Inadmissible based on fake SSN (split)

[Pennycat 880]

On 2/9/2017 at 0:57 AM, Michael and Ganna said:

 18 USC 1546(b) for false attestation on an employment verification form, or 42 USC 408(a)(7)(A) for misusing a social security number obtained by fraud, or 42 USC 408(a)(7)(B) for falsely representing a social security number. A conviction for any of these offenses might have immigration consequences in the sense that it could be considered a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT), which is a ground for inadmissibility that would bar an alien from getting a green card. If an alien admits committing these offenses, he could still be inadmissible even without a conviction.

 

I came here to read and ask questions about this. Some friends are going through AOS and one spouse has overstay and was working with a fake SSN. They had their interview post-inauguration and the alien spouse was found inadmissible based on the fake documents (was completely honest about everything, they weren't "caught"). They're going through 601 waiver now. I was going to ask if anyone knows of a similar situation *recently* and had 601 approved? I'm trying to support my friends through this but I know very little about these issues and I don't want to give bad information.

[Ontarkie 14,222]

~~Thread split. It's better to ask in you own thread as you don't want to have answers get mixed up with the OP.~~

[HoosierEh 21]

It's nice that you are interested in finding out more about the process to be that kind of friend but it's not necessary.  My biggest supporter while I wait out my waiver knows nothing about it and I have found that a comfort  (no confusion and I get to just talk ).

 

Waivers are so subjective and each circumstance different that there are no 2 waiver stories exactly the same. It's the Internet  .... you're more than likely to find bad news than good and judgement is free and in an abundance. 

 

Keep being the good friend you want to be, people that just listen and have empathy are the best to have around in this situation.  Often it is what a lot of people here are searching for  ... 

 

Good luck to you and your friends.

 

 

 

[evalili 10]

Given the fact that your friend has worked with a fake SSN might be a possibility of not being approved. The immigration officer (who look at your friend's I-601) might feel that your friend has 'claimed US Citizen' when he/she isn't one. I was made to file for an I-601 solely due to an F-1 overstay, but I have never worked under a fake SSN.

 

I would highly recommend you to hire an attorney because an I-601 is a serious matter and has a complicated process. If not enough information given, your friend might not get approved even with strong evidence of hardship on USC.

Edited February 14, 2017 by evalili

[Pennycat 880]

Thanks guys, they do have an attorney and a good claim for hardship to the USC. I don't want to go crazy on the details because it's their life not mine. I'm specifically wondering if anyone here is aware of any 601s approved since January 20, because this couple is very concerned that it will just be a blanket denial because of all that's going on now.

 

Also, is this always how these cases go? In that if you admit to using fake papers, you're found inadmissible and you need to waive that inadmissibility? Or is that at the discretion of the IO? They had a lawyer (two, apparently) check their AOS package before sending it in and neither of them prepared them for the fact that being found inadmissible was even a possibility. They feel that had they interviewed 9 days earlier, the IO could have exercised discretion to allow their AOS, and I think that feeling is what is inciting the panic. I was long under the impression that fake papers is always inadmissible but when they talked to those lawyers, I figured I was wrong....

[LionessDeon 2,060]

Were the 2 lawyers who looked over their filing experience or specialized in immigration?

Highly doubtful the inauguration had anything to do with the decision.

You can review the Waiver forum for more info  http://www.visajourney.com/forums/forum/113-waivers-i-601-and-i-212-and-administrative-processes-221g/

 

 

[Pennycat 880]

Just now, LionessDeon said:

Were the 2 lawyers who looked over their filing experience or specialized in immigration?

Highly doubtful the inauguration had anything to do with the decision.

You can review the Waiver forum for more info  http://www.visajourney.com/forums/forum/113-waivers-i-601-and-i-212-and-administrative-processes-221g/

 

 

 

 

They say yes (which I have a mixed response to believing. One, I have heard that many immigration attorneys aren't so good but Two, there were TWO of them and this seems to be a glaring issue so I could believe it either way). I think they just paid them to look over the file to make sure they weren't missing anything, and I think that this may have been a favor from a friend type thing. How or why they missed this I'll never know. I personally feel really bad for not pushing it harder (I pushed them to talk to an attorney because I thought fake papers automatically meant inadmissibility) but once they talked to the attorney with no flags raised, I'd figured I was wrong. 

 

So, you think that the IO did NOT have the discretion to not penalize the fake papers, even under previous administrations? That could be good news, morale-wise. Meaning, there haven't been such drastic overnight changes than their 601 really has a good shot.

[Pennycat 880]

6 minutes ago, LionessDeon said:

Were the 2 lawyers who looked over their filing experience or specialized in immigration?

Highly doubtful the inauguration had anything to do with the decision.

You can review the Waiver forum for more info  http://www.visajourney.com/forums/forum/113-waivers-i-601-and-i-212-and-administrative-processes-221g/

 

 

Oh, also I'd been reading this forum which is how I wound up in the thread I originally posted this question on. Most of these seem to be about visas not AOS, I can't specifically search for the SSN and AOS stuff etc.

[LionessDeon 2,060]

Waiver issues are very particular and finding another person with the exact same situation as yours is difficult for anyone.

 

I don't think the inauguration had anything to do with it.  If the IO had an ability for leniancy before, I seriously doubt that changed with new administation that quickly. (9 days)

[Boiler 45,499]

Identity fraud has always been a crime, as others have mentioned the I9 aspect is the biggie.

 

Used to be that a waiver application was a bit of a formality, maybe that will change.

[Pennycat 880]

1 minute ago, Boiler said:

Identity fraud has always been a crime, as others have mentioned the I9 aspect is the biggie.

 

Used to be that a waiver application was a bit of a formality, maybe that will change.

Thanks, Boiler. So basically, regardless of the impression they got from the interview (long story but the IO somehow left them with the impression that they'd have been approved on the spot had it been weeks earlier which doesn't sound right to me at all, I think it is a serious misunderstanding), and the failure of two lawyers to alert them to the fact that the fake papers would likely be a problem, this likely would have been a problem? Not just a crime but a grounds for inadmissibility that in most if not all cases would have resulted in inadmissibility?

 

I'm trying--hard--to get it through the panicking half's head that this was the expected outcome of the initial AOS application and not an indication of a swift and severe crackdown in this exact department, indicating the near guaranteed deportation of one of them. Not to say that the 601 will be a "formality" as in days gone by, but that as of now there is zero indication one way or the other. The panicking half is reading this as evidence of an impending knock on the door by ICE because 3 weeks ago it would have been a non-issue.

 

I am pretty much the exact wrong person to say this, though, because it comes off as judgmental for someone in my position (we went through K1 with zero complications in the backstory) to say that.... which is why I dropped the issue pre-AOS and left it to the lawyers to be the messenger. Then when neither of the lawyers mentioned inadmissibility, I figured I'd been wrong. Maybe their new lawyer will shed some light onto this for them. I hope. If this new person doesn't clear this up (that so far, this is the expected course of events), should I assume that the new lawyer knows as little as the first two who checked their AOS package and really push the "famous" names I've seen here on VJ? They went with a recommendation, who they can meet with personally.

[Boiler 45,499]

As nobody on you knows exactly what the issue is, it is impossible to know the extent of the issue.

 

Nothing changes very quickly, not even sure if Trump on day one made it a priority to change the ways these things how quickly it would be done, I assume months not days.

 

Perhaps the IO had it in for Trump? But you were not there so who knows.