denial 212 a6c1

[himher 634]

i am extremely hurt by his actions....

nov-2006 we are officially broken up, im so heartbroken and childish his brother and i elope secretly and the next day we regret everything

dec 2006- i came back to new york

Hopefully your husband won't feel the same way (hurt and deceived) and go pork some other woman to get even (like say your sister or some close relative of yours)

[NY_BX 397]

i am extremely hurt by his actions....

nov-2006 we are officially broken up, im so heartbroken and childish his brother and i elope secretly and the next day we regret everything

dec 2006- i came back to new york

Hopefully your husband won't feel the same way (hurt and deceived) and go pork some other woman to get even (like say your sister or some close relative of yours)

[melcom1122 4]

The filing fee to overcome a ban due to fraud or misrepresentation is $585. Lawyers fees vary. I paid $5000 to ours while a friend paid $1800. While our case was exponentially more difficult, both had the same outcome...approved.

what lawyer was this....and ofcourse i realize what i have done, people are so quick to judge i know am in serious trouble and if my husband chooses to levae well thats on him, all i know is that i have to keep trying and not give up yet.

thank you all for answers if anyone knows laywers who are good ta this please give me names thanks

[sachinky 465]

Who is this 'lady' you keep referring to? A lawyer? A friend? A neighbor?

Also, you can see why you got denied, right? I'm going to spell it out. Or rather, type in short sentences.

You were married to his brother. For three years. Didn't disclose it. Either to your current husband. Or the US government, for that matter. Both, VERY bad ideas. Interview day, husband discovers your previous marriage. To his brother. That he had no bleeping idea about. You want the immigration CO to believe this is a bona-fide marriage. REALLY?

You've made a grand old mess and unfortunately the USCIS doesn't look too kindly upon the "young, drunk and/or stupid" excuse. That said, I do wish you the best in reuniting with your husband. Good luck and keep us posted.

Edited February 2, 2012 by sachinky

[Boiler 45,519]

I see nothing to stop her uniting with her Husband.

She said the lady was a Lawyer.

[GandK 168]

Wow, you have seriously messed up big time by listening to people who were not qualified to give legal advice/gave you really bad legal advice. I think you have a lot of soul-searching to do. Get a lawyer and prepare to pay a lot of money and time for an uphill battle or maybe consider moving to your husband's country or even a third country instead. If you truly love each other and want to be together, a denied immigration visa to the USA is not the end of your life, you know. Life goes on and will find a way.

Edited February 2, 2012 by GandK

[himher 634]

Now I'm going to be serious and cut this kid a break - not out of sympathy (I'm not) but because hammering is not really what this board is for.

There is nothing all that serious about this case. It has already been ruled that failure to disclose facts not of a material nature is not grounds for denial of an immigration benefit. The fact that the petitioner was previously married (to her brother in law then divorced and married her brother in law snicker) but divorced prior to the current marriage is not a material fact. Convoluted, but not material. Same kind of stuff happens in kentucky / west virginia all the time or so I hear.

Example of fact of Material nature: Previously married but never actually divorced. Disclosure would make the petitioner/benificiary ineligible

Not of material nature: Previously married, divorced, failed to disclose out of fear or desire for privacy. Previously married, divorced prior to marriage does not effect the eligibility of the petitioner/beneficiary

From an (appealed / won appeal) case where citizenship was denied based on information required but willfully not disclosed on an immigration form:

As the government acknowledges in Kungys v. the United States:

“It is only dishonesty accompanied by this precise intent that Congress found morally unacceptable. Willful misrepresentations made for other reasons, such as embarrassment, fear, or a desire for privacy, were not deemed sufficiently culpable to brand the applicant as someone who lacks good moral character.”

For entertainment (make sure the seat is down first)

http://imminfo.com/Library/how_to_begin/material_misrepresentation.html

It should also be noted that the courts clearly outlined that failure to disclose information is NOT the same as filing a false statement and if the information is not MATERIAL to the case anyway then it does not effect eligilibility for the immigration benefit.

Hope that helps.

[melcom1122 4]

Now I'm going to be serious and cut this kid a break - not out of sympathy (I'm not) but because hammering is not really what this board is for.

There is nothing all that serious about this case. It has already been ruled that failure to disclose facts not of a material nature is not grounds for denial of an immigration benefit. The fact that the petitioner was previously married (to her brother in law then divorced and married her brother in law snicker) but divorced prior to the current marriage is not a material fact. Convoluted, but not material. Same kind of stuff happens in kentucky / west virginia all the time or so I hear.

Example of fact of Material nature: Previously married but never actually divorced. Disclosure would make the petitioner/benificiary ineligible

Not of material nature: Previously married, divorced, failed to disclose out of fear or desire for privacy. Previously married, divorced prior to marriage does not effect the eligibility of the petitioner/beneficiary

From an (appealed / won appeal) case where citizenship was denied based on information required but willfully not disclosed on an immigration form:

As the government acknowledges in Kungys v. the United States:

“It is only dishonesty accompanied by this precise intent that Congress found morally unacceptable. Willful misrepresentations made for other reasons, such as embarrassment, fear, or a desire for privacy, were not deemed sufficiently culpable to brand the applicant as someone who lacks good moral character.”

For entertainment (make sure the seat is down first)

http://imminfo.com/Library/how_to_begin/material_misrepresentation.html

It should also be noted that the courts clearly outlined that failure to disclose information is NOT the same as filing a false statement and if the information is not MATERIAL to the case anyway then it does not effect eligilibility for the immigration benefit.

Hope that helps.

I DONT KNOW WHO YOU ARE BUT YOU MADE ME SMILE , SOMETHING I HAVE NOT BEEN CAPABLE OF DOING IN WEEKS. BUT EVEN SO ITS A TOUGHT FIGHT AND I WILL KEEP SPEAKING TO DIFFERENT lawyers who know what they are actually doing.

[melcom1122 4]

Who is this 'lady' you keep referring to? A lawyer? A friend? A neighbor?

Also, you can see why you got denied, right? I'm going to spell it out. Or rather, type in short sentences.

You were married to his brother. For three years. Didn't disclose it. Either to your current husband. Or the US government, for that matter. Both, VERY bad ideas. Interview day, husband discovers your previous marriage. To his brother. That he had no bleeping idea about. You want the immigration CO to believe this is a bona-fide marriage. REALLY?

You've made a grand old mess and unfortunately the USCIS doesn't look too kindly upon the "young, drunk and/or stupid" excuse. That said, I do wish you the best in reuniting with your husband. Good luck and keep us posted.

[melcom1122 4]

i know why we got denied. and i know i made a huge mess of things, im not here for people to tell me what a mess i made, im here to ask if anyone knows anything about cases like this, and any good lawyers in new york who can help me with this.

[Trav&Shell 83]

Now I'm going to be serious and cut this kid a break - not out of sympathy (I'm not) but because hammering is not really what this board is for.

There is nothing all that serious about this case. It has already been ruled that failure to disclose facts not of a material nature is not grounds for denial of an immigration benefit. The fact that the petitioner was previously married (to her brother in law then divorced and married her brother in law snicker) but divorced prior to the current marriage is not a material fact. Convoluted, but not material. Same kind of stuff happens in kentucky / west virginia all the time or so I hear.

Example of fact of Material nature: Previously married but never actually divorced. Disclosure would make the petitioner/benificiary ineligible

Not of material nature: Previously married, divorced, failed to disclose out of fear or desire for privacy. Previously married, divorced prior to marriage does not effect the eligibility of the petitioner/beneficiary

From an (appealed / won appeal) case where citizenship was denied based on information required but willfully not disclosed on an immigration form:

As the government acknowledges in Kungys v. the United States:

“It is only dishonesty accompanied by this precise intent that Congress found morally unacceptable. Willful misrepresentations made for other reasons, such as embarrassment, fear, or a desire for privacy, were not deemed sufficiently culpable to brand the applicant as someone who lacks good moral character.”

For entertainment (make sure the seat is down first)

http://imminfo.com/Library/how_to_begin/material_misrepresentation.html

It should also be noted that the courts clearly outlined that failure to disclose information is NOT the same as filing a false statement and if the information is not MATERIAL to the case anyway then it does not effect eligilibility for the immigration benefit.

Hope that helps.

Good information! I enjoyed your post AND was happy to see there was legal hope.

[Boiler 45,519]

It is Material.

[himher 634]

<yawn>

Note: You are arguing with a recent appeals court decision that failure to disclose specifically requested information benefits (in this case criminal convictions) on an application form for immigration benefits was not a "material misrepresentation" and they followed up by broadly (but clearly) defining what is and is not material misrepresentation.

Based on the definition outlined in the decision the previous marriage/divorce of the petitioning USC in fact is not material to the final outcome of the case.

If you dont like that - take it up with them.

The way to do that is by having the supreme court reverse the ruling - but hopefully you know that.

I just post the info LOL

It is Material.

[Boiler 45,519]

Some criminal convictions are not material.

If that is what you mean.

If you are saying a Felony for Drug Trafficking for example is not material, then I would humbly disagree with you.

[himher 634]

Exactly and you would be right. Criminal convictions are supposed to be listed. Criminal convictions such as specific felonies that would trigger denial are material to the outcome of the case. Criminal convictions that would not trigger denial are not material to the outcome of the case. The referenced case was denied on the basis that the requested criminal convictions were not disclosed and the denial was overturned based on the nature of the convictions and the fact that they would not have affected the outcome of the process. The court ruled that failure to list them was not a material misrepresentation (and) that nondisclosure does not fall under making false statements either.

A divorce/previous marriage prior to current marriage is supposed to be listed. If it is listed the divorce/previous marriage does not affect the eligibility of the USC to remarry and sponsor an alien spouse. Failure to disclose this informaion, even if required to disclose this information, is therefore not material (under current case law).

The USC was stupid, and has an uphill battle, but a correct re-file and a good attorney with some follow up will probably get it through a second time.

Some criminal convictions are not material.

If that is what you mean.

If you are saying a Felony for Drug Trafficking for example is not material, then I would humbly disagree with you.