yes on the form, ive been through the same thing.......i asked if i had an evaluation beforehand could i tick no..the Embassy doctor said you still have to check yes.

You have self harmed, thats what it askes you. I would of put yes..its going to look like your witholding the truth.

They check at the medical (they did me).

Hon, I've got my green card. I've been through the medical, and not had a problem, and I was nothing but honest. I also had my medical here in the US, which may or may not have made a difference.

My psychiatric evaluation was performed by the head of psychiatry in the British Army, for what it's worth. I guess if they deemed me mentally stable enough to join the army, they deemed me as someone with a negligible chance of reoccurence.

As I recall, it doesn't ask "have you self-harmed?". It asks if you are a danger to yourself or others. Which I am not. I would think that after two clear years, the OP's fiance is safe to say that he no longer represents any kind of danger to himself or others either.

[dmartmar 1]

If I understand correctly, your fiance did/does have a mental condition for which he got/gets treatment, but as to not jeopardize his possibility of entering the US, he lied on the application by saying he didn't/doesn't.

Edited July 29, 2006 by dmartmar

[Lizzy 0]

[

Hon, I've got my green card. I've been through the medical, and not had a problem, and I was nothing but honest. I also had my medical here in the US, which may or may not have made a difference.

My psychiatric evaluation was performed by the head of psychiatry in the British Army, for what it's worth. I guess if they deemed me mentally stable enough to join the army, they deemed me as someone with a negligible chance of reoccurence.

As I recall, it doesn't ask "have you self-harmed?". It asks if you are a danger to yourself or others. Which I am not. I would think that after two clear years, the OP's fiance is safe to say that he no longer represents any kind of danger to himself or others either.

AHH ok.....congrats on getting your greencard

[tigretigre 0]

If I understand correctly, your fiance did/does have a mental condition for which he got/gets treatment, but as to not jeopardize his possibility of entering the US, he lied on the application by saying he didn't/doesn't.

You don't understand correctly, but this is exactly why I'm worried.

He didn't fill out an application--he entered the US with his passport when visiting the country as a tourist. On the little card they give you on the airplane, all it asked was "do you have a mental illness?" or something really general like that. He didn't know exactly what he should answer, but figured that unless he was psychotic or a danger to himself/others, there was no reason for them to even care. There were no opportunities for him to consult a psychiatrist and attorney in-flight, so he gave an answer he thought was in line with what they wanted to know about him.

It turns out that this question has a much broader scope on the visa application, which includes a medical and mental status examination, so now we know that he needs to disclose his entire history. Which he will do.

Clearly you think there's dishonesty here, so obviously there's a significant chance the CO will think so too. This means we're screwed, as I've already noted. But thanks for your characterization of my fiance as a cheater and a liar--I can't tell you how much I appreciate it, as I'm sure you knew I would.

[TracyTN 237]

Don't let dmartmar bother you, tigretigre. He enjoys going into topics whose titles sound controversial and seeing who he can tick off or insult.

[ktmmansgal 0]

Don't let dmartmar bother you, tigretigre. He enjoys going into topics whose titles sound controversial and seeing who he can tick off or insult.

So, it appears that TracyTN has the list -- who's posts are worthy of response and who's posts are not ---

[TracyTN 237]

yep that's right!

But seriously, was there any need for hurting tigretigre's feelings like that? I'm sorry, I hate to see that so I said something. So sue me. *shrug*

Edited August 1, 2006 by TracyTN

[rebeccajo 14]

Don't let dmartmar bother you, tigretigre. He enjoys going into topics whose titles sound controversial and seeing who he can tick off or insult.

So, it appears that TracyTN has the list -- who's posts are worthy of response and who's posts are not ---

Tsk tsk. Somebody must be out of their meds.

[aussiewench 9]

Don't let dmartmar bother you, tigretigre. He enjoys going into topics whose titles sound controversial and seeing who he can tick off or insult.

So, it appears that TracyTN has the list -- who's posts are worthy of response and who's posts are not ---

Tsk tsk. Somebody must be out of their meds.

Makes ya wonder too if it had been someone else that responded to dmartmar (as many of us do for the same reason) if ktmmansgal would of even unleashed

tigretigre

I agree with Tracy, ignore.......that was a typical unwarrented response from dtmartmar

[gimygirl 0]

Don't let dmartmar bother you, tigretigre. He enjoys going into topics whose titles sound controversial and seeing who he can tick off or insult.

So, it appears that TracyTN has the list -- who's posts are worthy of response and who's posts are not ---

always remember before slagging someone else off ... that your post is above criticism!

[ktmmansgal 0]

Don't let dmartmar bother you, tigretigre. He enjoys going into topics whose titles sound controversial and seeing who he can tick off or insult.

So, it appears that TracyTN has the list -- who's posts are worthy of response and who's posts are not ---

always remember before slagging someone else off ... that your post is above criticism!

What a wave of response --- I am of the belief that everyone has a viewpoint and "yes" a finger was pointed in the comment back to tigretigre but, it may have also made tigretigre take another look at her situation from a different angle --- there have been several posts just like the one that appeared to hurt some feelings --- In defense of any post that does not come across as "Everything will be OK" is that we spare some feelings at the interview by sharing both the positive and negative aspects of a situation so a person is well informed and prepared for anything -- because a big ANYTHING always seems to happen --- all we have is information to arm ourselves with in preparation for this whole nightmare of a VISA process --- As evidenced I don't read every post on this site But some of you folks just stand out from time to time ---

[gimygirl 0]

Don't let dmartmar bother you, tigretigre. He enjoys going into topics whose titles sound controversial and seeing who he can tick off or insult.

So, it appears that TracyTN has the list -- who's posts are worthy of response and who's posts are not ---

always remember before slagging someone else off ... that your post is above criticism!

What a wave of response --- I am of the belief that everyone has a viewpoint and "yes" a finger was pointed in the comment back to tigretigre but, it may have also made tigretigre take another look at her situation from a different angle --- there have been several posts just like the one that appeared to hurt some feelings --- In defense of any post that does not come across as "Everything will be OK" is that we spare some feelings at the interview by sharing both the positive and negative aspects of a situation so a person is well informed and prepared for anything -- because a big ANYTHING always seems to happen --- all we have is information to arm ourselves with in preparation for this whole nightmare of a VISA process --- As evidenced I don't read every post on this site But some of you folks just stand out from time to time ---

guess i don't stand out from time to time because you would realize that i'm not of the mindset that 'everything will be ok' whenever someone posts about an issue ... hence my response here ...

tracy merely suggested that tigre ignore dmart ... it was clear that he didn't have a grasp of the actual situation and he likes to spin things! a persona attack on tracy was not warranted, IMHO.