petitions involving Adam Walsh Act...

[daboyz 36]

Just to add, IMBRA does not apply to IR-1/CR-1 visas.

[Bobby+Umit 161]

@Perplexed

Yes, I have read through the AWA. I believe the government is interperting the law to cover all sex offenders, regardless if it was against a minor/adult.

As for the "adult references", in the law, they cite "adult" cases of sex offense (offenders), or make reference to them. (Dru Sjodin for example). That is what I was referring to. Lawyers can use the wording to interpet it to what they want.

Is it wrong or right? I suppose it depends which side your on.

[Perplexed 0]

You must not have read it correctly. Here's USCIS's description/interpretation of AWA

Section 402 of the Adam Walsh Act amends section 204 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to prohibit U.S. citizens and lawful permanent resident aliens who have been convicted of any “specified offense against a minor” from filing a family-based immigrant petition (including the Form I-130 and the Petition to Classify Orphan, Form I-600A or I-600) on behalf of any beneficiary (http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/AdamWalshAct072806.pdf).

This is the same verbage we see in Title IV of AWA (see http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-4472 for full-text of AWA). No mention of adults there in the Act or in USCIS's interpretation of it.

So, I do believe you are incorrect. Those RSO's who have offenses against adults, not minors could then challenge the law if applied to them because that would violate the intent of the (erroneous) law, which was to protect children.

Nonsensical.

@Perplexed

Yes, I have read through the AWA. I believe the government is interperting the law to cover all sex offenders, regardless if it was against a minor/adult.

As for the "adult references", in the law, they cite "adult" cases of sex offense (offenders), or make reference to them. (Dru Sjodin for example). That is what I was referring to. Lawyers can use the wording to interpet it to what they want.

Is it wrong or right? I suppose it depends which side your on.

[Bobby+Umit 161]

You must not have read it correctly. Here's USCIS's description/interpretation of AWA

Section 402 of the Adam Walsh Act amends section 204 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to prohibit U.S. citizens and lawful permanent resident aliens who have been convicted of any “specified offense against a minor” from filing a family-based immigrant petition (including the Form I-130 and the Petition to Classify Orphan, Form I-600A or I-600) on behalf of any beneficiary (http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/AdamWalshAct072806.pdf).

This is the same verbage we see in Title IV of AWA (see http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-4472 for full-text of AWA). No mention of adults there in the Act or in USCIS's interpretation of it.

So, I do believe you are incorrect. Those RSO's who have offenses against adults, not minors could then challenge the law if applied to them because that would violate the intent of the (erroneous) law, which was to protect children.

Nonsensical.

@Perplexed

Yes, I have read through the AWA. I believe the government is interperting the law to cover all sex offenders, regardless if it was against a minor/adult.

As for the "adult references", in the law, they cite "adult" cases of sex offense (offenders), or make reference to them. (Dru Sjodin for example). That is what I was referring to. Lawyers can use the wording to interpet it to what they want.

Is it wrong or right? I suppose it depends which side your on.

Yet, people are being denied regardless of who they offended against. (adult/minor), so USCIS is making the interpretation that it covers both.

Which is what I am suggesting. Which is what my posts are about.

Which is what laywers will have to battle with.

[Perplexed 0]

Ok, I understand what you're saying, that regardless of what is written in the AWA and USCIS policies, decisions are being made. Do you have links or additional information about those cases where USCIS has denied a petition when the RSO's crime WASN'T against a minor? Because those cases would be challengeable in a court of law, and I believe it would be in federal court since this is a federal law. The USCIC has no legal grounds for denying an I-130 if the RSO has NOT committed a crime against a child.

You must not have read it correctly. Here's USCIS's description/interpretation of AWA

Section 402 of the Adam Walsh Act amends section 204 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to prohibit U.S. citizens and lawful permanent resident aliens who have been convicted of any “specified offense against a minor” from filing a family-based immigrant petition (including the Form I-130 and the Petition to Classify Orphan, Form I-600A or I-600) on behalf of any beneficiary (http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/AdamWalshAct072806.pdf).

This is the same verbage we see in Title IV of AWA (see http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-4472 for full-text of AWA). No mention of adults there in the Act or in USCIS's interpretation of it.

So, I do believe you are incorrect. Those RSO's who have offenses against adults, not minors could then challenge the law if applied to them because that would violate the intent of the (erroneous) law, which was to protect children.

Nonsensical.

@Perplexed

Yes, I have read through the AWA. I believe the government is interperting the law to cover all sex offenders, regardless if it was against a minor/adult.

As for the "adult references", in the law, they cite "adult" cases of sex offense (offenders), or make reference to them. (Dru Sjodin for example). That is what I was referring to. Lawyers can use the wording to interpet it to what they want.

Is it wrong or right? I suppose it depends which side your on.

[Bobby+Umit 161]

Most of the cases I have seen all dealt with minors. I think there was one post here with an "adult" case, but my ninja search skills is not finding it.

If I come across any in my searches, I will pm them to you.

[Angie Y Shane 2]

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.

When one person has committed a crime it's not for one person to judge that person forever. That's God's job not yours. Also it's not right for a person to continue to suffer from one mistake. If the depth has been paid to society why continue to punish and make two other people suffer. We are talking about man and woman. Matthew : chapter 19 verse 5, 6, let man not separate man and woman from marriage.

[kylejb 0]

You said they do not apply to IR-1/CR-1 visas.

How do you know this? From what I read below, it includes the I-130. Isn't that part of what needs to be filed in a IR-1/CR-1 Visa?

Section 402 of the Adam Walsh Act amends section 204 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to prohibit U.S. citizens and lawful permanent resident aliens who have been convicted of any “specified offense against a minor” from filing a family-based immigrant petition (including the Form I-130 and the Petition to Classify Orphan, Form I-600A or I-600) on behalf of any beneficiary, unless the Secretary of Homeland Security determines in his sole and unreviewable discretion that the petitioner poses no risk to the beneficiary. Section 402 of the Adam Walsh Act also amends section 101(a)(15) of the INA to remove spouses or fiancés of U.S. citizens convicted of these offenses from eligibility for “K” nonimmigrant status (Form I-129F).

Just to add, IMBRA does not apply to IR-1/CR-1 visas.

[Bobby+Umit 161]

You said they do not apply to IR-1/CR-1 visas.

How do you know this? From what I read below, it includes the I-130. Isn't that part of what needs to be filed in a IR-1/CR-1 Visa?

Section 402 of the Adam Walsh Act amends section 204 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to prohibit U.S. citizens and lawful permanent resident aliens who have been convicted of any “specified offense against a minor” from filing a family-based immigrant petition (including the Form I-130 and the Petition to Classify Orphan, Form I-600A or I-600) on behalf of any beneficiary, unless the Secretary of Homeland Security determines in his sole and unreviewable discretion that the petitioner poses no risk to the beneficiary. Section 402 of the Adam Walsh Act also amends section 101(a)(15) of the INA to remove spouses or fiancés of U.S. citizens convicted of these offenses from eligibility for “K” nonimmigrant status (Form I-129F).

Just to add, IMBRA does not apply to IR-1/CR-1 visas.

IMBRA is not the AWA.

[daboyz 36]

You said they do not apply to IR-1/CR-1 visas.

How do you know this? From what I read below, it includes the I-130. Isn't that part of what needs to be filed in a IR-1/CR-1 Visa?

Section 402 of the Adam Walsh Act amends section 204 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to prohibit U.S. citizens and lawful permanent resident aliens who have been convicted of any “specified offense against a minor” from filing a family-based immigrant petition (including the Form I-130 and the Petition to Classify Orphan, Form I-600A or I-600) on behalf of any beneficiary, unless the Secretary of Homeland Security determines in his sole and unreviewable discretion that the petitioner poses no risk to the beneficiary. Section 402 of the Adam Walsh Act also amends section 101(a)(15) of the INA to remove spouses or fiancés of U.S. citizens convicted of these offenses from eligibility for “K” nonimmigrant status (Form I-129F).

Just to add, IMBRA does not apply to IR-1/CR-1 visas.

IMBRA is not the AWA.

[kylejb 0]

So what your saying is if the K1 gets denied, then I can apply for a IR-1/CR-1 Visa?

You said they do not apply to IR-1/CR-1 visas.

How do you know this? From what I read below, it includes the I-130. Isn't that part of what needs to be filed in a IR-1/CR-1 Visa?

Section 402 of the Adam Walsh Act amends section 204 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to prohibit U.S. citizens and lawful permanent resident aliens who have been convicted of any “specified offense against a minor” from filing a family-based immigrant petition (including the Form I-130 and the Petition to Classify Orphan, Form I-600A or I-600) on behalf of any beneficiary, unless the Secretary of Homeland Security determines in his sole and unreviewable discretion that the petitioner poses no risk to the beneficiary. Section 402 of the Adam Walsh Act also amends section 101(a)(15) of the INA to remove spouses or fiancés of U.S. citizens convicted of these offenses from eligibility for “K” nonimmigrant status (Form I-129F).

Just to add, IMBRA does not apply to IR-1/CR-1 visas.

IMBRA is not the AWA.

[Bobby+Umit 161]

So what your saying is if the K1 gets denied, then I can apply for a IR-1/CR-1 Visa?

You said they do not apply to IR-1/CR-1 visas.

How do you know this? From what I read below, it includes the I-130. Isn't that part of what needs to be filed in a IR-1/CR-1 Visa?

Section 402 of the Adam Walsh Act amends section 204 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to prohibit U.S. citizens and lawful permanent resident aliens who have been convicted of any “specified offense against a minor” from filing a family-based immigrant petition (including the Form I-130 and the Petition to Classify Orphan, Form I-600A or I-600) on behalf of any beneficiary, unless the Secretary of Homeland Security determines in his sole and unreviewable discretion that the petitioner poses no risk to the beneficiary. Section 402 of the Adam Walsh Act also amends section 101(a)(15) of the INA to remove spouses or fiancés of U.S. citizens convicted of these offenses from eligibility for “K” nonimmigrant status (Form I-129F).

Just to add, IMBRA does not apply to IR-1/CR-1 visas.

IMBRA is not the AWA.

Not at all. If your initial petition was denied, you would have to correct the issue that caused the denial in the first place. Getting married and attempting another visa will not "erase" that first denial.

[daboyz 36]

I guess I should have never mentioned IMBRA. I seem to have clouded the issue. IMBRA only applies to K visas. And from what I understand they just use that to notify the beneficiary of you past criminal history. AWA is totally different. IMBRA does not apply to IR-1/CR-1, but AWA does apply to IR-1/CR-1.

I hope I cleared up any confusion.

[kylejb 0]

So, again, if I am denied a K1, then I am screwed. Basically there is NOTHING left to do.

I guess I should have never mentioned IMBRA. I seem to have clouded the issue. IMBRA only applies to K visas. And from what I understand they just use that to notify the beneficiary of you past criminal history. AWA is totally different. IMBRA does not apply to IR-1/CR-1, but AWA does apply to IR-1/CR-1.

I hope I cleared up any confusion.