Visit from dhs

[TBoneTX 45,873]

this isn't criminal law we are dealing with, it is immigration law.

Ah -- which can turn into criminal charges promptly on the basis of anything that the agents decide after they have been permitted consensual entry. As others have stated, the ICE agents are not there to help you.

I don't think that is the worst case scenerio for refusal to let them do their job, it will be the absolute consequence.

I believe that it has been discussed here before -- and it has certainly been the decision of many courts -- that law-enforcement agents cannot convert the claim and exercise of a Constitutional right into a crime. They showed up without a warrant, and were obviously seeking consent to enter -- heightened by the reality that the OP was "just waking up" and would be thinking fuzzily and be less likely to claim and exercise a Constitutional right. Furthermore, the very fact that they showed up without a warrant is proof positive that they had no cause to enter, and they were counting entirely on the weakness of the citizen to hang herself.

The Fourth Amendment -- as emasculated as it currently is -- was written and still exists for very good reason. Our Founding Fathers (remember them?) knew full well the excesses and abuses that an unchecked government could inflict on the people. The suggested response of above (enhanced here) ("Thank you for your interest, but you are absolutely not permitted in our home without a duly executed warrant. If you wish to speak with us, either procure a search warrant or please set an appointment, as we have been obliged to do throughout this entire process of legal immigration. Certainly you can understand that. Please leave your business card in the door. Good day, gentlemen.") is completely honest and forthright, and any law-enforcement agents who assign guilt or criminal intent to such a stance are in deep trouble, and they know it -- but do you?

[WorriedPinay2 0]

Ah -- which can turn into criminal charges promptly on the basis of anything that the agents decide after they have been permitted consensual entry. As others have stated, the ICE agents are not there to help you.I believe that it has been discussed here before -- and it has certainly been the decision of many courts -- that law-enforcement agents cannot convert the claim and exercise of a Constitutional right into a crime. They showed up without a warrant, and were obviously seeking consent to enter -- heightened by the reality that the OP was "just waking up" and would be thinking fuzzily and be less likely to claim and exercise a Constitutional right. Furthermore, the very fact that they showed up without a warrant is proof positive that they had no cause to enter, and they were counting entirely on the weakness of the citizen to hang herself.

The Fourth Amendment -- as emasculated as it currently is -- was written and still exists for very good reason. Our Founding Fathers (remember them?) knew full well the excesses and abuses that an unchecked government could inflict on the people. The suggested response of above (enhanced here) ("Thank you for your interest, but you are absolutely not permitted in our home without a duly executed warrant. If you wish to speak with us, either procure a search warrant or please set an appointment, as we have been obliged to do throughout this entire process of legal immigration. Certainly you can understand that. Please leave your business card in the door. Good day, gentlemen.") is completely honest and forthright, and any law-enforcement agents who assign guilt or criminal intent to such a stance are in deep trouble, and they know it -- but do you?

And as I stated, they are not turning it into a crime, they are denying your immigration status based on your failure to prove a bonafide relationship which is well within their rights. Your whole arguement above is based on criminal law which again does not apply here no matter how much you try to justify it. Now if the petitioner had some illegal items in the house or something you needed to hide, then absolutely deny entry. But don't act surprised when your application is denied.

[Mike B. 231]

And as I stated, they are not turning it into a crime, they are denying your immigration status based on your failure to prove a bonafide relationship which is well within their rights. Your whole arguement above is based on criminal law which again does not apply here no matter how much you try to justify it. Now if the petitioner had some illegal items in the house or something you needed to hide, then absolutely deny entry. But don't act surprised when your application is denied.

Yep. They have a right to go get a search warrant if they have probable cause, and you have a right to tell them that they're not allowed in your house if they are unable to do that. I'm no lawyer, but are you arguing that the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply if the police in question aren't investigating a crime? Wouldn't that lead to a counter-intuitive regime in which cops needed to give criminals more rights than people who they don't suspect of being criminals? I'm sorry, but I just don't buy it.

[Mike B. 231]

You absolutely right, you have to right to not let them in without a warrant.

They also (the feds) have the right to deny your case because you did not prove the marriage/immigration was valid - they could use the refusal of the visit as grounds to deny. (worst case scenario)

So you can be in a catch-22 situation.

BTW - I have friends that are Federal agents, they are not "evil" and "out to get you", they are just doing their job - play by the rules and you will have no issues - your mileage may vary.

I also have friends in law enforcement, but I think what TBone is trying to say isn't that everyone in LE is evil, but rather you are correct: they are just doing their job. People don't like to talk about it so bluntly, but the plain fact is that the job of an ICE agent is to deport as many people who can legally be deported as possible, just like the job of a beat cop is to assist the district attorney in getting as many guilty people convicted as possible. That's their job, and they do it. We're better off having people in law enforcement do their jobs as a whole, but as an individual you have to really look out when you're being targeted. That's what I took out of his post, and if that's what he meant, I totally agree.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

There is no catch 22. If you are getting a visit by federal officials they are not trying to determine if your marriage is bonafide. They can do that easily enough in the local USCIS office. They are instead trying to gather evidence of fraud.

You have to prove that your relationship is real through the person who has your case(ie. by submitting evidence and at the interview).

If ICE is visiting you they aren't making a decision about your case. They are trying to build a case against you to charge you with fraud which is a felony. Thats why Tbone's advice is important.

You have to separate the two parties to realize the consequences.

Edited April 15, 2010 by Sousuke

[WorriedPinay2 0]

Yep. They have a right to go get a search warrant if they have probable cause, and you have a right to tell them that they're not allowed in your house if they are unable to do that. I'm no lawyer, but are you arguing that the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply if the police in question aren't investigating a crime? Wouldn't that lead to a counter-intuitive regime in which cops needed to give criminals more rights than people who they don't suspect of being criminals? I'm sorry, but I just don't buy it.

No where did I say that the forth amendment does not apply. I said if you want you have the absolute right to deny entry. But I also said don't be surprised if your application is denied. All of us who read these forums are well aware that applications have been denied for what we think are rediculous reasons. But the fact is, unlike criminal cases where the burden is on the goverment, in immigration the burden is on us.

Edited April 16, 2010 by WorriedPinay2

[w8inglongtime 29]

No where did I say that the forth amendment does not apply. I said if you want you have the absolute right to deny entry. But I also said don't be surprised if your application is denied. All of us who read these forums are well aware that applications have been denied for what we think are rediculous reasons. But the fact is, unlike criminal cases where the burden is on the goverment, in immigration the burden is on us.

I doubt very much that they could be denied because they excercised their rights to refuse entry into their home by "random" people. They may have flashed badges but badges are sold on the streets and they don't say much without a warrant. I'm pretty sure the OP wouldn't have been the first to say NO to them. USCIS know how far their jurisdiction extends and wouldn't want to break the law themselves. They could be denied alright but uscis knows better than to make the home entry denial a reason for the application being denied. If they do, not only will they be issuing a green card but they will be writing a check for millions for violating her/husband's rights.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

To the OP,

my guess of the outcome is that because you had obviously just awoken and were sleeping there, had obvious visual evidence that your husband shared the place with you and weren't upset with their request to enter and allowed them access, along with the evidence gathered from their other 'visits', they were able to gather enough evidence to show that fraud would be very hard to prove and it wasn't worth their time to try and investigate further. If they had spent a lot of time there, then it would be that they weren't convinced and were looking for proof that he didn't live there, but a cursory look-through seems to me more likely that they had reached a decision that there is no fraud involved and the visit was sort of a final 'yep, they are living together' confirmation. I expect you should get a positive decision very soon - or at the very least another interview scheduled.

Edited April 16, 2010 by Kathryn41

[laf66 0]

And as I stated, they are not turning it into a crime, they are denying your immigration status based on your failure to prove a bonafide relationship which is well within their rights. Your whole arguement above is based on criminal law which again does not apply here no matter how much you try to justify it. Now if the petitioner had some illegal items in the house or something you needed to hide, then absolutely deny entry. But don't act surprised when your application is denied.

This isn't really relevant here but even if they had found illegal items during their visit, that evidence would not be admissible in court without a warrant.

[TBoneTX 45,873]

if they had found illegal items during their visit, that evidence would not be admissible in court without a warrant.

My firm understanding is that consensual entry is the same as if they had entered by use of a warrant. Whatever they see as a result of being inside -- and whatever they are told by people who think "if I only cooperate and tell them what they seem to want to know, everything will be fine" -- is fair game.

I'm reminded of a true story. Police knocked on the closed door of a house trailer due to a complaint of excessive noise. The rocket-scientist homeowner opened the door to answer it and exposed a full-blown marijuana party in progress. Guess who all was arrested and on what charges? Lesson: Answer through a closed door, or step outside and close the door behind you.

Police (of all agencies -- local, state, & Federal -- are after bodies (for arrest) and income (from fines). They will chat you up like teenage boys chat up chicks. If you are "contacted" (meaning, spoken to or questioned without first being detained or arrested), the response of "I don't have to answer that, Sir -- good day!" is simple, elegant, and 100% lawful.

There is much more to say about this (oh, do I have personal stories, si man!), but down off soapbox.

[arren 6]

To the OP,

my guess of the outcome is that because you had obviously just awoken and were sleeping there, had obvious visual evidence that your husband shared the place with you and weren't upset with their request to enter and allowed them access, along with the evidence gathered from their other 'visits', they were able to gather enough evidence to show that fraud would be very hard to prove and it wasn't worth their time to try and investigate further. If they had spent a lot of time there, then it would be that they weren't convinced and were looking for proof that he didn't live there, but a cursory look-through seems to me more likely that they had reached a decision that there is no fraud involved and the visit was sort of a final 'yep, they are living together' confirmation. I expect you should get a positive decision very soon - or at the very least another interview scheduled.

Thank you for the reassuring answer

In the meanwhile I also got in touch with an attorney and I'm seeing them soon, but they sounded pretty confident that I should at least get an interview notice and not a straight denial. I hope everything goes well ><

Thank you Nich-Nick for the link. Nice to hear it ended well for him!

And thanks to everyone who answered. While I can see your point about not letting them in without a warrant, as I said before the option didn't even occurr to me in that moment, and now I can't turn the clock back, as someone else said ^^;

[Mike B. 231]

This isn't really relevant here but even if they had found illegal items during their visit, that evidence would not be admissible in court without a warrant.

Sure it could be. Once they are allowed in the house, anything that is in "plain sight" is admissible. That's why they want to get into your house. To have a look around.

[laf66 0]

My firm understanding is that consensual entry is the same as if they had entered by use of a warrant. Whatever they see as a result of being inside -- and whatever they are told by people who think "if I only cooperate and tell them what they seem to want to know, everything will be fine" -- is fair game.

I'm reminded of a true story. Police knocked on the closed door of a house trailer due to a complaint of excessive noise. The rocket-scientist homeowner opened the door to answer it and exposed a full-blown marijuana party in progress. Guess who all was arrested and on what charges? Lesson: Answer through a closed door, or step outside and close the door behind you.

Police (of all agencies -- local, state, & Federal -- are after bodies (for arrest) and income (from fines). They will chat you up like teenage boys chat up chicks. If you are "contacted" (meaning, spoken to or questioned without first being detained or arrested), the response of "I don't have to answer that, Sir -- good day!" is simple, elegant, and 100% lawful.

There is much more to say about this (oh, do I have personal stories, si man!), but down off soapbox.

Lol, I have to hear your stories! I suppose if the illegal activity/item is in plain sight you would get in trouble but they can't just go looking through your drawers to find something unless you gave them permission. Of course, the officers could lie and say that they found e.g. drugs in plain sight and not in your drawer etc. Anyway, I don't really know much about this. I should ask my lawyer husband, ha!

[TBoneTX 45,873]

Lol, I have to hear your stories!

Well, here's one, si man: I spent a night out of town and went for a walk the next morning (probably looking like a wild man, with bed-head hair, unshaven, in a muscle-shirt, etc.). Two local police drove by in their cruiser, gave me the "thousand-yard stare," and asked, "What are you doing?" I glared back and forthrightly said, "Contemplating my rights under the Fourth & Fifth Amendments, Officer. Good day to you!" The guy looked stunned for a moment, and then they drove off.

I should ask my lawyer husband, ha!

Excellent, depending on his legal specialty (if he's in maritime law or oil & gas, he may refer you to a colleague!). Also, do some reading (web-searches for "Fourth Amendment," www.rutherford.org, ACLU website) for general boundaries of permissible police behavior. One of my favorites is www.lawyerforfreedom.com -- brilliant stuff, si man. Edited April 16, 2010 by TBoneTX

[belinda63 3,041]

This is one of those "there is no right answer" questions. If you refuse them entry they think you have something to hide, if you let them in you risk, well, that would depend on what you have in the home that might be illegal. I personally am a very strong believer in privacy but in this case I think unless there was something you didn't want them to see (bong, illegal drugs, dead body, etc) allowing them in the house was the right decision.

On a side note I heard the newest privacy invasion tactic (at least new to me) is when you are pulled over and the police ask for permission to search your car, if you refuse that then gives them probable cause to search it because why would a law abiding citizen refuse a search.