Fiance' was cheating while PREGNANT

[verysadguy 170]

So my lawyer is wrong?

And where did you get THREE times?

As for the second "lady" who I knew for 5 years she showed up and felt it was okay to hide for 5 years that she was a smoker. And felt it was okay to smoke inside my house...in my child's bathroom...On top of that she was lousy at child care and completely cold to my daughter. So the second "lady" is now back in her home country with a nice cash settlement and magically befriended my ex on Facebook. EVIL folks. Pure evil.

VAWA fraud. Real and far more frequent than specially trained college educated USCIS agents seem to be able to figure out. Pathetic US policy and politics.

[Villanelle 4,122]

Im assuming three. One for your ex wife to whom this thread is about, two for the smoker and three would be the future K1 petition.

I didnt specifically say your lawyer was wrong- (or maybe I did). But you didnt lay out the facts of the second smoking spouse.

Im sure your lawyer knows more then I do about the specifics, so unless you wish to share them- the way I see it hasnt changed.

If you have a VAWA claim you can still bring someone over. Proof- you did so. If that relationship doesnt work out, then I dont see any reason besides the fact (like I said above) that you would just be under major scrutiny for your 3rd petition for bringing someone over. But with the right amount of evidence you should be able to be approved, and like I said the CR route would be easier as you wouldnt need the K1 multiple waiver.

The only exception I can see to this, or reason I would see a lawyer telling you- you have no shot at getting approved is if first petitioned ended up in a VAWA claim and second petition ended in a VAWA claim as well. Then yeah, trying for a third petition....?

I do not believe there is any policy or law anywhere that bars or blocks USCIS from approving a petition from a USC or LPR that has a VAWA claim or multiple VAWA claims. Perhaps when Sandra is feeling better you can check with her or ask your prominent attny whom you are paying for the specific INA reference. I believe he is just referring to the discretion they have.

I believe your attny is taking the position that they look at the history and will find reasons to deny it as not bonafide.

[verysadguy 170]

2nd petition did not end in VAWA. She went back to Vietnam. We never married.

The second petition occured before 1st VAWA was adjudicated. And I did consult Sandra.

Damara what are your professional credentials? Not that it really matters as I have no intentions of ever petitioning for a foreigner ever again. The real concern is are your suppositions and opinions correct for any other victims of scams or VAWA fraud like myself.

[Villanelle 4,122]

Professional credentials?

You know that comes up every other day on this site on just about every thread. And its like bam you hit the nail right on the head. When some one posts something- some readers come along and take it as the holy truth. Some do further research, but some dont. Thats how misinformation is spread.

You made a very bold statement that someone (a USC or LPR) that was on the receiving end of a VAWA can not petition again because they are 'blacklisted/barred' by USCIS.

I looked and could not find any policy/memo or law stating such. Meaning it would just be up to the discretion of the officer. Not policy, not law, just perhaps difficult but can be overcome. (that the basis of my statements)

*Did Sandra advise you that you could NOT petition again once the VAWA was adjudicated in your exs favor?

*How about your lawyer? They surely have credentials. Why not ask for the law they are citing you and post it back here to support your statement?

That will prove that your statement is correct. Let that be your basis and then things will be clear for all those on the receiving end of VAWAs legitimate or not.

(Personally I feel this is an important issue to settle not just for those falsely accused because on many threads theyve been told to let it go they cant do anything about it and it wont effect them with USCIS in the future and as far as I know Sandra has said nothing to the contrary in those threads- so that misinformation needs to stop. And on the flip side for legitimate claims of VAWA- for the victims, many are scared to report the abuse due to the retaliation of the abuser. The program was designed to be confidential so that the abuser wouldnt even know you filed a VAWA. You could just leave and file. Many take comfort in that. Realizing that the abuser would know you filed VAWA when they attempt to petition again and are denied due to your VAWA- well thats a very scary thought.)

[novedsac 355]

I am listed with USCIS as an abuser who cannot bring anyone else to the USA from overseas.

This is simply incorrect. Both in the sense that there is no list and that you are not prohibited from sponsoring a foreigner solely on the basis of being named in a VAWA petition.

For the good reasons noted by Damara in her parenthetical statement.

A couple of years ago I read a legal brief … filed by a few blowhards who filed a defamation claim based on their ex-spouses having filed VAWA claims … that they had suffered damage and were making the argument that VAWA was unconstitutional because it deprived the plaintiffs the ability to defend themselves in such claims. I wish I could remember the brief as it was a very good read, if I recall later I will post, but in summary the result was that their case was not upheld and the judge(s) noted that VAWA was administrative in nature and not a criminal or civil action against the accused. Furthermore, the judge(s) wrote that there were no damages to the accused arising from a VAWA claim in and of itself (albeit domestic charges which may become the basis of a VAWA claim are real, but both parties can plea their position in those situations), claims made in a VAWA petition were not public and a VAWA claim provided no encumbrance to the plaintiff(s) filing an immigration petition in the future. (emphasis is my own)

I don't even think it would matter if the applicant was named in more than one VAWA petition, though real evidence (e.g., criminal convictions, documented abuse, restraining orders) supporting either one of those VAWA petitions may become the basis for denial of a petition.

On another matter … how do you know someone for five years, with the intention of living together at some point, and never know that they smoke? If smoking, child care, a sinister knowledge of VAWA, etc. are important to you, perhaps you should consider them higher up the list of your vetting process.

[Villanelle 4,122]

I know what you are referring to novesac, but I dont have time to research it and the changes to the search feature on vj has made it more difficult to locate things now sadly...

Im sure many people have varying opinions on the personal life of v.sadguy but I believe that vj is a source of information and support. Not criticism and judgements.

So I refrained from posting about the unknown smoking issue after knowing someone for 5 years and the oddity in the wording of she was a 'scammer too' and receiving a substantial payout upon leaving when no marriage even occured? Some people do pay return expenses if things dont work out but never if they felt they were scammed.. So its odd.

But I do not wish the thread to be locked nor personal attacks directed towards v.sadguy. Yes Im sure hes laughing that he can take care of himself and any criticism that comes his way- but how bout we just save the mods the trouble and stay on totopic?

[verysadguy 170]

On topic, because it is important.

I didn't say VAWA claim, I said VAWA adjudicated.

That seems to be the difference here.

Someone should weigh in with a factual reference of US Citizens who are "Post VAWA Syndrome" whether or not they know it, and whether or not they have criminal court filed abuse cases regardless of guilty or not guilty conviction. FYI, I had NO filed abuse charges. I've never hit a woman in my life, and I've never called a woman a name in my life. But, apparently catching my wife cheating and confronting her about it was abusive. And that caused depression and PTSD when I kicked her out of the house. She was so traumatized and claimed those things with her psychologist even though she was romping in the sack and frolicking with her sponsoring assistant from the Catholic shelter. Isn't America great?

Another possible error in judgment is:

"And on the flip side for legitimate claims of VAWA- for the victims, many are scared to report the abuse due to the retaliation of the abuser."

You cannot file a VAWA without some sort of claim of abuse. Sure they are scared to tell their ex's and they don't have to, but they cannot file a VAWA without abuse of some sort and have to prove it to be adjudicated in their favor.

I found out about my ex's VAWA claim because her attorney made it known at a hearing in front of everyone.

[Villanelle 4,122]

Okay so now we are being petty about words (claim vs adjudicated) when we all know what we mean and even making up words (?) Post VAWA Syndrome? What the heck is that?

But if youd like it rephrased so be it.

*Did Sandra advise you you would be on a blacklist or be barred from petitioning again once your ex wifes VAWA was adjudicated?

*Can you please ask your prominent attny for the INA policy/law or memo stating once a VAWA is adjudicated the USC/LPR is then unable to bring someone else over and post it here.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for my comment and your reply of-

"And on the flip side for legitimate claims of VAWA- for the victims, many are scared to report the abuse due to the retaliation of the abuser."

You cannot file a VAWA without some sort of claim of abuse. Sure they are scared to tell their ex's and they don't have to, but they cannot file a VAWA without abuse of some sort and have to prove it to be adjudicated in their favor.

I found out about my ex's VAWA claim because her attorney made it known at a hearing in front of everyone.

Come on now, we are both adults. We both know how things work when attnys and courts get involved. If an abused woman (although it could be a man but Ill use a woman in this scenario) if an abused woman is afraid to tell her husband- leaves- takes the kids to a shelter etc etc. She has many many concerns. His anger over her leaving, his anger over her taking the kids, his anger when she files for a restraining order- and then the divorce. If VAWA truly does prevent him from filing again that too will enrage him. 9 times out of 10 the woman will show up with a pro bono catholic charity or court appt attny and the man with a 'prominent' fully paid top notch attny. (that was your case was it not?)

And while family court does not take into consideration immigration status- IT DOES NOT STOP ATTNYS from questioning the other party about it while they are under oath. Are you going to seriously tell us that you ex wife simply volunteered her immigration status in front of everyone- or was it asked of her?

Because the only way she would volunteer it is if she was attempting to paint you in a bad light and gain custody (which she didnt seem to) or gain a large divorce settlement- again that didnt seem to transpire. Again a woman truly afraid would be guarding every bit of information they have and only give up what they have to if forced.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are a lot of bits to your story that simply dont add up the more you talk. Youre avoiding the things that matter and picking at small stuff.

So to answer a question you had posed back in Sept that I never replied to as I try to avoid pettiness but thats where you want to go it seems- the question was (How is it odd?And in context what author and what situation?) because I said it was the oddest statement I had ever seen based on the author and context based on the post of

Posted 01 September 2014 - 08:55 PM

verysadguy, on 01 Sept 2014 - 3:24 PM, said:

I would ask her how her day was and if she was a "good girl" and she would say yes even though her phone and computer showed she spent hours with her lover online.

Im sorry but a good girl? The only time thats appropriate is if youre speaking to a dog not your wife. Perhaps a child under the age of 5 maybe..

You then went on to say your traditional speech about how perfect things were, but this time it was a bit different.

Did I ever hit her? NO. She bit and scratched me!

Did I ever call her names? NO

Did we talk calming and politely about her lying? NO. We had debates, but no yelling, screaming, name calling, hitting/beating/spitting...nothing.

I chose to be a class act about a horrible situation. Did I want turmoil around my child? NO.

Contradictory and illogical. No hitting beating spitting but yet she bit and scratched you, so yeah there was physical violence- you just stood there and took it? Didnt attempt to stop her?. You acknowledge the talking was not calm and polite.

(http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:yZml-5T8ia4J:www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/510177-green-card/page-2+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

Look everything is about perspective. Everyone has their own. What went on in your home- well you saw it one way, she saw it another I suppose. And everyone on the outside is going to see it differently.

Let me give you an example. My ex husband would tell you with a straight face and mean every single word of it- that I am a horrible cook and that I am dirty, just dirty. Because I was not up to his standards. But his standards were insane. He was insane. If a recipe needed chopped garlic the garlic needed to be chopped into 1-2 mm cubes by hand- not by a press because thats for lazy b*tches who dont put effort into things and if he would find what he considered a too large a chunk of garlic in the dish- bam! whole plate of food picked up and thrown across the room, followed by the table being flipped over and the pot/pans on the floor. Total scene- kids crying dog running away, broken glass- all because of my horrible horrible cooking skills. A soup or a sauce that needs to be stirred? God forbid you stir it and put the spoon down on the counter! No matter if the counter was just washed and bleached with in the hour- if the spoon goes back into the pot- germs! germs! dirty! horror! smash goes the pot. The spoon needs to placed on a clean dish each and every time, or just held. Sounds easy but when youve got a baby and four pots going theres not enough hands and God forbid something gets burned or over cooked. ...Perspective.

I kinda feel that was the issue with the smoker and your view of her child care skills. You just had different perspectives. By no means am I implying anything as extreme as above.

Anyway, I truly dont believe your ex had enough evidence to qualify for VAWA as it was and exploited the system by inflating things which is truly a shame, but I also dont think it was the picture perfect happy pleasantville scene you paint.

So again I think its important that we straighten out the issue of- does having a VAWA adjudicated against you bar you from petitioning again? If your prominent lawyer advised you of such whats the big deal of asking him for the legal basis of such a statement??

[verysadguy 170]

No comment.

Damara please don't post on my thread anymore. Thanks in advance for your understanding.

For others who are interested...

I'll post back after the next legal go round.

Thanks everyone for the "facts" and "opinions"

More to come...

[TBoneTX 45,288]

Damara can continue to post in this thread as long as there are no violations of the VJ Terms of Service, which there have not been so far.

[verysadguy 170]

Damara can continue to post in this thread as long as there are no violations of the VJ Terms of Service, which there have not been so far.

Well that was a certainly popular post TBone!!

LOL

Ok, She can keep posting! Damara's jumping to conclusions and violations of logic are clearly favored by many!

[rlogan 2,036]

Im sorry but a good girl? The only time thats appropriate is if youre speaking to a dog not your wife. Perhaps a child under the age of 5 maybe..

There isn't any reason to belittle, harass, or degrade this poster. My wife and I ask each other if we have been a good girl or a good boy, and so do the other couples we know. In fact, it would be weird to say have you been a "good man" or a "good woman" if we were referring to some behavioral issue between couples like if you were smoking, drinking, chatting online with your mistress or whatever. That seems to be the social convention for this context: policing each other's behavior.

Does "girl's night out" mean they are calling themselves five year olds? Of course not. Same thing for "going out with the boys". Lots of contexts in which there is no derogatory intention whatever. It would be derogatory to insist otherwise.

Even were it not social convention like above, couples often choose pet nicknames for each other that are specifically chosen because they would be malicious when used between non-married people. It is a privilege of marriage to call each other idiots, to know it isn't meant literally, and to be free from PC language police harassing us for it.

In a thread about false VAWA claims this is especially important because this is exactly the sort of thing that can be used to paint someone as abusive: look how he treats his wife like a dog. No, it is just the opposite - the person doing the abuse is the one making the accusation. Stack a bunch of these together and there you have a false VAWA claim built on nothing but innocent events twisted into abusive ones. There may be a need for filling in missing context here - fine. But when it becomes a witch hunt like this then it is over the line.

[Villanelle 4,122]

rlogan- I appreciate your pov.

I never insisted all use of that term is derogatory. As you pointed out- lots of times it is appropriate- privilege of marriage like you said- personal inside jokes and banter between intimate partners.

I was talking about one specific scenario. Not lightheartedly 'policing each others behavior' like when one person is going off for girls/boys night- a trip to vegas- trying to quit smoking- trying to reduce sugars because they are borderline diabetic etc. But a very specific scenario. Man goes to work, woman is a stay at home wife. Man returns home and questions wife have you been a good girl? Really? In what context is that appropriate? What policing of behavior does a stay at home wife need?

You allude to the fact that in your opinion if adultery is involved then 'policing' is then okay. But from the timelines scattered about the thread- through the forums and messages- after the affair was discovered she no longer spent hours on the phone with the lover. So this statement wouldve been made prior to the adultery being discovered.

But this is just my personal opinion.

If my statement are 'illogical and wrong" then its because there are a lot of things missing here that are chosen to be glazed over or omitted or ignored when directly asked.

And Im certainly not on any kind of witch hunt! I fully acknowledge that the catholic charity organization fluffed up a VAWA case for his ex when she did not have enough for one. There were mentions of human trafficking claims at the beginning. They really used her and over inflated everything- because I dont know- they had the funds and she was willing to say anything?

But like I said the more the thread drags out the more questions come up then answers and things just dont add up. What current legal battle is 'going to be updated after the next go around?' Isnt everything settled?

Why pay a settlement to a woman who came on a K1 whom you didnt marry to return home?

Why has the mothers parental rights have not been terminated if shes truly believed to be unfit/sociopath/etc? It was advised way back at the beginning to do so.

Why such heavy monitoring of the ex if she has no interest in the child?

Why does the ex have no interest in the child? Thats really odd. Mothers instincts are usually very strong and they almost always want their children. However I do know personally one girl who had a very rough relationship with her mother. She was born waaay back in the early 70s when things were different in regards to DV/child abuse/etc. Her mother had 2 other children and married again a man she thought she knew who had 2 children of his own and got pregnant with the girl I knew.

The man was abusive to the kids. But it was the 70s where beating your kids was questionably okay. He would make them stand in the corners for hours with books on their heads and withhold food for 'misbehavior'. But then belt whippings and hot water burns and things that were definitely not okay. He attacked the pregnant mother severely and violently, she barely made it out alive and she left with her kids- had to get a restraining order etc etc. Sadly couldnt take his kids they went to foster homes.

When the child was born she bore an uncanny resemblance to the dad. Very odd as most girls resemble the mother. But she had many strong features of the dad. The mom found it hard to bond with her and passed her off to a lot of babysitters and when she reached the troublesome years of 11-14 many arguments ensued and the mom would say things like I cant stand to look at you- you look just like your dad. I wish I never had you, you remind me of him. etc etc.

So it is possible for a mother to not bond with a child, or harbor negative feelings towards it due to the relationship with the father. Doesnt automatically mean a mother that wants nothing to do with her child is a sociopath or is unloving or is crazy.

And still why no answer about the statement that kicked this all off- Was the attny asked for the legal basis of his statement that a VAWA adjudicated claim against you bars you from petitioning again? If so what was the answer?

-----------

V.sadguy

I respect that this is your thread and you should be able to have it contain the content that you want. So if you do not want to me post unsolicitedly in it further thats fine. However if someone addresses me I will respond or if something is posted that is potentially incorrect like the statement of being blacklisted due to VAWA - I will respond because I feel that misinformation spreads if not corrected.

[novedsac 355]

rlogan- I appreciate your pov.

I never insisted all use of that term is derogatory. As you pointed out- lots of times it is appropriate- privilege of marriage like you said- personal inside jokes and banter between intimate partners.

I was talking about one specific scenario. Not lightheartedly 'policing each others behavior' like when one person is going off for girls/boys night- a trip to vegas- trying to quit smoking- trying to reduce sugars because they are borderline diabetic etc. But a very specific scenario. Man goes to work, woman is a stay at home wife. Man returns home and questions wife have you been a good girl? Really? In what context is that appropriate? What policing of behavior does a stay at home wife need?

You allude to the fact that in your opinion if adultery is involved then 'policing' is then okay. But from the timelines scattered about the thread- through the forums and messages- after the affair was discovered she no longer spent hours on the phone with the lover. So this statement wouldve been made prior to the adultery being discovered.

But this is just my personal opinion.

If my statement are 'illogical and wrong" then its because there are a lot of things missing here that are chosen to be glazed over or omitted or ignored when directly asked.

And Im certainly not on any kind of witch hunt! I fully acknowledge that the catholic charity organization fluffed up a VAWA case for his ex when she did not have enough for one. There were mentions of human trafficking claims at the beginning. They really used her and over inflated everything- because I dont know- they had the funds and she was willing to say anything?

But like I said the more the thread drags out the more questions come up then answers and things just dont add up. What current legal battle is 'going to be updated after the next go around?' Isnt everything settled?

Why pay a settlement to a woman who came on a K1 whom you didnt marry to return home?

I dunno either. A 'settlement' usually implies some negotiated terms. I don't know what needs to be negotiated if two people decide not to marry - perhaps a return flight and some seed money to get her feet on the ground again would be a kind gesture.

Why has the mothers parental rights have not been terminated if shes truly believed to be unfit/sociopath/etc? It was advised way back at the beginning to do so.

Because one's personal beliefs and what can be proven in Court are two different things; the latter is where the rubber meets the road in determining the termination of parental rights. My ex-wife had documented physical abuse with two of our three children which resulted in a lengthy file with the state children's welfare group. Still not enough to terminate her parental rights, though I did manage full custody and limited/supervised visitation for awhile. Termination of parental rights is a tough road to slog.

Why such heavy monitoring of the ex if she has no interest in the child?

Yes, this is curious. Why does it matter if she's back in her home country with her new guy? etc. etc. etc. Some gain some satisfaction when they hear that their ex-spouse suffers some bad luck or misfortune. I also believe in 'what goes around comes around' - I just don't have the time, energy or inclinication to be interested in what my ex is up to in her life.

Why does the ex have no interest in the child? Thats really odd. Mothers instincts are usually very strong and they almost always want their children. However I do know personally one girl who had a very rough relationship with her mother. She was born waaay back in the early 70s when things were different in regards to DV/child abuse/etc. Her mother had 2 other children and married again a man she thought she knew who had 2 children of his own and got pregnant with the girl I knew.

I've thought long about this too. My ex-wife has only a cursory interest in the kids. I'm quite happy she's out of my life, but it has bothered me that she's not very involved with the kids' lives. As they've grown, though (they're all mid to late teens now), I don't worry about it so much anymore. They have different relationships with me and their mom. She sees them a few times a year and tries to keep up with what they are doing, but invariably she's three girlfriends behind when she gets around to having a night out with our eldest son, things like that. My kids would prefer something different, but they've come to accept it the way that it is. Some people just aren't meant to be parents. Some people love being parents. Some people like it, just better at it on a part-time basis.

The man was abusive to the kids. But it was the 70s where beating your kids was questionably okay. He would make them stand in the corners for hours with books on their heads and withhold food for 'misbehavior'. But then belt whippings and hot water burns and things that were definitely not okay. He attacked the pregnant mother severely and violently, she barely made it out alive and she left with her kids- had to get a restraining order etc etc. Sadly couldnt take his kids they went to foster homes.

When the child was born she bore an uncanny resemblance to the dad. Very odd as most girls resemble the mother. But she had many strong features of the dad. The mom found it hard to bond with her and passed her off to a lot of babysitters and when she reached the troublesome years of 11-14 many arguments ensued and the mom would say things like I cant stand to look at you- you look just like your dad. I wish I never had you, you remind me of him. etc etc.

So it is possible for a mother to not bond with a child, or harbor negative feelings towards it due to the relationship with the father. Doesnt automatically mean a mother that wants nothing to do with her child is a sociopath or is unloving or is crazy.

And still why no answer about the statement that kicked this all off- Was the attny asked for the legal basis of his statement that a VAWA adjudicated claim against you bars you from petitioning again? If so what was the answer?

There is no legal basis to a bar from a USC/LPR petitioning again based on a VAWA claim, whether it resulted in immigration relief to the claimant or not. I could see this increasing the chances of a K1 petition waiver not being granted, but it still wouldn't, in and of itself, preclude the ability to successfully petition for a spousal visa.

This actually brings up an interesting question - when filing a petition, K1 or IR1/CR1 - the petitioner must identify previous petitions which they sponsored. How does the petitioner go about identifying/discussing a vawa claim made by a previous beneficiary? If one is aware of a VAWA claim being made, should that be disclosed?

-----------

V.sadguy

I respect that this is your thread and you should be able to have it contain the content that you want. So if you do not want to me post unsolicitedly in it further thats fine. However if someone addresses me I will respond or if something is posted that is potentially incorrect like the statement of being blacklisted due to VAWA - I will respond because I feel that misinformation spreads if not corrected.

[Sandra G. 5,047]

I have to post here because verysad guy is a good friend of mine, and I know what he went through. I can assure that he is not an abuser,he is a great father and a good man, but unfortunately his ex wife is a scammer.

We have been taught that all mothers love their children right? wrong! There is over protective parent, good parents and neglectful parent.How many times we heard stories about a woman that fell in love with a man and moved across the country to be with him and just abandoned the children? how many times we heard about mothers that murdered their own kids?We have mothers that poisoned their kids, abused their kids, abandoned their kids, then let's not be naive thinking that all mothers have a maternal love for their children, because many of them do not care about their children at all. I worked as a counselor for many years and I saw enough to learn that giving birth does not make a woman a mother. Many women leave their children to create new lives.

Divorce is a break up of a mariage,and in the verysad guy's case his wife "broke up" with her child too.She made a conscientious choice to be 100% absent from her child's life.Verysad guy ex wife she did not run away from an abusive home, she walked away physically and removed herself emotionally from her child's life.She can call her daughter, Skype with the child, visit the child, but she chose not to so, why? because she is a scammer, and like all scammers she is very self centered, her moral compass is broken.People like her never compromised.

I heard all the time people saying that all stories have two sides,well verysad guy's ex wife showed her side RIGHT AFTER she abandoned her child.She met a new man, she keeps posting on Facebook all the time pictures and pictures hanging out with his friends, having fun with her new man.She finds time to live her life to the fullest, but chose not to be a mother to her child, and I think her behavior is despicable to say the least.

I only excuse a parent's absence from the child life if the mother is a teenager,but when a woman is an adult and capable to take her clothes off and have sex then she should be held accountable for her actions. Quoting Jodi Picoult "Being a parent wasn't just about bearing a child. It was about bearing witness to its life.”

Edited March 4, 2015 by sandranj