Afraid a dire mistake has been made..please help!

[Bobby+Umit 161]

I respectfully disagree. While apparently working illegally is forgiven, her violation of the K1 visa makes her subject to removal. She wilfully withheld information to obtain adjustment of status, and though the information you supplied claims she is to be forgiven for such misrepresentation, she would not have been eligible for AOS after her removal for her violation... so it's touchy.

You were "in violation status work". You were a non-resident and worked when not legally permitted to do so.

So, it appears had you admitted the truth at the time of AOS you would have been approved anyway, and you would not have lied. By submitting AOS on the basis of K1 (and not spouse) you confirm that you have obeyed the rules of the K1 and you did mostly, but you did violate your status and work illegally.

<snip>

So I suppose it depends. I personally would seek the assistance of a lawyer as you lied, your violated your status and you withheld information. I don't think they'll find out but I personally wouldn't want to take that risk. I think a lot of the advice mentioned is open to interpretation, including my own, so I think you need professional advice.

I will have to disagree with some things that you wrote.

The AOS is on the basis of admission on a K-1 and marrying that USC within 90 days. So they have to be a spouse in order to do so. (485 Instructions)

You state several times she "lied" - there is nothing on the I-485 that asks if you worked (legally or illegally). So how could she misrepresented/withheld information? (LA)

I see no mention of the first interview (if it was even held) - plus, only a court of law can determine if she "willfully" lied. (LA)

For that matter, going pass your I-94 expiration date is a violation of your status, even if you come in on a K-1, but that does not stop you from doing the AOS after the expiration. ( I don't recommend doing this - see previous posts from me)

This is the case law that John pointed out to me a while ago - about AOS/working without EAD. Matter of Khan.

Matter of Khan , 17 I. & N. Dec. 508 (BIA, 1980) . Unauthorized employment alone should not ordinarily result in the discretionary denial of adjustment to those individuals who are statutorily eligible for that relief, no other negative considerations being present.

I just happened to be talking to my lawyer friend during lunch today, and she confirmed that if your married to an USC, working without an EAD, overstay, and even, coming here with the intent to marry and AOS on a non-immigrant visa is allowed, you can succesfully AOS.

She stated the only thing that can't be AOS from is EWI, even if your married to an USC. (you could try waivers, but it's a long shot if you win)

(LA = asked the lawyer specifically about it)

Here is the precedent for the "intent":

Matter of Cavazos , 17 I. & N. Dec. 215 (BIA, 1980) . In the absence of other adverse factors, an application for adjustment by an immediate relative should generally be granted in the exercise of discretion notwithstanding the fact that the applicant entered as a nonimmigrant with a preconceived intention to remain.

(go here for more cases and immigration law from the Justice department.gov site)

These cases are also listed in the FAM.

I don't know why you quoted something from the revocation of the naturalisation, this case is about ROC from an AOS, not becoming a citizen.

________________________________________

Now - with that all said and done, I do not recommend you work without an EAD, overstay your I-94, or try to come here with the intent to marry/aos.

I do recommend you tell the truth - always - and I always support going to a lawyer if you unsure of your case.

[VanessaTony 3,567]

I don't know why you quoted something from the revocation of the naturalisation, this case is about ROC from an AOS, not becoming a citizen.

I'm going to ignore the rest just because, like I said, it's open to interpretation and I have already read all the links you posted so no point in rehashing.

The reason I mentioned the citizen link is that just passing one process doesn't cancel out the bad things you did. You can STILL have things come back to bite you and my overall message was this:

We are not able to give you legal advice (even those of us with those qualifications), only a lawyer with ALL the details of your case and your file can do that, and you REALLY should speak to someone about this because whether it's forgiven for AOS, or ROC or whatever you will want to know ALL your options and to stop you being worried forever about being "caught out" and how if affects you.

Good luck.

[Bobby+Umit 161]

For anyone who doesn't want to ignore information - here is the FAM - which USCIS uses to determine immigration cases.

Read through that and you will find the same thing I did - after John pointed it out to me a while ago. (case laws, etc...)

Chapter 23 is the AOS section.

It is an interesting read, and it gives you some idea on what USCIS looks at for this process.

In exercising discretion, the adjudicator must take into account all known positive (i.e., favorable to the applicant) factors as well as all known negative (or unfavorable) factors. In the vast majority of cases, there are no significant negative factors to be considered, and the positive factors inherent in the case (e.g., unification of the family in the case of relative petition-based adjustments; meeting the needs of American business in the case of employment petition-based adjustments; humanitarian a nd other factors in the case of asylee, and special act adjustments) prevail

[Brother Hesekiel 2,235]

Frankly, in the real world of AOS, ROC, and naturalization, there are only three deal breakers that can bite an immigrant in the buttocks:

1) material misrepresentation

2) EWI

3) False claim to be a USC

Crazy enough, the more I dive into this subject, the more I learn about discrepancies between belief and reality. For example, until recently I believed that EWI is an absolute killer and that EWI plain and simple means that somebody entered without inspection. Now I learned that somebody who wasn't inspected but waived through at the border isn't really EWI as no active attempt to circumvent inspection was performed. Nobody is forced to hit the brakes when an Immigration Officer orders them to proceed. Proving this is difficult, of course, but that's not the subject of this post.

For all practical purposes, I doubt very, very, very much that working without authorization can have any effect at the ROC or later stage. Failing to pay taxes can, however, and since a 1099 was issued to the O.P. she should definitely report this income in her tax returns, by amendment if necessary.

[HeatDeath 430]

It seems to me that being waved through a PoE by a border officer isn't Entry Without Inspection. You were inspected, very quickly, visually, by the border officer when he waved you through . I would tend to think that "Entered Without Inspection" is a term reserved for climbing under a fence in the middle of a desert, or, to use a Canadian example, crossing a knee-deep-in-snow-cover golf course in the dead of a Canadian winter wearing sneakers. (Dang fool was lucky to only lose a couple of toes!)

[john_and_marlene 162]

I'm going to ignore the rest just because, like I said, it's open to interpretation and I have already read all the links you posted so no point in rehashing.

What you seem to be missing...or ignoring repeatedly in this and other threads is that the interpretation has already been resolved in a court and the rulings now act with the power of law. To dismiss case law and ignore it's rulings diminishes the value of your position and results in bad advice and incorrect information.