Surprise visits by immigration.

[Robert&Karen 264]

Ecuador must suck if that is the belief you have. Is that what happens there? I used to live in Panama, under Noriega, and the police did whatever they wanted.

Regardless, I seriously doubt the USCIS adjudicator looks for reason to deny the case. I'm sure they technically could, like if a staple went through a word and they could not read it, or you checked a box but missed the box and the x is really just beside it, etc. We apply and need to jump through hoops. The adjudicator simply counts the hoops that we have jumped through. If they want to see two toothbrushes in the bathroom to verify you live together, well yes they can get a warrant, but we did offer to comply with them in their adjudication process. I'd not want to change rules midstream. Maybe once the GC is issued or citizenship is acquired things will be different.

And if you want to argue about being secure in your papers etc, try that n the TSA, you won't get on an airplane, and they do not need a warrant to search your luggage. It's part of your agreement to fly. Same with immigration.

Edited September 26, 2011 by aorobert

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

USCIS are being confused with Law Enforcement Agencies here big time. If USCIS shows up at your house, they just want to confirm that you and your Spouse indeed sharing your lives together as you've already claimed in your petition, and I strongly disagree with these guys that keeps saying that USCIS is out there to screw you. Me and my wife has been dealing with USCIS not once has these guys tried to screw us.

This is not an innocent until proven guilty situation, they don't have to prove anything to the Petition and Beneficiary. A simple answer "I don't believe you" is enough reason to be refused Immigration benefits in this country.

They don't send pencil pushers to conduct home inspections. The immigration officers will either be enforcement officers from the fraud unit or they will be ICE officers, or perhaps both. In either case, they will be trained in law enforcement and authorized to make arrests.

[Robert&Karen 264]

They don't send pencil pushers to conduct home inspections. The immigration officers will either be enforcement officers from the fraud unit or they will be ICE officers, or perhaps both. In either case, they will be trained in law enforcement and authorized to make arrests.

When I worked welfare (as the pencil pusher) I sent out fraud investigators to see if couples lived together, if they lied about property, employment, or who all lived in the house. When the evidence came back, *I* was the one to make a decision, the investigator simply got the raw info to me. Sometimes they found 5 people living there, that was fine, I simply made case changes, that is not illegal. Never once did they walk in on a coke farm. Neither did they LOOK for ANY reason to arrest anyone. They were there on MY request.

And frankly if you live the sort of life that you are going to be arrested on site for something you are doing at any random point in time, then I don't want you in my country.

To those who refused the investigator access, I'd close their case based on non-cooperation and the menial evidence I had of fraud. Then they had to prove I was wrong by appealing and literally making a case about it. Then if I was wrong (and one time comes to mind) they had to fight the uphill battle to prove it, and it took almost a year before their aid got started again.

Caveat Emptor!

[AKSinghSingh79 143]

When I worked welfare (as the pencil pusher) I sent out fraud investigators to see if couples lived together, if they lied about property, employment, or who all lived in the house. When the evidence came back, *I* was the one to make a decision, the investigator simply got the raw info to me. Sometimes they found 5 people living there, that was fine, I simply made case changes, that is not illegal. Never once did they walk in on a coke farm. Neither did they LOOK for ANY reason to arrest anyone. They were there on MY request.

And frankly if you live the sort of life that you are going to be arrested on site for something you are doing at any random point in time, then I don't want you in my country.

To those who refused the investigator access, I'd close their case based on non-cooperation and the menial evidence I had of fraud. Then they had to prove I was wrong by appealing and literally making a case about it. Then if I was wrong (and one time comes to mind) they had to fight the uphill battle to prove it, and it took almost a year before their aid got started again.

Caveat Emptor!

You can't be serious. Welfare is NOT Immigration. I don't think it's fair of you to lead other members to believe in a false sense of security just because you have prior experience working in a dissimilar government office.

The fact is nobody except USCIS and ICE really know what goes on in those offices behind closed doors. It may very well happen like you said but the fact remains that you know nothing more than any other poster in this thread.

I wholeheartedly agree that everyone should exercise their fourth amendment right. Here's why: I travel occasionally for work. Say one night when I am not home, there they come knocking on our door. I would never ever want my fiance to handle a home inspection by himself. What if they denied him solely on the fact that I wasn't home?

Proceed cautiously when dealing with the Feds.

[TBoneTX 46,119]

You can't be serious. Welfare is NOT Immigration. I don't think it's fair of you to lead other members to believe in a false sense of security just because you have prior experience working in a dissimilar government office.

The fact is nobody except USCIS and ICE really know what goes on in those offices behind closed doors. It may very well happen like you said but the fact remains that you know nothing more than any other poster in this thread.

I wholeheartedly agree that everyone should exercise their fourth amendment right. Here's why: I travel occasionally for work. Say one night when I am not home, there they come knocking on our door. I would never ever want my fiance to handle a home inspection by himself. What if they denied him solely on the fact that I wasn't home?

Proceed cautiously when dealing with the Feds.

Elegant logic, si man.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

When I worked welfare (as the pencil pusher) I sent out fraud investigators to see if couples lived together, if they lied about property, employment, or who all lived in the house. When the evidence came back, *I* was the one to make a decision, the investigator simply got the raw info to me. Sometimes they found 5 people living there, that was fine, I simply made case changes, that is not illegal. Never once did they walk in on a coke farm. Neither did they LOOK for ANY reason to arrest anyone. They were there on MY request.

And frankly if you live the sort of life that you are going to be arrested on site for something you are doing at any random point in time, then I don't want you in my country.

To those who refused the investigator access, I'd close their case based on non-cooperation and the menial evidence I had of fraud. Then they had to prove I was wrong by appealing and literally making a case about it. Then if I was wrong (and one time comes to mind) they had to fight the uphill battle to prove it, and it took almost a year before their aid got started again.

Caveat Emptor!

Welfare is paid by state agencies and not the federal government. I'm not aware of any state that has law enforcement officers working for the welfare department, although some have marshals guarding the offices. In California they send social workers to conduct home visits - not law enforcement officers. If they find fraud then they usually only take civil action to recover the funds they paid. They only file criminal charges in extended fraud cases (e.g., years of fraud).

DHS has got the entire ICE agency which includes thousands of law enforcement officers. USCIS has the FDNS unit that performs most site inspections, and most of those inspectors are trained law enforcement officers. The bottom line is if the guy flashes a badge then he's likely a trained law enforcement officer, and he's empowered to make arrests.

[Robert&Karen 264]

Welfare departments use retired PD mostly as their investigators. They are peace officers and are armed and have a badge, powers of arrest, etc. We have filed fraud charges on a first offense that may be something they could have skated on had they cooperated. Sometimes a meat head gets an example made of them. Kind of like a cop pulling you over and you end up talking yourself INTO a ticket.

I am not saying that welfare is anything like ICE. But know what? I worked in a US Embassy too as a section Deputy Chief. I'm just saying attitude counts. Now if you insist on telling them to come back with a warrant, no one is going to change your mind. But at least do it kindly. Attitude is everything.

As for me, I'll let them in. When renewing my clearance I needed to provide every address I ever was for the last 5 years. It took plenty of digging. I did not have to provide it and they did not have to clear me. But I happily gave up privacy in trade for their comfort that I am not a security risk.

In the end the person adjudicating your case has to feel confident that they have all the information and it is correct. They may contact you, they may not, they may do a spot check (like TSA) or they may not. How you feel about it is of no concern, they are the ones who have to be comfortable with their decision.

The one concession I do agree on, it is best of both parties are present, as the immigrant may feel pressured to do anything the investigator wants and with some language barriers issues may rise up. we have seen it in Packet 4 interviews so there's no reason it cannot happen any other time.