Anyone heard of a K1 petition filed by sex offender being approved?

[Angie Y Shane 2]

I see several petitions posted at the USCIS website showing denial, but have yet to see any approved. Anyone ever heard of one approved?

Thanks in advance.

Yes, cases do get approved. Mine was approved in 2009. It took 2 and half years. I was the first American to be approved in the Adam Walsh act. There is allot that must be done. Read my posts and time line.

Shane

Edited April 6, 2015 by Angie Y Shane

[mallafri76 1,012]

You haven't written which country you're from but if from a VWP country, why don't you get married first and do the CR-1 visa. As far as I know, no Adam Walsh to go through on that visa cause you're already married.

[Hypnos 6,576]

That won't make any difference; AWA issues are investigated as part of the I-130 process.

[Villanelle 4,122]

Not really.

The biggest issue under the AWA is to be able to show that the petitioner poses no danger to the alien. Not "minimal risk", or "low risk", but "no risk". This is what trips most people up, because it's an extremely difficult thing to be able to prove.

Eh. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on what piece of the pie carries what importance then.

I mean if you look at it in a 'pie' format, you must meet all pieces to get approved. Bonafide marriage piece, able to make truthful statement piece, and AWA no threat to the petitioner piece. Of course thats just a basic kindergarten level view of things. So lets throw in one more slice for documents and paperwork/fees to round it out.

IMO only from observations and such not- I feel that most are denied and tripped up by submitting evidence of the crime. Its used against the 'able to make a truthful statement' piece. If you are missing one piece the whole thing is denied.

I can understand why it appears on a paperwork level most are denied for no threat to the petitioner- because thats what the denials say when they are issued. Its a vague broad term they dont have to justify and can be held up on appeals. Its an awkward law in regards to immigration between 2 adults when there are no children involved and both parties are aware of the criminal history and accepting of it.

But again the above is just my opinions of it. I havent kept up with it for some time now. My interest in it started a long time ago when a dear friend sought to petition and was caught up in it. His story is not a traditional one. It started way back in the days of yahoo chat, if anyone can remember that- back before to catch a predator on dateline. Back when the internet was still on aol dial up. He was 18, a senior in highschool and geeky enough to have his own PC and access to the interwebs. He got 'involved' with what he thought was a 15 yr old which in real life would have perfectly acceptable. Many seniors date underclassmen, but it turned out to be one of the very first police stings and the people running it were basically making up things as they went along. Everyone caught had an excuse or wanted a deal- so they decided to not give anyone anything and charge/sentence them all harshly. He got slapped with the RSO label and has had it for decades now.

He lives in a border state and tried to petition someone but the process was too daunting. It ultimately destroyed the relationship. The process was very slow. It took forever for them to send him for biometrics and then and as I remember they received a few RFEs very far spaced out. One was for paperwork they already had, another was for something trivial, at another point he sent in a packet of additional info unsolicited thinking it might help them make a decision.

But as much as he cared for the woman- the stress of not knowing if they would be approved or not, it was too much for him. He became hopeless much as the OP expressed here and my friend at a low point impulsively yanked his petition in a fit of anger at the government. There was no undoing it. The fiance of course became hysterical- all that time down the drain. They would have to start over-- and she just said she couldnt. That was it for them. Looking back at it, I suppose it wasnt meant to be. I dont know if they wouldve been approved or not.

Long distance relationships are hard. The visa process can make it harder. I hate to see people give up.

[zuluweta 250]

Thanks for the info. If, in fact, no petition has ever been approved, that would not be meaningless.

Moving elsewhere isn't really an option either, as part of AWA requires RSO's to report international travel 21 days beforehand. ICE then informs the destination country of the travel plans, then the destination country refuses entry. Hopeless is the word.

Are you the RSO filing for a fiance visa?

I read about the case of a Woman and her child (both from the Philippines) who were able to get a fiance (and K-2 for the child) visa but whose application for permanent residency (AOS) got denied because the U.S. Citizen husband was an RSO. This was a Board of Immigration Appeals case.

Unless the Adam Walsh Act gets repealed or declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, I'm afraid you face an uphill battle.

[zuluweta 250]

Matter of Jackson and Erandio concerns deportation proceedings initiated upon respondents by the federal government because even if the K-1 visa was approved, the AOS for permanent residency was denied due to petitioner being an RSO and hence subject to the Adam Walsh Act.

Link follows below:

http://www.justice.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/vol26/3802.pdf

[Villanelle 4,122]

Hmm, thats a really interesting BIA brief you pulled up.

But when you read it carefully it really doesnt apply to anybody except the specific people in it. Plenty of people are currently applying for and getting K1s and subsequently AOSing with AWAs.

The brief details one specific mans struggles way back in 06.

snipping pieces from the brief_

entered the United States on May 9, 2007, as a K-1 nonimmigrant fiancée of a United States citizen. The respondent’s husband, Mr. Jackson, had filed a Petition for Alien Fiancé(e) (Form I-129F) on behalf of the respondent, which was approved by the United Stateson October 5, 2006

The respondent and Mr. Jackson married on June 13, 2007. Based on this marriage, the respondents filed applications for adjustment of status on July 15, 2007

“Director”) sent the respondents a request for evidence and notice of intent to deny the applications for adjustment based on Mr. Jackson’s May 17, 1979, conviction for sexual abuse--- pursuant to the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006,

decision dated October 22, 2010, the Director found that Mr. Jackson had been convicted of a “specified offense against a minor--Director acknowledged the evidence submitted but determined that it did not meet the required burden of proof. The Director therefore concluded that Mr. Jackson was ineligible to have the visa petition approved on October 5, 2006.

Consequently, the nonimmigrant K visas with which the respondents entered the United States were not valid

Because the respondents were inadmissible as aliens who did not possess valid visas, their applications for adjustment of status were denied.

In this case, the United States citizen petitioner was found to have been ineligible to have his family-based visa petition approved because of his May 17, 1979, conviction. Consequently, the respondents’ nonimmigrant visas were not valid, and they were inadmissible to the United States at the time of entry.

The punchline here is the final paragraph- USCIS at the time incorrectly approved his K1 visa and admitted the woman and child into the US- they realized it when they went to do the AOS paperwork. They fixed it and reversed it declaring them inadmissible. Sad story.

If they had done it properly the woman and child would have been denied the K visa and never made it to the US, married and been put through such turmoil- so again, very very sad story for the family.

The only up side I can see after reading such is that the USCIS has been refining the process since the law was enacted and heart wrenching stories like that (can you imagine getting your visa, moving across the world, marrying and then being told- oh wait we take it back you are in deportation proceedings now gasp////?) are not heard of that often.. Seems like they have the process somewhat more organized now..

[JAB75 0]

Hmm, thats a really interesting BIA brief you pulled up.

But when you read it carefully it really doesnt apply to anybody except the specific people in it. Plenty of people are currently applying for and getting K1s and subsequently AOSing with AWAs.

The brief details one specific mans struggles way back in 06.

snipping pieces from the brief_

entered the United States on May 9, 2007, as a K-1 nonimmigrant fiancée of a United States citizen. The respondent’s husband, Mr. Jackson, had filed a Petition for Alien Fiancé(e) (Form I-129F) on behalf of the respondent, which was approved by the United Stateson October 5, 2006

The respondent and Mr. Jackson married on June 13, 2007. Based on this marriage, the respondents filed applications for adjustment of status on July 15, 2007

“Director”) sent the respondents a request for evidence and notice of intent to deny the applications for adjustment based on Mr. Jackson’s May 17, 1979, conviction for sexual abuse--- pursuant to the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006,

decision dated October 22, 2010, the Director found that Mr. Jackson had been convicted of a “specified offense against a minor--Director acknowledged the evidence submitted but determined that it did not meet the required burden of proof. The Director therefore concluded that Mr. Jackson was ineligible to have the visa petition approved on October 5, 2006.

Consequently, the nonimmigrant K visas with which the respondents entered the United States were not valid

Because the respondents were inadmissible as aliens who did not possess valid visas, their applications for adjustment of status were denied.

In this case, the United States citizen petitioner was found to have been ineligible to have his family-based visa petition approved because of his May 17, 1979, conviction. Consequently, the respondents’ nonimmigrant visas were not valid, and they were inadmissible to the United States at the time of entry.

The punchline here is the final paragraph- USCIS at the time incorrectly approved his K1 visa and admitted the woman and child into the US- they realized it when they went to do the AOS paperwork. They fixed it and reversed it declaring them inadmissible. Sad story.

If they had done it properly the woman and child would have been denied the K visa and never made it to the US, married and been put through such turmoil- so again, very very sad story for the family.

The only up side I can see after reading such is that the USCIS has been refining the process since the law was enacted and heart wrenching stories like that (can you imagine getting your visa, moving across the world, marrying and then being told- oh wait we take it back you are in deportation proceedings now gasp////?) are not heard of that often.. Seems like they have the process somewhat more organized now..

This looks like a case where the K visa was granted just after the law went into effect but before they implemented the policy on how top handle them, so revoked it retroactively.

[abc123321 0]

Does the AWA only impact applicatnts who are RSOs? What about people with past misdemeanor convictions who served a term of probation but were never given a registration requirement?

[JAB75 0]

Does the AWA only impact applicatnts who are RSOs? What about people with past misdemeanor convictions who served a term of probation but were never given a registration requirement?

That is a good question. Think of it this way. Both the registration laws and the AWA act as it pertains to this topic both apply to the individual based on the wording of the respective laws. Nothing in the AWA act mentions registration, only a very vague description of crimes which, oddly, the USCIS, the department least equipped to do so, is left to determine what crimes apply. So the answer is no, but most, if not all crimes against a minor requiring registration will also be considered a "specific offense against a minor" for the AWA. Many sex crimes not against a minor will require registration but not be applicable to AWA as it pertains to this topic. However, prior to the AWA act and still law is the requirement that any relevant criminal history of the petitioner must be disclosed to the beneficiary.

"Sections 402(a) and (b) of the Adam Walsh Act amended sections 101(a)(15)(K), 204(a) (A) and 204(a) (B)(i) of the Act to prohibit U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents who have been convicted of any "specified offense against a minor" 1 from filing a family-based visa petition on behalf of any beneficiary, unless the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security determines in her sole and unreviewable discretion that the petitioner poses no risk to the beneficiary of the visa petition. The Secretary has delegated to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) the authority to determine whether or not a petitioner convicted of a specified offense against a minor poses no risk to the beneficiary.

"The term 'specified offense against a minor' means an offense against a minor that involves any of the following:

(A) An offense (unless committed by a parent or guardian) involving kidnapping.

(B) An offense (unless committed by a parent or guardian) involving false imprisonment.

© Solicitation to engage in sexual conduct.

(D) Use in a sexual performance.

(E) Solicitation to practice prostitution.

Video voyeurism as described in section 180 I of title 18, United States Code.

(G) Possession, production or distribution of child pornography.

(H) Criminal sexual conduct involving a minor or the use of the Internet to facilitate or attempt such conduct.

(I) Any conduct that by its nature is a sex offense against a minor.

In the case of whether one will need to register as a sex offender, for how long, and whether their info is posted on the Megans Law website will depend on the state law where the crime was committed or where the person relocates to. Another section of the AWA attempted to make the laws concerning registration uniform nationally, but many states, some big ones, found compliance too expensive and some laws under AWA lacking any evidence they were effective and so opted out. The cost of implementing it would be significantly more than the federal funds the AWA act mandates be withheld from states that are not in compliance. The number of registrants nationwide is approaching 1 million. California has nearly 100,000 alone. Lots of previously minor offenses have been put on the registerable list, so people previously arrested, in many cases decades ago, for things like urinating in public, streaking in college, flashing, 18-19 year olds who were arrested for having sex with 17 or 16 year old girlfriends, and other minor non-touch offenses are getting knock on the door and having their info put on the Megans list website essentially destroying their lives. This has spawned many suicides and vigilante murders and beatings. People are forced to move out and sell their homes, separated from friends and family.

And AWA is now further destroying families by separating wives and children of registrants that have chosen to live abroad and start a new life. I was deported after 15 years living in another country after ICE informed my adopted country of my crime from many, many years ago, which was a misdemeanor in my state and not even a crime in my newly adopted country. And now, it appears in all likely hood, I can't even have my fiance follow me here. As a previous poster mentioned, it is impossible to prove someone is "no risk", even those with no criminal history.

So judging by the comments here and all the refusals which can be found posted at the USCIS website (plus Angie Y Shane's comment about being the first American approved, which happened in 2009, 3 years after the AWA came into effect) I would say it looks like maybe 1-50 or maybe 1-100 get approved.

From what kind of fresh hell does this cruel evilness come from?

Edited April 8, 2015 by JAB75

[Villanelle 4,122]

JAB- Its good to see your still on the forum. Sometimes people post something at a low point and never return.

Im really sorry for the struggles youve been through. I know that doesnt do much for your situation though.

At this point I would recommend using an attny to help you with your paperwork if you dont already have one. Find one that specializes in AWA. It can be expensive but a knowledgeable one can make a difference in the quality of your packet and due to the excessive time these applications take. You dont want to send something in , wait forever for it to come back denied and then try again with a better prepared application.

Also I do want to point out a family based visa is not the only path to GC. By some chance is your intended able to qualify for an employment based visa/GC?

Lastly, now that Obamacare is in effect you should have access to some type of health insurance. Use it. Find yourself a therapist or counselor to talk to because you clearly have a great deal on your shoulders right now. Being deported after 15 yrs and separated from your partner? just awful.

[Mike-eeh and Odie 193]

Here you go:

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/200384-adam-walsh-act-was-beat/

[j&ana 363]

From reading of the few that got approve because of the IMBRA, adam walsh act. It seems like it was IR-1/CR-1 visa and not the K-1 visa that was approve and it took a long time

[Hypnos 6,576]

The AWA applies to both I-129F (K-1) and I-130 (CR-1/IR-1) petitions.

Edited May 5, 2015 by Hypnos

[the_poledancer_RN 12]

Im an AWA filer (k1) and I got approved. Im here in the US now waiting for my EAD, AP and GC.