Help to understand FOIA

[Skymusic 2]

1 hour ago, geowrian said:

That's what I was thinking as well...which is why the dates are important, including the BCC entry. 9C only kicks in after a year of unlawful presence then the EWI, and the dates provided so far are less than that.

The thing is she was not more than a year for unlawful presence. I’ve read and seen alot of videos where alot of people got a green card even after 2 to 3 times caught and sent back as voluntary return (theowbacks). Even they say they came back to the US right away after been sent back

[geowrian 22,337]

8 minutes ago, Skymusic said:

The thing is she was not more than a year for unlawful presence. I’ve read and seen alot of videos where alot of people got a green card even after 2 to 3 times caught and sent back as voluntary return (theowbacks). Even they say they came back to the US right away after been sent back

Correct...a 9C permanent bar may not apply here. If she was never unlawfully present for a year or longer, then I don't think it does apply.

[jan22 3,056]

18 minutes ago, geowrian said:

Correct...a 9C permanent bar may not apply here. If she was never unlawfully present for a year or longer, then I don't think it does apply.

A 9C ineligibility does not require an overstay.  The mere act of re-entering, or attempting to re-enter and getting caught, after a removal triggers the ban.

 

There appears to have been a prior removal in October of 2005 (see the "Criminal History" paragraph) when her BBC was cancelled that nobody has mentioned.  That means another EWI in 2007 would have made her ineligible under 9C .  As someone said, this is a permanent ban with no waiver to be applied for until the person has been outside the US for 10 years. 

[geowrian 22,337]

6 minutes ago, jan22 said:

A 9C ineligibility does not require an overstay.  The mere act of re-entering, or attempting to re-enter and getting caught, after a removal triggers the ban.

 

There appears to have been a prior removal in October of 2005 (see the "Criminal History" paragraph) when her BBC was cancelled that nobody has mentioned.  That means another EWI in 2007 would have made her ineligible under 9C .  As someone said, this is a permanent ban with no waiver to be applied for until the person has been outside the US for 10 years. 

https://immigrate2us.net/forum/showthread.php?93541-Entering-Without-Inspection-(EWI)-Bans-(including-6B)-Tattoos-and-more

Scenario 4:
If an immigrant attempting to enter the US from Mexico in January 2000 at the age of 20 was caught and thrown back to Mexico, attempted to enter the US again the next day, EWI successfully and in the US until the present, s/he is eligible to file an I-601 waiver. S/he has accumulated over 1 year of illegal presence, but has not left the US and attempted to re-enter the US uninspected again.

NOTE: to be banned with a 9C ban, an immigrant must first accumulate 12 months of aggregate illegal presence, leave the US, and then enter the US EWI again, or attempt to EWI again.

 

[jan22 3,056]

9 minutes ago, geowrian said:

https://immigrate2us.net/forum/showthread.php?93541-Entering-Without-Inspection-(EWI)-Bans-(including-6B)-Tattoos-and-more

Scenario 4:
If an immigrant attempting to enter the US from Mexico in January 2000 at the age of 20 was caught and thrown back to Mexico, attempted to enter the US again the next day, EWI successfully and in the US until the present, s/he is eligible to file an I-601 waiver. S/he has accumulated over 1 year of illegal presence, but has not left the US and attempted to re-enter the US uninspected again.

NOTE: to be banned with a 9C ban, an immigrant must first accumulate 12 months of aggregate illegal presence, leave the US, and then enter the US EWI again, or attempt to EWI again.

 

But the year overstay is not from the entry that triggers the 9C....it is from a previous entry.  In this case, it appears to have been the 2005 entry.  Sorry I wasn't clear on that part.

 

If the 2005 entry (or a subsequent one unknown to immigration) did not include a year or more overstay, there would not be a 9C.

Edited September 28, 2017 by jan22

[geowrian 22,337]

2 minutes ago, jan22 said:

But the year overstay is not from the entry that triggers the 9C....it is from a previous entry.  In this case, it appears to have been the 2005 entry.  Sorry I wasn't clear on that part.

Ah, okay. Yes...I'm still trying to get a grasp on the entire timeline as well.

[f f 725]

12 minutes ago, jan22 said:

If the 2005 entry (or a subsequent one unknown to immigration) did not include a year or more overstay, there would not be a 9C.

but wouldn't bidding this information constitute a misrepresentation? since you would be hiding the fact that you should be subject to the ban?

[jan22 3,056]

14 minutes ago, f f said:

but wouldn't bidding this information constitute a misrepresentation? since you would be hiding the fact that you should be subject to the ban?

No, since she Entered Without Inspection (EWI) in 2007, so there was no questioning by an immigration offiicial.

 

But, I have been trying to correct this sentence myself, but the system is giving me hassles!  I mis-spoke since the quoted example about 9C is not completely correct (one of the problems with using non-official information sources) and I didn't think about it carefully enough before I wrote that sentence.

 

A 9C ineligibility applies if a person re-enters or attempts to re-enter the US without inspection (EWI) after having left the US after accruing a year or more unlawful presence OR has been previously removed from the US.   The removal does not have to be for an overstay ot any length.

 

In this case, I think it's pretty clear that she was removed, since Border Patrol was involved and it was documented in their system in 2005, since the information was available and referenced as part of the Criminal History in 2007.  Thus, a 9C is likely. 

 

Sorry I may have confused things earlier.

Edited September 28, 2017 by jan22

[David & Diana R 1,005]

6 hours ago, Skymusic said:

The thing is she was not more than a year for unlawful presence. I’ve read and seen alot of videos where alot of people got a green card even after 2 to 3 times caught and sent back as voluntary return (theowbacks). Even they say they came back to the US right away after been sent back

Where are these videos of which you speak?

[Skymusic 2]

7 hours ago, jan22 said:

No, since she Entered Without Inspection (EWI) in 2007, so there was no questioning by an immigration offiicial.

 

But, I have been trying to correct this sentence myself, but the system is giving me hassles!  I mis-spoke since the quoted example about 9C is not completely correct (one of the problems with using non-official information sources) and I didn't think about it carefully enough before I wrote that sentence.

 

A 9C ineligibility applies if a person re-enters or attempts to re-enter the US without inspection (EWI) after having left the US after accruing a year or more unlawful presence OR has been previously removed from the US.   The removal does not have to be for an overstay ot any length.

 

In this case, I think it's pretty clear that she was removed, since Border Patrol was involved and it was documented in their system in 2005, since the information was available and referenced as part of the Criminal History in 2007.  Thus, a 9C is likely. 

 

Sorry I may have confused things earlier.

You’re right! What we are trying to find is why does it say “Criminal History “ and talks about her Bcc but doesn’t say anything about “Expedited removal” or anything. Wouldn’t she gotten a Reinstatement of Removal in 2007 instead of Voluntary return? Because I’ve read if you were previously deported and came back and get caught you get Reinstatement of Removal but instead she got Voluntary return. This is so confusing for us.

[Skymusic 2]

Also why when it talks about the BCC 2005 incident is blacked out? 

[David & Diana R 1,005]

6 minutes ago, Skymusic said:

You’re right! What we are trying to find is why does it say “Criminal History “ and talks about her Bcc but doesn’t say anything about “Expedited removal” or anything. Wouldn’t she gotten a Reinstatement of Removal in 2007 instead of Voluntary return? Because I’ve read if you were previously deported and came back and get caught you get Reinstatement of Removal but instead she got Voluntary return. This is so confusing for us.

It's says "Criminal History" because your mother has a criminal history.  She obviously committed a crime.  You are not getting the answers that you want.  I wish you well.

[jan22 3,056]

19 minutes ago, Skymusic said:

You’re right! What we are trying to find is why does it say “Criminal History “ and talks about her Bcc but doesn’t say anything about “Expedited removal” or anything. Wouldn’t she gotten a Reinstatement of Removal in 2007 instead of Voluntary return? Because I’ve read if you were previously deported and came back and get caught you get Reinstatement of Removal but instead she got Voluntary return. This is so confusing for us.

 

19 minutes ago, Skymusic said:

 

They use the criminal history section to document any interactions with law enforcement. It does not necessarily mean a criminal conviction.

 

The normal procedures for deportation, voluntary departures, expedited removals, etc. don't always operate the same way along the US-Mexican border where Border Patrol can merely get someone back to the border and have them walk across and be in Mexico.  If they documented it in their computer system ( which they don't always do), I would start with an assumption that she has see some form of an official removal in her file until some proves otherwise.

Edited September 29, 2017 by jan22

[Going through 5,671]

23 minutes ago, Skymusic said:

You’re right! What we are trying to find is why does it say “Criminal History “ and talks about her Bcc but doesn’t say anything about “Expedited removal” or anything. Wouldn’t she gotten a Reinstatement of Removal in 2007 instead of Voluntary return? Because I’ve read if you were previously deported and came back and get caught you get Reinstatement of Removal but instead she got Voluntary return. This is so confusing for us.

She committed a crime, she has a criminal history.  Doesn't mean she was convicted of a crime, but the history is there since she was charged.

 

You are asking the same question in different ways hoping to get a different answer.  

 

Whether she returned voluntarily or not is not the issue---again, her voluntary return does NOT mean there was NOT an order of removal/deportation.  She was obviously in removal proceedings since was held in detention until court proceedings and had to appear before a judge.  Once more, "voluntary return/removal" is that she was given the opportunity to leave the country on her own within a specified time frame----she was STILL ordered removed, she just removed herself rather than face automatic inadmissibility for a number of years.

Edited September 29, 2017 by Going through

[jan22 3,056]

19 minutes ago, Skymusic said:

Also why when it talks about the BCC 2005 incident is blacked out? 

FOIA responses have areas that are redacted (blacked out) for information that cannot be released -- for example, information that is law-enforcement sensitive, that reveals information about another individual, etc.  The code imposed over the blacked out part is the section of the law that governs why the material cannot be released.  The code used on your form (b)(7)(e) is usually used for information that might reveal law enforcement processes, procedures, etc.

Edited September 29, 2017 by jan22