Some Adam Walsh questions

[A and T 82]

It seems that uscis for Adam Walsh Petitioners constantly go into the " Make sure the petitioner is not a threat " Type thing. My issue with this is My wife and I are adults, she knows my past , and typed up a letter saying she understood it fully and it was told her to way back before we even started dating.

My guess is this " is the petitioner a threat" thing is not actually to care about the person being peitioned but more of a way to Get Uscis out of Liabilities. Maybe they are lawsuit scared?

My idea is have my wife type up a legal waiver saying that USCIS and the USA government is in no way responsible for her decsisions to marry me , and be with me, and that they hold not liabilities, and are not legally responsible for her decisions, and that she has made a clear and concious decision to be with me.

If she were to type up a huge legal document, signed, and norotized with a list of all agencies that she will not hold legally responsible for any issues once she is with me. Would that help??

Is that reasonable? Legally they wouldn't have to worry, so what would be the problem then?

[SuperDuper! 230]

Sorry, but am I missing something here? Why are you concerned with the Adam Walsh factor? Please give a general detail or two, or all feedback to you will be basically useless to you.

[A and T 82]

Sorry, but am I missing something here? Why are you concerned with the Adam Walsh factor? Please give a general detail or two, or all feedback to you will be basically useless to you.

I don't really wish to post the detials sensative to my case which is still being reviewed at this time. Sadly some people on this forum don't want cases like this to succeed and often provide false information.

[SuperDuper! 230]

I don't really wish to post the detials sensative to my case which is still being reviewed at this time. Sadly some people on this forum don't want cases like this to succeed and often provide false information.

Thatz fine. But if you offer no significant info, then expect no significant answers. Cheers.

[Carlawarla 1]

It seems that uscis for Adam Walsh Petitioners constantly go into the " Make sure the petitioner is not a threat " Type thing. My issue with this is My wife and I are adults, she knows my past , and typed up a letter saying she understood it fully and it was told her to way back before we even started dating.

My guess is this " is the petitioner a threat" thing is not actually to care about the person being peitioned but more of a way to Get Uscis out of Liabilities. Maybe they are lawsuit scared?

My idea is have my wife type up a legal waiver saying that USCIS and the USA government is in no way responsible for her decsisions to marry me , and be with me, and that they hold not liabilities, and are not legally responsible for her decisions, and that she has made a clear and concious decision to be with me.

If she were to type up a huge legal document, signed, and norotized with a list of all agencies that she will not hold legally responsible for any issues once she is with me. Would that help??

Is that reasonable? Legally they wouldn't have to worry, so what would be the problem then?

Like Hopp says, it would be helpful if you provided some details. Like was this a sexual offence? How long ago? Was the victim a child or adult? Your wife signing something absolving the government of anything should anything happen to her...(but you're saying nothing will?), then is kind of stating that something might. So, I don't think it's going to be helpful at all, matter of fact, it might hurt you.

And I truly don't think that something she signs now would be binding anyway, should something happen to her. What about offspring? If not something happens to her, what about if you have children? Again, not knowing what part of the ADA you're referencing writing a letter, it's hard to say anything more than what my opinions are.

I see the problem being for sexual offenders, is that you'll not get anything from any competent professional saying you're not a risk. You might get something saying, your risk is manageable, or your risk is low, but that you'll never be a risk? Nope. If it does happen, that you can get something like that, if I was reviewing the case, I'd really qualify that response.

You say your case is still pending, or being adjudicated. There are several threads here in this forum from others, one specifically, that was successful in getting their wife here. I believe he provided a list of what he submitted, that he believed assisted him in getting a positive response.

Best of luck!

[A and T 82]

Like Hopp says, it would be helpful if you provided some details. Like was this a sexual offence? How long ago? Was the victim a child or adult? Your wife signing something absolving the government of anything should anything happen to her...(but you're saying nothing will?), then is kind of stating that something might. So, I don't think it's going to be helpful at all, matter of fact, it might hurt you.

And I truly don't think that something she signs now would be binding anyway, should something happen to her. What about offspring? If not something happens to her, what about if you have children? Again, not knowing what part of the ADA you're referencing writing a letter, it's hard to say anything more than what my opinions are.

I see the problem being for sexual offenders, is that you'll not get anything from any competent professional saying you're not a risk. You might get something saying, your risk is manageable, or your risk is low, but that you'll never be a risk? Nope. If it does happen, that you can get something like that, if I was reviewing the case, I'd really qualify that response.

You say your case is still pending, or being adjudicated. There are several threads here in this forum from others, one specifically, that was successful in getting their wife here. I believe he provided a list of what he submitted, that he believed assisted him in getting a positive response.

Best of luck!

My case was consensual sex with a minor , and your statement " then is kind of stating that something might" makes no sense.

Lets be very clear, My wife is an adult, I'm an adult, we are the same age and probably can't have children (as we have tried ) , so where is the risk that the government claims?

They haven't said I was a risk, but that is the default answer for every person that applies, regardless of what the case was, if they peed in the bushes and got on the sex offender list, they go through this same setup.

So I don't think you guys reading this are understanding what I am saying.

Lets try again

The government holds up all adam walsh filers , regardless of whate evidence is sent. So it seems,

The question is why? Even when the proof is submitted , that is over whelming in the petitioners case, the case stays held up.

So what is the real problem?

Edited February 2, 2010 by nonversation

[A and T 82]

Lets try this example.

1. Lets say a Man is a registered sex offender in the usa, he meets a women in the usa, they date, marry, and have a child.

2. A Man is from the usa, he meets his wife overseas and marries.

Now, in example #1 the government doesn't check them for papers, or proof that the person is rehabilitied, or anything. Nothing is done, nothing is said, in example one that couple/family would not be held to any special rules by the government.

In example #2, the Petitioner sends all documents proving he/she is a good moral person, and has no issues but then waits and waits, and 90% of the time it seems they don't approve these.

You have people on this forum that came from overseas, met in the usa, married, had children, and live together for years, that are still being denied

So I ask you, what is the difference between person #1 and Person #2 in the example above? Where the person comes from is not relevant at all.

Its Discrimination, thats why I am asking what is the REAL reason behind USCIS delaying everyone for years almost? You have the whole usa screaming " uphold Sanctity of marriage" against the gays, when they don't even really believe this at all for people like us, What about My wife and I, and our "Sanctity of marriage" Do I not have the right to be married and have a family as person #1 does in the example above?

[Bobby+Umit 161]

Lets try this example.

1. Lets say a Man is a registered sex offender in the usa, he meets a women in the usa, they date, marry, and have a child.

2. A Man is from the usa, he meets his wife overseas and marries.

Now, in example #1 the government doesn't check them for papers, or proof that the person is rehabilitied, or anything. Nothing is done, nothing is said, in example one that couple/family would not be held to any special rules by the government.

In example #2, the Petitioner sends all documents proving he/she is a good moral person, and has no issues but then waits and waits, and 90% of the time it seems they don't approve these.

You have people on this forum that came from overseas, met in the usa, married, had children, and live together for years, that are still being denied

So I ask you, what is the difference between person #1 and Person #2 in the example above? Where the person comes from is not relevant at all.

Its Discrimination, thats why I am asking what is the REAL reason behind USCIS delaying everyone for years almost? You have the whole usa screaming " uphold Sanctity of marriage" against the gays, when they don't even really believe this at all for people like us, What about My wife and I, and our "Sanctity of marriage" Do I not have the right to be married and have a family as person #1 does in the example above?

1. There is currently no law in place to allow them to do this.

2. There is currently a law in place that places restrictions/checks (your "holdup") on marriage based visas. You are married now - they did not stop you from doing that. However, you have to go through the process to get the visa now, because of this law.

[A and T 82]

1. There is currently no law in place to allow them to do this.

2. There is currently a law in place that places restrictions/checks (your "holdup") on marriage based visas. You are married now - they did not stop you from doing that. However, you have to go through the process to get the visa now, because of this law.

I understand but you must agree that the process is extremely flawed.

What part of the process takes so long to give a yes or no answer? I would think the evidence could be looked at and determined in just a few months. ?

Edited February 2, 2010 by nonversation

[Bobby+Umit 161]

I understand but you must agree that the process is extremely flawed.

What part of the process takes so long to give a yes or no answer? I would think the evidence could be looked at and determined in just a few months. ?

I do not believe the process is flawed.

They have to do a background check on you to ensure you are not a threat - this process takes time and effort to complete to their satisifaction.

This is part of the law they must follow.

[A and T 82]

I do not believe the process is flawed.

They have to do a background check on you to ensure you are not a threat - this process takes time and effort to complete to their satisifaction.

This is part of the law they must follow.

So it taking years to approve or disapprove someone you feel that is not flawed? And judging someone who marries abroad is ok, but its not ok if that same person marries a usa citizen , (they have no checks for that)

And you see no flaw in that at all? Regardless of what is or isn't law some commonsense should come into play

I don't believe it takes a year to research someones background, background checks can be done in 24 to 48 hours

We also have laws against discrimination in the United States, those are not being followed

Discrimination = Definition: unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice

Which is a RSO being judged who he can marry and bring to the united states, while other RSOs marry american citiezens and aren't checked or questioned

Edited February 2, 2010 by nonversation

[SunDrop 59]

So it taking years to approve or disapprove someone you feel that is not flawed? And judging someone who marries abroad is ok, but its not ok if that same person marries a usa citizen , (they have no checks for that)

And you see no flaw in that at all? Regardless of what is or isn't law some commonsense should come into play

I don't believe it takes a year to research someones background, background checks can be done in 24 to 48 hours

I understand that it's frustrating. From the sounds of things you were unfortunate enough to be charged with statutory rape, as your sexual partner was under the legal age of consent. It's something a great number of people have done and got away with it, but you were charged. Rightly or wrongly, and no matter what anyone else thinks about it, arguing the sense of applying AWA to every sex offense is not worth taking up by debating it with VJ members, as it'll fall on helpless ears.

If you've read the VSC Director's Q&A that Gary and Alla had pinned at the top of the K-1 forum, you'll see that the process for visas is actually very simple. But ALL visas take months longer to process than the actual time spent physically on each case, even when there is no reason to stall it.

When you think about it, it's not fair that any of us have to go through any of this process and cost just to be with our loved ones. My fiance exclaimed just the other day, when we were going over the I-129F petition and required documentation "why couldn't you just have been a local gal?" The money we have to spend on just being allowed to live together, means we can't have much more than a JoP wedding. The fact that we HAVE to get married to live together isn't fair. The entire immigration system is 'flawed' using this perspective.

Think of it from this perspective. At the moment, if 2 USCs get married, all the systems are in place for them to receive any support and help they may need if they marry someone who falls under the AWA and there is a repeat offense. They are existing USCs and have the same rights. When an AWA petitioner asks the Government to bring a citizen of another country to the US to marry them, the Government has to weigh up the probability of them needing the Government's assistance. There is a cost implication and a diplomatic responsibility. If they allowed AWA petitioners to bring citizens over and that citizen went on to be harmed, they are answerable to that country for "allowing" the citizen to be in a vulnerable situation.

Systems to check are very flawed. Evidence and past history is often excluded from court proceedings, juvenile records can't be brought into adult cases, charges are dropped, etc. and getting a clear picture isn't always possible.

Think scenario: a 15 year old is charged with statutory rape. Looks like simple 'bad luck', but what they don't know at the time is that he was actually molesting his 8 year old cousin when he was 9. She never came forward until AFTER the trial. By this point, the crime has reached its statute of limitations and he can't be charged. He served his juvvie sentence and went on his merry way. He then had a string of relationships where his girlfriends left because he was becoming more violent. They reported it but too long after it happened to bring charges. There are then a series of rapes that have the same MO, the police have a suspect, but can't pin it on the guy. He then goes traveling and meets someone. The police in Whatever country have a load of unsolved rapes, but since he's not settled anywhere, he doesn't appear on their systems. They have no reason to contact Interpol because there's nothing to indicate it was a foreigner. He meets a swell gal in Whatever country and they decide to move back to the US and get married.

I'm not suggesting this is your case, in any way, but you can see how if that scenario guy applied for a visa for his foreign girlfriend/ spouse and the only thing he is required to submit is the transcripts for his Statutory rape case, now 15 odd years ago. It's the only thing he's disclosed to his girlfriend even though all the cops in his area know he's suspect, the DA knows there was an allegation of abuse of his cousin against which charges couldn't be brought.

That takes time to investigate. And honestly, I'm glad that they do. Because for all the people with 'simple cases' of statutory rape, there are a small percentage who are uncharged repeat offenders.

[Old Dominion 26]

Yes, it is frustrating, and that's sad for anyone in your situation. With that crime on the record for the rest of your life, right or wrong, you are a marked man. Basically, the US doesn't want to cooperate with you. You already know that, I'm sure.

Can you move to the Phils?? I think RP is quite worried about known predators settling there, too.

Edited February 2, 2010 by Old Dominion

[Bobby+Umit 161]

So it taking years to approve or disapprove someone you feel that is not flawed? And judging someone who marries abroad is ok, but its not ok if that same person marries a usa citizen , (they have no checks for that)

Again, it is the law - that law tells them to do background checks, DHS has sole authority on approval or not. They made this part of the law to protect incoming immigrants because there is a history of abuse happening to them from sexual predators, and being that they are immigrants, some do not have the same grasp of the laws in place to protect them once they are in the US, not withstanding the petitioner holding them hostage to the GC, which an USC does not have to worry about. (this is my broad understanding of the clause in the law)

And you see no flaw in that at all? Regardless of what is or isn't law some commonsense should come into play.

No - no flaw. The way the law is written, they are following it. I am not suggesting the law is valid or not, just what is written now.

I don't believe it takes a year to research someones background, background checks can be done in 24 to 48 hours

Evidence is to the contrary of your belief. Many factors come into play, and some common things in the background can stretch out the check even more, for example, common last name. AP overseas can take years, let alone 48 hours.

We also have laws against discrimination in the United States, those are not being followed

Discrimination = Definition: unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice

Which is a RSO being judged who he can marry and bring to the united states, while other RSOs marry american citiezens and aren't checked or questioned

Which is not applicable in AWA cases. You only go through this if you were convicted of being a sex offender. There is no prejudice involved, they are using your past history to see if your a threat now. If they were prejudiced toward you (or group) they would just deny AWA applications out of turn, without reviewing each case.

Once more, the AWA does not stop you from marrying outside of the US, the ability of you to apply and be granted a immigrant visa for your wife is being controlled. Indeed, getting a visa for a family member is not a right, it's a privilage. If you follow the law/rules, it is usually granted, if not, then that is what you have to live with.

For the record, I have no problem with AWA, nor do I have a problem with people passing through an AWA background check and getting visas for their loved ones. Your best bet is to find a skilled lawyer and work with them to get your visa granted.

[A and T 82]

Yes, it is frustrating, and that's sad for anyone in your situation. With that crime on the record for the rest of your life, right or wrong, you are a marked man. Basically, the US doesn't want to cooperate with you. You already know that, I'm sure.

Can you move to the Phils?? I think RP is quite worried about known predators settling there, too.

Moving is a possiblity , I believe they judge on a case by case basis. Probably based on how long ago it happened and what happened. In the phils I believe my case here would not be considered against the law, if it had happened there.

Lots of 20 years olds with 15 and 16 year olds there, legally I believe . Honestly I dont know their sex laws, as my wife and I are the same age, and thats all that matters

The question would come down to if they would judge my background based on their laws or ours? In the philippines abortion is against the law, and considered a crime of moral turpitude . But in the usa it is not, clearly the usa judges people that immigrate for crimes of moral turpitude, but no where for the philippines is it in black and white as to what excatly that is. (commonsense stuff aside)

I was able to go to the philippines several times, I extended my visa and got BI clearence . I'm sure somewhere my cases are tied to my passport, I would guess, so Im sure they are aware.

If it comes down to me having to leave, I will , honestly I feel the usa would give me more trouble about leaving, than the phils would about me living there.

I don't know what happens when a person on the RSO list, notifies his state that he is moving to another country. They could decide to be hateful to that person and call the country and tell them to not let them in , which is a fear , I just depends on if the place you register likes you as a person or not I guess.

It comes down to , if a person is convicted of a crime in 1 country, that is not considered a crime in another, who do they judge by?

Edited February 2, 2010 by nonversation