Illegal. Terminated already for fraud. but applied for adjustment anyway. (split thread)

[belinda63 3,038]

I'm not certain how you are reporting them on any loan papers. They are not your dependent and you are not financially responsible for them.

As to them filing an I-751 to remove conditions the request will be rejected. It might take some time for someone to look at the paperwork and realize the person has no green card to remove conditions on (if that is correct).

When the green card was revoked, if it was, your obligation per the I-864 ended as they no longer have PR status.

[tam8i8 0]

I'm not certain how you are reporting them on any loan papers. They are not your dependent and you are not financially responsible for them.

As to them filing an I-751 to remove conditions the request will be rejected. It might take some time for someone to look at the paperwork and realize the person has no green card to remove conditions on (if that is correct).

When the green card was revoked, if it was, your obligation per the I-864 ended as they no longer have PR status.

That isn't what the I-864 contract says, however. It says if their status is revoked AND they return home. So while they are in the U.S. you still remain liable for them.

[Boiler 45,486]

Sorry I didn't quote in the other post. But do you think something else might be going on from what they are telling me?

They said that because the NTA was sent out but no court date with it, that with the I-751 it needed to be ruled on first, so even though it would be denied, it still has to go through the process, to then get his file back to field office. It's currently with California Service Center.

Anyone know if it's possible to contact CSC to expedite that?

I know ICE can not take your GC. They may institute proceedings that might.

Judging from the many many threads on this subject getting such information from then concerning an individuals case seems to hit an brick wall.

[Villanelle 4,122]

Oh my hun. My heart does go out to you...

I do totally understand where you are coming from. As a victim/survivor myself I get it. Its like with death and grief- certain stages you have to go through.

They certainly are considered a liability. If at any time they were to become a public charge, we would then be forced to pay for him. So this affects the ability to pay for a loan if one were to be taken out. Unless you don't include that information in your application, but that would not be ethical, and could possibly be considered misrepresentation in itself.

This.. no no no. IF any time they became a public charge, meaning incurred a medical bill or collected food stamps, yes you would have to pay it back. But its a big WHAT IF. Its a potential unknown amount. Its not the same as having a full time dependent. By the same logic you should include things like funeral costs for family members in your applications because its going to be an expense youre going to be liable for one day... But to each their own. If you feel like you want to disclose it, then disclose it. But you really shouldnt be if its not someone on your tax return. And you shouldnt feel like its being unethical.

And then they said, he would have an opportunity to try to argue against it in front of an IJ.

But they won't do anything unless something triggers a look at his file.

Which he filed for ROC I-751, even though he had his GC terminated (according to ICE).

And so they said this should trigger his file to be looked at and sent to ICE, but waiting for the file to be routed through the whole process. So they would probably reject it or deny outright, or send to local field office, who would refer to ICE.

ICE already has a case open for him and has requested his file.

This all sounds totally ++++. Exactly what you expect to hear.

card is revoked you get a NTA, you can go before an IJ to argue your case- he apparently did not

He filed for roc. USCIS can reject it/deny it (like I said above) or send it to a local office who would refer it to ICE.

If ICE has an open casefile for him and has him somehow flagged in the system (requested his file) perhaps it will get sent to the local office

ICE doesnt really make it a priority to pick up illegals though, so I wouldnt really be sitting holding my breath for them to take action. Perhaps if hes stupid enough to voluntarily come in the office thinking hes going to an interview they will detain him, but as you can see him providing his name and address doesnt exactly send them running to his house in black SUVs to pick him up....

But do you think something else might be going on from what they are telling me?

They said that because the NTA was sent out but no court date with it, that with the I-751 it needed to be ruled on first, so even though it would be denied, it still has to go through the process, to then get his file back to field office. It's currently with California Service Center.

Ah here we go with the funny words again...

First a NTA with no date on it? Not uncommon at all. A NTA means DHS wants to deport you, but the only one that can do that is the IJ. The first thing you get is the NTA and the bottom section is usually blank as it hasnt been entered into the courts schedule yet. You would then get a follow up letter with the actual date and time. The courts are very strict and the burden of being there and knowing about it is on YOU. Many people get deported because hearings are moved up. So you have to check and check when you need to be there ALL the time.

The roc doesnt need to be 'ruled on', it just needs to be addressed. Im not sure how you as a 3rd party can get the service center to expedite his roc- either Youre basically asking them to -deny it, return it or send it to his field office to forward to ICE. Exactly how long ago did he send it in?

Also wanted to mention, I did try to get a harassment order twice and they denied it. He's even threatened to come to the home. there's a 911 call and police report. But because we have a child together they consider it all family law issues. So unless he does something physically, or threatens a physical attack, they won't approve it.

My dear, your in mass. Youre applying for the wrong thing if you have a child together. You need to contact legal aide.Two different things- 209a and 258e.

Harassment 258e.

• someone has committed 3 or more acts:
  • that were willful and malicious. This means it was done on purpose and was done for cruelty, hostility or revenge.
  • and were aimed at you,
  • and were intended to cause you fear, intimidation, abuse or damage to property, “Abuse” means causing or attempting to cause physical harm, or causing fear of imminent serious physical harm.
  • and did in fact cause you fear, intimidation, abuse or damage to property;

Abuse prevention 209a

• A person to whom you are or were married,
• Someone with whom you are or were living,
• A family member related by blood or marriage,
• The parent of your child even if you were never married, or
• Someone with whom you are or have been in a serious dating relationship.

2. and you are suffering from abuse because your abuser has:

• Harmed or attempted to harm you physically,
• Caused you to fear that you are likely to be physically hurt at any moment,

[tam8i8 0]

Oh my hun. My heart does go out to you...

I do totally understand where you are coming from. As a victim/survivor myself I get it. Its like with death and grief- certain stages you have to go through.

This.. no no no. IF any time they became a public charge, meaning incurred a medical bill or collected food stamps, yes you would have to pay it back. But its a big WHAT IF. Its a potential unknown amount. Its not the same as having a full time dependent. By the same logic you should include things like funeral costs for family members in your applications because its going to be an expense youre going to be liable for one day... But to each their own. If you feel like you want to disclose it, then disclose it. But you really shouldnt be if its not someone on your tax return. And you shouldnt feel like its being unethical.

This all sounds totally ++++. Exactly what you expect to hear.

card is revoked you get a NTA, you can go before an IJ to argue your case- he apparently did not

He filed for roc. USCIS can reject it/deny it (like I said above) or send it to a local office who would refer it to ICE.

If ICE has an open casefile for him and has him somehow flagged in the system (requested his file) perhaps it will get sent to the local office

ICE doesnt really make it a priority to pick up illegals though, so I wouldnt really be sitting holding my breath for them to take action. Perhaps if hes stupid enough to voluntarily come in the office thinking hes going to an interview they will detain him, but as you can see him providing his name and address doesnt exactly send them running to his house in black SUVs to pick him up....

Ah here we go with the funny words again...

First a NTA with no date on it? Not uncommon at all. A NTA means DHS wants to deport you, but the only one that can do that is the IJ. The first thing you get is the NTA and the bottom section is usually blank as it hasnt been entered into the courts schedule yet. You would then get a follow up letter with the actual date and time. The courts are very strict and the burden of being there and knowing about it is on YOU. Many people get deported because hearings are moved up. So you have to check and check when you need to be there ALL the time.

The roc doesnt need to be 'ruled on', it just needs to be addressed. Im not sure how you as a 3rd party can get the service center to expedite his roc- either Youre basically asking them to -deny it, return it or send it to his field office to forward to ICE. Exactly how long ago did he send it in?

My dear, your in mass. Youre applying for the wrong thing if you have a child together. You need to contact legal aide.Two different things- 209a and 258e.

Harassment 258e.

• someone has committed 3 or more acts:
  • that were willful and malicious. This means it was done on purpose and was done for cruelty, hostility or revenge.
  • and were aimed at you,
  • and were intended to cause you fear, intimidation, abuse or damage to property, “Abuse” means causing or attempting to cause physical harm, or causing fear of imminent serious physical harm.
  • and did in fact cause you fear, intimidation, abuse or damage to property;

Abuse prevention 209a

• A person to whom you are or were married,
• Someone with whom you are or were living,
• A family member related by blood or marriage,
• The parent of your child even if you were never married, or
• Someone with whom you are or have been in a serious dating relationship.

2. and you are suffering from abuse because your abuser has:

• Harmed or attempted to harm you physically,
• Caused you to fear that you are likely to be physically hurt at any moment,

Thanks so much Damara for your kindness. And sorry you had to go through it too.

For me, the grieving process was over a long time ago during our marriage. So I really don't have any emotions toward him, but I do want to be protected, protect my child and be off the hook for legal stuff. I also think that I'd like to help others who might be in the same situation.

We don't have an abuse prevention order here we basically call the police for cleanup crew... we have two options, harassment and restraining. Restraining there has to have been physical abuse in the past. The harassment, it has to be a constant stalking sort of harassment. So not much I can do there until it gets physical which will probably be too late for me.

He is using an attorney and the judicial system to retaliate against me. It's a nightmare, but because perjury is a misdemeanor nothing is done there. And it continues. It's quite a nightmare actually. But that is why I wanted to get things sped up to get to whatever point is the end.

[Hollyday 122]

I think one of the big messages of even having the affidavit of support enforced is to make the petitioner really think about the consequences before they bring the other person over. Why should other tax payers be responsible for the beneficiary being a public charge?..

Anyway, as other posters mentioned, collection of reimbursement doesn't really happen that often, it seems.

[Villanelle 4,122]

Well I have some other ideas for you tami- but to keep this thread on track and not get closed-

Here are some links for some groups that have been in the news for having civil suits filed against USCIS- You can contact them and see if they have any interest.

The ACLU-- it shows a case they are working on,

https://www.aclusocal.org/aclu-v-uscis/

http://www.nilc.org/litigation.html

http://www.legalactioncenter.org/litigation/administrative-procedures-act-apa

http://www.nwirp.org/howwehelp/directservices

http://www.gibbshoustonpauw.com/services/class-action/

FYI- most of the civil suits list several groups as backing it. These are the major players that come up.

This is also a link for the impact fund- "the only foundation dedicated to providing funding and technical assistance and representation for complex public interest litigation in the areas of civil and human rights, environmental justice, and poverty law."

http://impactfund.org/

Going back to what Holly said- it is a conflicting issue.

I mean the clause in the 864 is ... well its stupid. It states your obligation ends when they cease to be a LPR and leave the country. Which leaves the big question of what if they dont? Well then you are still on the hook... That doesnt seem quite fair. I know a lot of things in life are not fair. But its an especially hard smack in the face for USCIS to revoke the card and then fail to deport them and say well you are still on the hook until we get around to deporting them. We are not actively looking, they can remain here for years- shrug.

On the other hand if they changed the wording on the policy to state the obligation ends when they cease to be an LPR- then yes, if they dont leave then the obligation is shifted to all the taxpayers. (which in reality is what it is now as they dont actively collect the money back from the sponsors but thats neither here nor there)

Which again is why like Holly said it should make you really think about what you are doing when you bring some one in, when you make such a commitment- like joining your life with someone- do you know the person, do you trust the person etc etc. You should be responsible for the consequences of bad decisions in some ways.

So I really feel the change in policy should reflect that. Just like the 360 vawa form is an exception extended to AOS with out the USC- because it wasnt your fault. Its not extended to those that got here and just figured out they didnt like each other, or they rushed into it. Some bad decisions you have to live with the consequences of- some you shouldnt have to.. In situations where youre a victim, you shouldnt have to.

IMO if USCIS revokes the card for fraud the 864 should be cancelled regardless if they leave the US. In any other situation though- they just let it expire and remain- or whatever. Well then it should stand. You picked a (fill in the blank) dumb, immoral, loser, unethical,jerk, whatever kind of person who hung you out to dry by not leaving.

[tam8i8 0]

Well I have some other ideas for you tami- but to keep this thread on track and not get closed-

Here are some links for some groups that have been in the news for having civil suits filed against USCIS- You can contact them and see if they have any interest.

The ACLU-- it shows a case they are working on,

https://www.aclusocal.org/aclu-v-uscis/

http://www.nilc.org/litigation.html

http://www.legalactioncenter.org/litigation/administrative-procedures-act-apa

http://www.nwirp.org/howwehelp/directservices

http://www.gibbshoustonpauw.com/services/class-action/

FYI- most of the civil suits list several groups as backing it. These are the major players that come up.

This is also a link for the impact fund- "the only foundation dedicated to providing funding and technical assistance and representation for complex public interest litigation in the areas of civil and human rights, environmental justice, and poverty law."

http://impactfund.org/

Going back to what Holly said- it is a conflicting issue.

I mean the clause in the 864 is ... well its stupid. It states your obligation ends when they cease to be a LPR and leave the country. Which leaves the big question of what if they dont? Well then you are still on the hook... That doesnt seem quite fair. I know a lot of things in life are not fair. But its an especially hard smack in the face for USCIS to revoke the card and then fail to deport them and say well you are still on the hook until we get around to deporting them. We are not actively looking, they can remain here for years- shrug.

On the other hand if they changed the wording on the policy to state the obligation ends when they cease to be an LPR- then yes, if they dont leave then the obligation is shifted to all the taxpayers. (which in reality is what it is now as they dont actively collect the money back from the sponsors but thats neither here nor there)

Which again is why like Holly said it should make you really think about what you are doing when you bring some one in, when you make such a commitment- like joining your life with someone- do you know the person, do you trust the person etc etc. You should be responsible for the consequences of bad decisions in some ways.

So I really feel the change in policy should reflect that. Just like the 360 vawa form is an exception extended to AOS with out the USC- because it wasnt your fault. Its not extended to those that got here and just figured out they didnt like each other, or they rushed into it. Some bad decisions you have to live with the consequences of- some you shouldnt have to.. In situations where youre a victim, you shouldnt have to.

IMO if USCIS revokes the card for fraud the 864 should be cancelled regardless if they leave the US. In any other situation though- they just let it expire and remain- or whatever. Well then it should stand. You picked a (fill in the blank) dumb, immoral, loser, unethical,jerk, whatever kind of person who hung you out to dry by not leaving.

I completely agree with you and Holly. I don't think the consequences should be on the shoulders of U.S. tax payers. I believe I should be held to the I-864 as long as he is in the U.S., but I also believe the U.S. Government should be held to the Federal Victim Bill of Rights, which states as a victim of a federal crime, you have a right to a timely proceeding as well.

So I wouldn't consider asking that once the GC is revoked that my responsibility as I-864 is revoked. But suing for non-action or slow action, when the federal victim bill of rights clearly states as victim I have a right to a speedy trial, and I am not getting that. I have requested an expedite, they put through a service request in an INFOPASS appt., once I showed them the fed victim bill of rights. And still it has been over 1/2 a year (which I also know may seem like nothing to those waiting many years - but I think it's equally wrong that anyone should have to wait that long).

Many immigrants have sued the government for slow action on their cases. When suing the gov, you aren't actually seeking monetary relief, you are seeking immediate action on the case. So I am suggesting suing the gov, for non-action/slow action in a case, where my fed victim bill of rights says I have a right to a speedy trial, simply to get them to act on the case in a timely manner. I am considering filing pro-se (representing myself). If I do I'll let you know how it goes.

I also found a major discrepancy in victim services. Federal victim bill of rights allows for you to be involved in the case, including protection and a statement at the hearing etc. For "regular" federal crimes, people have an advocate, victim services who support them, help them understand their rights, the process, walk them through the entire proceeding etc. Obviously for immigration victims there is nothing.

There is an ICE victim support center, but it only offers support to those who are sexually trafficked, even though it does not state that ONLY those being sexually trafficked are allowed to use the services. But should you call they will deny you any help. They even offer attorney fee help etc.

I feel as though there is some major discrimination going on here, because of the lack of services for U.S. Citizens. Services are only available to immigrants. They have services for immigrant victims, who were not treated fairly by USCIS/ICE/DHS etc., or for victims of immigration crimes brought on by fake attorney's etc., Even help for those needing information while detained.

Yet nothing for U.S. citizens or petitioner victims. I believe this is a discrimination issue that could also be looked at and taken up by a lawsuit, again not for monetary gain, but to force policy and service changes. It would be a way to require the fed gov to offer information and services for those victims too.

Thank you so much for the other links as well. I will look into them. I did already contact the ACLU without any response. But perhaps it's a slow process, or they really don't care. I don't know. I also contacted GoldWater to see what they would consider. If I hear anything back I'll update.

Thanks to everyone too btw

[Darnell 8,478]

Any suggestions on how to get out of the I-864 once scammed?

I mean they could be here forever illegally, essentially, but if the gov doesn't do their job in picking them up, is there any way to have some sort of action taken to be removed? (after they already got their conditional GC).

I know I've been told no, that you can't be removed. Which I understand is a policy issue. But would there be a possibility to set a precedence through a lawsuit against the gov for non-action to be let out of the contract? Therefore force a change of policy?

Has anyone ever considered a class-action lawsuit for victim rights? It appears that victim resources are only allowed for "regular federal" crimes. But technically all immigration crimes are also federal crimes. So if you go to the DOJ website for your state, you will find victim resources for anyone who is victim/witness to federal crime, just that they discriminate against immigration related crimes. Same with FBI that has a victim specialist for federal crime victims, but they offer no resources for immigration victims.

Has anyone ever used the federal bill of victim rights when dealing with the USCIS? (I did. It was actually successful to obtain information and send a service request for an expedite).

Federal crime victim bill of rights, does encompass all federal crimes so would then be related to immigration crimes. In the bill of rights it states (amongst others) you have a right to be protected, as well as a right to make a statement at the trial, and a right for a speedy trial.

Anyone ever consider a class action lawsuit for victim rights to speedy trial? To ensure they are processed in a timely manner?

I find the I-864 to be completely crazy, that any other document you can get out of when someone defrauded you into signing it. You can even go back on an adoption. But the I-864 the government forces you to remain beholden, yet at the same time refuses to take timely action.

Any thoughts?

need more info before can give pointed advice, but here's some things to consider:

1. without a greencard in hand, is possible for the USCitizen to withdraw the I-864 quickly at a local office. This stops the adjustment of status, full stop.

2. if green card in hand, and you have evidence of the fraud, then write up a case for fraud, meet up with an FDNS officer at a local uscis office via an infopass appointment, then IF the FDNS officer feels you've a case for fraud, he'll open up a case for review. If the FDNS officer finds the evidence to warrant a tag of 'fraud', then that tag will get added to the casefile. IF the green card holder goes through an immigration control point, the green card usually is asked for, the foreign spouse must hand it over to CBP. There's a concept that the foreign spouse will be deported, but it all depends on what happens at the immigration control point. Regardless, it's a slow haul, and MIGHT get you what you want in the end. Not in the beginning, but in the end.

That's it, that's all I've got to write about it, atm.

Go Get Em, and Good Luck !

[tam8i8 0]

Thanks everyone!

I have another random question:

So let's say the now illegal alien takes you to court for monetary relief from the I-864.

Could you technically make a citizen's arrest in the courtroom and place them into the baliff's custody?

Would the court do anything on their own about him being illegal if part of the actual case was to show that he was now illegal?

[Boiler 45,486]

What felony would you just have witnessed?

[tam8i8 0]

Here you don't have to have just witnessed it.

WHEN PRIVATE PERSON MAY MAKE ARREST.

A private person may arrest another:

(1) for a public offense committed or attempted in the arresting person's presence;

(2) when the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in the arresting person's presence; or

(3) when a felony has in fact been committed, and the arresting person has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.

[Boiler 45,486]

Exactly

[aaron2020 11,651]

Thanks everyone!

I have another random question:

So let's say the now illegal alien takes you to court for monetary relief from the I-864.

Could you technically make a citizen's arrest in the courtroom and place them into the baliff's custody?

Would the court do anything on their own about him being illegal if part of the actual case was to show that he was now illegal?

Illegal presence in the US is a civil matter. There is no criminality as defined by the law here, so you can not make any sort of citizen's arrest.

[Villanelle 4,122]

Well this is somewhat off topic but related. One of Tamis concerns here is obviously how to get ICE to pick up/detain her ex spouse as his GC was revoked making him to her knowledge illegal/out of status. They sent a NTA he didnt and now hes just ... around. Not hiding. Not underground. Just there and yet ICE seems to be like shrug. Hence her asking can I make a citizens arrest since they are not acting on it.

I did some digging and Obama did a lot reform as we all know to immigration. Some of it got a lot of attention, some of it didnt. One of the things that got cut dramatically was ICEs budget. In late Dec 2012 they scaled back the 287 (g) program. They decided not to renew any 287(g) task force model agreements in 2013.

What the 287 (g) basically was/is is when local law enforcement finds/picks up/detains someone and find them to be illegal and holds them for 72hr and contacts ICE to come get them. Prior to 2013 ICE would come and get anyone and everyone. After they decided not to renew the task force model in 2013- the 287 (g) still stands but there are limited circumstances in which ICE will come and pick up the alien.

Most of these policy changes occurred under ICE director John Morton and are referred to as the Morton Memos

Finally, on December 21, 2012 ICE Director John Morton issued a new policy memo limiting the circumstances under which ICE agents can issue detainers and take custody of illegal aliens in the hands of local law enforcement officials. Specifically, the memo instructs that ICE agents should issue a detainer against an alien only where they have reason to believe the alien is subject to removal and if one or more of the following conditions apply:

• the alien has previously been convicted of or charged with a felony;
• the alien has three or more prior misdemeanor convictions;
• the alien has a prior misdemeanor conviction or has been charged with a misdemeanor offense that involves —
  • violence, threats, or assault;
  • sexual abuse or exploitation;
  • driving under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance;
  • unlawful flight from the scene of an accident;
  • unlawful possession or use of a firearm or other deadly weapon;
  • the distribution or trafficking of a controlled substance, or
  • other significant threat to public safety;
  • the alien has been convicted of unlawful entry or has illegally reentered the U.S. after a previous removal or return;
  • the alien has an outstanding order of removal;
  • the alien has been found by an immigration officer or an immigration judge to have knowingly committed fraud;
  • the alien otherwise poses a significant risk to national security, border security, or public safety.

As a result of the new policy, ICE agents can no longer take an alien into custody if the alien's only violation of the law is being in the country unlawfully; they must have committed an offense independent of their unlawful status.

http://www.ice.gov/doclib/detention-reform/pdf/detainer-policy.pdf

(I cant find any record of this changing or not still being in effect in fact I found several recent news articles in borderish states complaining about it- like police stopped a car with a drunk illegal driver and 3 other illegals- ICE said detain the driver and let the others go. Border state outrage type article.)

Since Tami is pretty confident that her ex is in removal they should pick him up if he is detained by local police. However with the budget cuts and changes in ICE policies- its very unlikely they are going to come fetch him and very unlikely he is going to appear anywhere ICE would be- like a USCIS office.

You can check the status of someone NTA/immigration court case if you have specific info- which tami may be privy to- not sure by going to this link-

http://www.justice.gov/eoir/npr.htmand calling the number. Then you can confirm if card was revoked for fraud or not. Perhaps it might even say if in removal (?)

I am a little curious about the

So let's say the now illegal alien takes you to court for monetary relief from the I-864.

Is this a hypothetical question or is this a omg please dont say he is saying he is going to take you to court and attempt to sue you for monetary relief real thing? Because Ill spit milk out my nose. There is another thread on here about suing on the 864 started by the same guy that started the fraud one you posted on initially with lots of info and links you can look into- but hun with GC revoked for fraud and no legal status and a removal order- no judge is going to order you to support him while he stays here illegally. seriously.

You said hes working. Does his employer know hes working illegally? He (the employer can get in trouble for that)

You can also try contacting at your local (or his local if you are not in the same field office area) go to the USCIS office and ask to talk to the FDNS officer there. Explain your concerns about wanting him picked up because he has a removal order. Show the memo above that says ICE can pick up for that. Yes its not exactly what it says, it says if they are in the hands of local law enforcement- Tell him of a place where know exactly where he will be- date and time wheter its at a court or his job and ask if he can have ICE agents go there and pick him up. If he says no. INSIST. I mean really what do they want you to do- go and make a scene and have the cops come so they detain you both so that ICE can come.

-----

Here is a link for the morton memos for those interested-

http://www.fairus.org/morton-memos