petitions involving Adam Walsh Act...

[s.o. 0]

the Adam Walsh Act strictly forbids anyone who has been convicted of any " specified offense against a minor " from filing a family-based petition on behalf of any beneficiary, unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you pose no risk to the safety or well being... ". in my case i am a person who has been convicted of an specified offense against a minor and at this time i now have to prove to the USCIS that i am not a threat to my fiancee' and i have this one chance to do it or my petition will be denied. the suggested guidelines of evidence that may prove my non-threatening self basically involve professional evaluations and documentation that is very similar to the type that one receive if they were in counseling or group therapy. this may include polygraphs, ABEL screening and/or very complicated and in depth behavioral assessments. these paticular evaluations are costly and will require time and dedication to complete. i have started to gather information and make preparations, to prove to those who are in the positions to decide our future, to get our petition approved so that my honey and i can be together. we will see this through til the end. there are others that are also waiting to be approved so please share your experiences so that we all can benefit...

[nurse1967 287]

the Adam Walsh Act strictly forbids anyone who has been convicted of any " specified offense against a minor " from filing a family-based petition on behalf of any beneficiary, unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you pose no risk to the safety or well being... ". in my case i am a person who has been convicted of an specified offense against a minor and at this time i now have to prove to the USCIS that i am not a threat to my fiancee' and i have this one chance to do it or my petition will be denied. the suggested guidelines of evidence that may prove my non-threatening self basically involve professional evaluations and documentation that is very similar to the type that one receive if they were in counseling or group therapy. this may include polygraphs, ABEL screening and/or very complicated and in depth behavioral assessments. these paticular evaluations are costly and will require time and dedication to complete. i have started to gather information and make preparations, to prove to those who are in the positions to decide our future, to get our petition approved so that my honey and i can be together. we will see this through til the end. there are others that are also waiting to be approved so please share your experiences so that we all can benefit...

Wish I could say I felt bad for you but if you did the crime then you have to deal with the consequences.

[Old Dominion 26]

How recently were you convicted of such a terrible crime? If it was within the last five or so years, you don't have much hope of getting the petition approved no matter what counseling you have gone through. All things considered, if you are really in love with this Filipina, you may have a hope of starting a fresh life in the Philippines (not that they tolerate child molesters either).

[Rachel555 0]

hi dwainsrockin,

pls read my last topics i thought u read ,i wrote few days ago that last week i got same thing u ll find the topic where i sayed that where angieYshane sayed in janury they got letter of intent to deny i wrote few days ago there when i got this nottice so we keep in toucht ok?

no worries everything will be fine this days i ll let u know what we thought as evidences.

As for u Betsy El Sum ,we Adam waslh filers dont need to heare u or anyone else feel bad for us so i think u should be quaiet cause ur not in our shoes,and dont tell us about dealing with the consequences ,cause i feel i should not write u so many words ...but all this Adam Walsh filers who made a crime 10 or 12 years ago believe me they payed for what they did ,so write in the appropriate topic this is open for us the ones who are dirrectly involved in this situation,if u dont have what to do watch a movie or go and have a walk and breath fresh air,im sure u know many men arround age of 20 having sex with a girl under 18 ) so pls give us a breack... with ur comments .

And for everyone in this problem good luck!!!

Rachel

[Bobby+Umit 161]

Thread with this info the OP is seeking

[s.o. 0]

How recently were you convicted of such a terrible crime? If it was within the last five or so years, you don't have much hope of getting the petition approved no matter what counseling you have gone through. All things considered, if you are really in love with this Filipina, you may have a hope of starting a fresh life in the Philippines (not that they tolerate child molesters either).

my crime was in 1993. i appreciate your opinion and please feel free to comment further. as to your comment that filipinos dont tolerate child molesters i cant say either way, i dont know. if you are making an inference to me then please feel free to say what you wish!

[s.o. 0]

hi dwainsrockin,

pls read my last topics i thought u read ,i wrote few days ago that last week i got same thing u ll find the topic where i sayed that where angieYshane sayed in janury they got letter of intent to deny i wrote few days ago there when i got this nottice so we keep in toucht ok?

no worries everything will be fine this days i ll let u know what we thought as evidences.

As for u Betsy El Sum ,we Adam waslh filers dont need to heare u or anyone else feel bad for us so i think u should be quaiet cause ur not in our shoes,and dont tell us about dealing with the consequences ,cause i feel i should not write u so many words ...but all this Adam Walsh filers who made a crime 10 or 12 years ago believe me they payed for what they did ,so write in the appropriate topic this is open for us the ones who are dirrectly involved in this situation,if u dont have what to do watch a movie or go and have a walk and breath fresh air,im sure u know many men arround age of 20 having sex with a girl under 18 ) so pls give us a breack... with ur comments .

And for everyone in this problem good luck!!!

Rachel

you are kind and encouraging with your comments, as usual. when i post somethign here i expect to get comments of all kinds. thanks again and stay strong my friend...

Thread with this info the OP is seeking

thanks!!!

[s.o. 0]

the Adam Walsh Act strictly forbids anyone who has been convicted of any " specified offense against a minor " from filing a family-based petition on behalf of any beneficiary, unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you pose no risk to the safety or well being... ". in my case i am a person who has been convicted of an specified offense against a minor and at this time i now have to prove to the USCIS that i am not a threat to my fiancee' and i have this one chance to do it or my petition will be denied. the suggested guidelines of evidence that may prove my non-threatening self basically involve professional evaluations and documentation that is very similar to the type that one receive if they were in counseling or group therapy. this may include polygraphs, ABEL screening and/or very complicated and in depth behavioral assessments. these paticular evaluations are costly and will require time and dedication to complete. i have started to gather information and make preparations, to prove to those who are in the positions to decide our future, to get our petition approved so that my honey and i can be together. we will see this through til the end. there are others that are also waiting to be approved so please share your experiences so that we all can benefit...

Wish I could say I felt bad for you but if you did the crime then you have to deal with the consequences.

you take care and good luck to you!

[s.o. 0]

the Adam Walsh Act strictly forbids anyone who has been convicted of any " specified offense against a minor " from filing a family-based petition on behalf of any beneficiary, unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you pose no risk to the safety or well being... ". in my case i am a person who has been convicted of an specified offense against a minor and at this time i now have to prove to the USCIS that i am not a threat to my fiancee' and i have this one chance to do it or my petition will be denied. the suggested guidelines of evidence that may prove my non-threatening self basically involve professional evaluations and documentation that is very similar to the type that one receive if they were in counseling or group therapy. this may include polygraphs, ABEL screening and/or very complicated and in depth behavioral assessments. these paticular evaluations are costly and will require time and dedication to complete. i have started to gather information and make preparations, to prove to those who are in the positions to decide our future, to get our petition approved so that my honey and i can be together. we will see this through til the end. there are others that are also waiting to be approved so please share your experiences so that we all can benefit...

UPDATE: here is a good example of what to expect if you get the " letter of intent to deny..." if you choose to start the process where you are going to be assessed to see if you are " a risk to the beneficiary " that is your fiancee, and you go in for testing ,for example , ABEL screening, you can expect to pay $1600.00 to start. this is based on local costs here in my area. but please realize that this is just an idea and you should be prepared to spend much more money in your cause. how about some of you people that are dealing with AWA call around to your local area SEX-OFFENDER TREATMENT specialists. ask for the costs of a Polygraph, Plethysmograph, Abel Screening, etc , etc. how about asking for the costs of a Psychologist to evaluate you. if you do this please share your information with us all...

[Rachel555 0]

hi dwainsrockin,

i ll be arround here as often as i can hopefully everything will end good for us in summer:),im sure it will ahahha even if it sounds crazy but i know will be good,will be hard but im sure what u did in past is now just past and are so many years since u commited that crime and now u can proof ur new life and that u care about that girl so much ,so hopefully they ll be good to us.

As for Betsy El sum ,she /he should watch over her/his own petition cause is a long journey waiting for you too,but seems that some cant see over their own buisniess,as i sayed yesterday she/he sure has friends men who had sexual contact with a minor at leats once when they were arround age of 20,but some keep it as a secret:D ,so people...the ones who hate us Adam Walsh Act filers,please let us breath and comunicate in a nice way heare we had enough stress last almoust 2 years ,and now to heare all this comments, and u dwainsrockin...was way too nice to wish her good luck i couldnt ahahhaha in ur place:)

anyway talk to u soon Adam Walsh filers...

Get evidences u need as fast as u can!!

Good Luck!!!

Rachel

[Perplexed 0]

I don't recall the original poster asking to be judged, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought he/she was posting information about a unique case. For those who might want to judge, if you can't say anything nice, don't say it at all. I believe that was a lesson I learned when I was 2?!?

With that being said, there are organizations fighting AWA and states have already found some of its Title's unconstitutional. This might be one of those. This might be the only way for you to win - what right does the government have to determine the who you can/cannot marry? What right does the government have to determine if your fiance is safe? Shouldn't she make that decision for herself? In reality, this part of the law punishes the partner who isn't on the registry as well, a person who has probably never committed a crime. This law was passed to protect children, not adults, but is being applied to adults with no evidence that RSO's who are filing I-130's have ever committed sex crimes with those they've petitioned for. They know a certain # of RSO's have filed petitions, yes, but what does that tell us about the crimes they've committed? Nothing. So, like I said, this might be the grounds for the fight. Additionally, the cost you are going to have to incur because of this is ridiculous and not well thought out by those who passed this part of the law ... I'd fight that too.

On another note, here's a link to a variety of risk assessment tools for RSO's (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/evaluation/psi_sops/sops-tools.htm). The STATIC-99 is the currently the most accurate predictor of RSO risk (although it still makes errors about 30-40% of the time). These are designed to be easy and inexpensive to complete requiring only the facts of your case. Use these risk assessments in combination with other evidence of rehabilitation as they do not have 100% predictive validity. If I can help you in any way, please let me know.

BTW - my husband, a USC, is an RSO and he sponsored me for permanent residency the year before AWA passed. I'm stuck in I-751 right now (I filed almost 2 years ago). We've contacted a national organization that works for immigrant rights (lawyers) and they're researching our case right now. If they hear from others that this AWA & USCIC stuff is a problem, they might work more quickly on the issue. I can send you their information in a PM if you want it. I've been married for 5 years and am head over heals in love with this man who I've built my life around. I'll fight with every ounce of energy I have if they deny my case and tell me I'm being deported for falling in love with a man who made a mistake when he was 17 years old (20 years ago).

[gracies 0]

the Adam Walsh Act strictly forbids anyone who has been convicted of any " specified offense against a minor " from filing a family-based petition on behalf of any beneficiary, unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you pose no risk to the safety or well being... ". in my case i am a person who has been convicted of an specified offense against a minor and at this time i now have to prove to the USCIS that i am not a threat to my fiancee' and i have this one chance to do it or my petition will be denied. the suggested guidelines of evidence that may prove my non-threatening self basically involve professional evaluations and documentation that is very similar to the type that one receive if they were in counseling or group therapy. this may include polygraphs, ABEL screening and/or very complicated and in depth behavioral assessments. these paticular evaluations are costly and will require time and dedication to complete. i have started to gather information and make preparations, to prove to those who are in the positions to decide our future, to get our petition approved so that my honey and i can be together. we will see this through til the end. there are others that are also waiting to be approved so please share your experiences so that we all can benefit...

I am sorry to hear about your case. I hope you will make it through. Open your mind and heart about the possibilities. There were applicants who were denied even with strong evidence presented. I had a friend who had a consul bf, and he said that Adam Walsch is one very important part of the process. I am telling you this because i want you to be strong and be ready. I wish you luck and your fiancee.

Edited April 9, 2009 by jan_hunt

[Bobby+Umit 161]

With that being said, there are organizations fighting AWA and states have already found some of its Title's unconstitutional. This might be one of those. This might be the only way for you to win - what right does the government have to determine the who you can/cannot marry?

They do not determine who you can/cannot marry. The act prevents immigration of the beneficiary if the petitioner falls under it.

What right does the government have to determine if your fiance is safe?

The law gives them the right (or their interpretation of it), and they do not determine it, the petitioner will have to prove it to them, via doctors signing off on their "safety" -

Shouldn't she make that decision for herself?

She should make that decision, the law gives notice to the beneficiary (similar to the IMBRA) of the status/history of the petioner.

In reality, this part of the law punishes the partner who isn't on the registry as well, a person who has probably never committed a crime. This law was passed to protect children, not adults, but is being applied to adults with no evidence that RSO's who are filing I-130's have ever committed sex crimes with those they've petitioned for.

The law mentions, several times, things that are just "adult" oriented. Plus, usually, people getting married, usually have children, so it's to protect their "future" children.

They know a certain # of RSO's have filed petitions, yes, but what does that tell us about the crimes they've committed? Nothing. So, like I said, this might be the grounds for the fight.

Huh? When you fill out the waiver request under this law, you must provide evidence of the nature of your crime. So they would know. Yes, prior to this law, there were some RSO's that made it through the system, and in some of those cases, the RSO abused the incoming immigrants/children.

Additionally, the cost you are going to have to incur because of this is ridiculous and not well thought out by those who passed this part of the law ... I'd fight that too.

Who should borne the cost to "fight" this? Me? you? other taxpayers? If you did a crime, then you should pay.

[s.o. 0]

I don't recall the original poster asking to be judged, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought he/she was posting information about a unique case. For those who might want to judge, if you can't say anything nice, don't say it at all. I believe that was a lesson I learned when I was 2?!?

With that being said, there are organizations fighting AWA and states have already found some of its Title's unconstitutional. This might be one of those. This might be the only way for you to win - what right does the government have to determine the who you can/cannot marry? What right does the government have to determine if your fiance is safe? Shouldn't she make that decision for herself? In reality, this part of the law punishes the partner who isn't on the registry as well, a person who has probably never committed a crime. This law was passed to protect children, not adults, but is being applied to adults with no evidence that RSO's who are filing I-130's have ever committed sex crimes with those they've petitioned for. They know a certain # of RSO's have filed petitions, yes, but what does that tell us about the crimes they've committed? Nothing. So, like I said, this might be the grounds for the fight. Additionally, the cost you are going to have to incur because of this is ridiculous and not well thought out by those who passed this part of the law ... I'd fight that too.

On another note, here's a link to a variety of risk assessment tools for RSO's (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/evaluation/psi_sops/sops-tools.htm). The STATIC-99 is the currently the most accurate predictor of RSO risk (although it still makes errors about 30-40% of the time). These are designed to be easy and inexpensive to complete requiring only the facts of your case. Use these risk assessments in combination with other evidence of rehabilitation as they do not have 100% predictive validity. If I can help you in any way, please let me know.

BTW - my husband, a USC, is an RSO and he sponsored me for permanent residency the year before AWA passed. I'm stuck in I-751 right now (I filed almost 2 years ago). We've contacted a national organization that works for immigrant rights (lawyers) and they're researching our case right now. If they hear from others that this AWA & USCIC stuff is a problem, they might work more quickly on the issue. I can send you their information in a PM if you want it. I've been married for 5 years and am head over heals in love with this man who I've built my life around. I'll fight with every ounce of energy I have if they deny my case and tell me I'm being deported for falling in love with a man who made a mistake when he was 17 years old (20 years ago).

it is nice to know that there are people like you who are looking for solutions to these problems and are not wasting there time with useless judgments that help no one.

i would appreciate the information you spoke of and any information you have that may help us.

from what i have been reading, updates from a Colorado RSOL group,the STATIC-99 is receiving a lot of negative press these days. it seems that the grading system used is not very specific.

i sure hope that all goes well for you guys and i look forward to further communications together... dwain

the Adam Walsh Act strictly forbids anyone who has been convicted of any " specified offense against a minor " from filing a family-based petition on behalf of any beneficiary, unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you pose no risk to the safety or well being... ". in my case i am a person who has been convicted of an specified offense against a minor and at this time i now have to prove to the USCIS that i am not a threat to my fiancee' and i have this one chance to do it or my petition will be denied. the suggested guidelines of evidence that may prove my non-threatening self basically involve professional evaluations and documentation that is very similar to the type that one receive if they were in counseling or group therapy. this may include polygraphs, ABEL screening and/or very complicated and in depth behavioral assessments. these paticular evaluations are costly and will require time and dedication to complete. i have started to gather information and make preparations, to prove to those who are in the positions to decide our future, to get our petition approved so that my honey and i can be together. we will see this through til the end. there are others that are also waiting to be approved so please share your experiences so that we all can benefit...

I am sorry to hear about your case. I hope you will make it through. Open your mind and heart about the possibilities. There were applicants who were denied even with strong evidence presented. I had a friend who had a consul bf, and he said that Adam Walsch is one very important part of the process. I am telling you this because i want you to be strong and be ready. I wish you luck and your fiancee.

thank you very much for you encouraging words. take care... dwain

[Perplexed 0]

They do not determine who you can/cannot marry. The act prevents immigration of the beneficiary if the petitioner falls under it.

**Good point, but would you marry someone if you couldn't live in the same country as them? Gets you stuck between a rock & a hard place.

What right does the government have to determine if your fiance is safe?

The law gives them the right (or their interpretation of it), and they do not determine it, the petitioner will have to prove it to them, via doctors signing off on their "safety" -

**This wasn't a literal question. The government, through elected officials, created and passed this law and are thus responsible for the law. The law doesn't give anyone rights - that's anthropomorphic. Nobody should have to prove to anyone but their partner/spouse that they've rehabilitated. I believe that this requirement is unfounded and opens this law up for challenge.

Shouldn't she make that decision for herself?

She should make that decision, the law gives notice to the beneficiary (similar to the IMBRA) of the status/history of the petioner.

**Yes, this is true, but if the I-130 is denied, the government has essentially decided that the petitioner isn't rehabilitated and thus the spouse would be unsafe - that's in the USCIC policies (have you read them?). That would be a USCIC decision that the petitioner couldn't be with the beneficiary in the US because he's too dangerous to be in that relationship

In reality, this part of the law punishes the partner who isn't on the registry as well, a person who has probably never committed a crime. This law was passed to protect children, not adults, but is being applied to adults with no evidence that RSO's who are filing I-130's have ever committed sex crimes with those they've petitioned for.

The law mentions, several times, things that are just "adult" oriented. Plus, usually, people getting married, usually have children, so it's to protect their "future" children.

**The title of the law is ".... preventing sex offenders from abusing children" and only RSO's with crimes against children are prevented (or limited in) from filing I-130. So RSO's who've sexually abused adults are free to sponsor anyone for family-based petitions. Doesn't sound "adult" oriented, does it? The USCIC polices has mandates for adults, the text of AWA doesn't. I'll ask again - have you read it?

They know a certain # of RSO's have filed petitions, yes, but what does that tell us about the crimes they've committed? Nothing. So, like I said, this might be the grounds for the fight.

Huh? When you fill out the waiver request under this law, you must provide evidence of the nature of your crime. So they would know. Yes, prior to this law, there were some RSO's that made it through the system, and in some of those cases, the RSO abused the incoming immigrants/children.

**You're taking this out of context. We know RSO's have sponsored family members for immigration before, but I've seen NO/ZERO/ZIP data about how many have sexually abused the beneficiary. None, and that's probably because there are no or so few cases that the data is irrelevant (RSO's have the lowest rate of recidivism compared to any other class of felons - USDOJ data says the recidvism rate is 3.5% so they're not as dangerous as the media and legislators would manipulate us into believing).

Additionally, the cost you are going to have to incur because of this is ridiculous and not well thought out by those who passed this part of the law ... I'd fight that too.

Who should borne the cost to "fight" this? Me? you? other taxpayers? If you did a crime, then you should pay.

** Unless these policies were part of the original sentence, then I think additional "payments" such as these constitute double jeopardy without due process. I think this law is DUMB but that's because I've taken the time to educate myself about the risk RSO's pose to our society (and me because I married one). If you did the research - empirical research, not news research, you'd learn I'm right. There are other more dangerous people we should be concerned about.