Revocation rebuttal

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

A waiver is to waive the ban, he does not nee a waiver currently as he does not have a ban, the process never got that far, he was foun inadmissible for reasons that can not be waived.

He doesn't have a ban that OP is currently aware of because the process has not gotten that far YET but I believe OP will see a ban if she

goes forward with filing again. Are we still saying the same thing ?

[tomyka81 95]

Timely Retraction​

​

As a ​defense to ​inadmissibility for fraud ​or willful misrepresentation, a​ ​person​ may show ​that he or she timely retracted ​or ​recanted​ ​the ​false ​statement. The effect of a timely retraction is that the misrepresentation is eliminated​ as if it had never happened​.​ ^[29] See Matter of R-R-, 3 I&N Dec. 823 (BIA 1949). See Matter of M-, 9 I&N Dec. 118 (BIA 1960) (also cited by Matter of R-S-J-, 22 I&N Dec. 863 (BIA 1999)). ​If a​ ​person​ timely retracts the statement, the ​person​ is not inadmissible for fraud or willful misrepresentation​. ​

​

For the retraction to be effective, it has to be voluntary and​ ​timely.​ ^[30] “If the witness withdraws the false testimony of his own volition and without delay, the false statement and its withdrawal may be found to constitute one inseparable incident out of which an intention to deceive cannot rightly be drawn.” See Llanos-Senarrilos v. United States, 177 F.2d 164, 165 (9th Cir. 1949). See Matter of R-R-, 3 I&N Dec. 823 (BIA 1949). See Matter of Namio, 14 I&N Dec. 412 (BIA 1973), referring to Matter of M-, 9 I&N Dec. 118 (BIA 1960) and Llanos-Senarrilos v. United States, 177 F.2d 164 (9th Cir. 1949). The ​applicant​ must correct his or her ​representation​ before being exposed by the ​officer​ or ​U.S. ​government official ​or ​before the conclusion of the proceeding ​during ​which he or she gave false testimony​. ​A retraction can be ​voluntary and ​timely if made in response to an officer’s question during which​ the officer gives the applicant ​a chance to explain or correct a potential misrepresentation.​

​

Admitting to the false​ representation ​after​ USCIS has challenged the veracity of the claim is not a timely retraction.​ ^[31] See Matter of Namio, 14 I&N Dec. 412 (BIA 1973). ​For example, a​n ​applicant’s​ recantation of t​he false testimony is neither voluntary nor timely if made a​ year later​ ​and only after it bec​omes​ apparent that the disclosure of the falsity of the statements ​is​ imminent​.​ ^[32] See Matter of Namio, 14 I&N Dec. 412 (BIA 1973). A retraction or recantation is only timely if it is made in the same proceeding in which the person g​ives​ ​the ​false testimony​ or misrepresentation​.​ ^[33] See Llanos-Senarrilos v. United States, 177 F.2d 164, 165 (9th Cir. 1949).

​

It does not appear to be a timely retraction in your case, because admittance came after being confronted with it at the interview

(as far as you were told by him and still questionable) and obviously way too late for a retraction at the previous application

where it would have really mattered the first time.

So I don't think your thought of "no ban because he admitted it" is correct.

Consulates can but don't have to give you a waiver form. If they don't then case closed, end of story.

If they do then that means you were given the chance to overcome the ban with the waiver and it is up to you to proof hardship.

I find it actually worse that he wasn't handed a waiver after the interview.

I believe the CO told him anything to get him out of there and I believe he has a ban.

You can't file a waiver unless there is a ban.

I already know about timely retraction and had deduced that it wasn't timely because it had been over one year. However it was still voluntary. No, as Boiler pointed out, he doesn't need a waiver unlike you uncorrectly hastily concluded on the previous post. He isn't banned and can't get banned

[Boiler 45,484]

He doesn't have a ban that OP is currently aware of because the process has not gotten that far YET but I believe OP will see a ban if she

goes forward with filing again. Are we still saying the same thing ?

Yes

[Boiler 45,484]

It does not appear to be a timely retraction in your case, because admittance came after being confronted with it at the interview

(as far as you were told by him and still questionable) and obviously way too late for a retraction at the previous application

where it would have really mattered the first time.

So I don't think your thought of "no ban because he admitted it" is correct.

Consulates can but don't have to give you a waiver form. If they don't then case closed, end of story.

If they do then that means you were given the chance to overcome the ban with the waiver and it is up to you to proof hardship.

I find it actually worse that he wasn't handed a waiver after the interview.

I believe the CO told him anything to get him out of there and I believe he has a ban.

You can't file a waiver unless there is a ban.

No mention of retraction and there seems possibly several issues. I agree that this is most likely a red herring.

As far as I am aware, if a Consulate denies a visa using a basis which is waiverable then they have to offer the waiver. Well I do not remember ever seeing a case where they have not.

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

I already know about timely retraction and had deduced that it wasn't timely because it had been over one year. However it was still voluntary. No, as Boiler pointed out, he doesn't need a waiver unlike you uncorrectly hastily concluded on the previous post. He isn't banned and can't get banned

I did not hastily nor incorrectly conclude that he needs a waiver, sorry you feel that way.

He is banned but you don't realize it yet because you want this to work so bad you fail to see it like it is. Understandable to a point.

It's best to research a little more so you won't be wasting your time in the long run. Just trying to help you.

You will realize it when you file again if you refuse to see it now.

[Boiler 45,484]

The waiver issue is not currently applicable, I agree that if you can get past the current blockage it is reasonable to assume a ban will greet you and a waiver will be required.

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

The waiver issue is not currently applicable, I agree that if you can get past the current blockage it is reasonable to assume a ban will greet you and a waiver will be required.

Yes, unfortunately.

I didn't read where OP mentioned a 221g marked as 212(a)(6)©(i) was given, so yes a red herring unless it was handed to him.