212(k) waiver for 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) 5 year bar

[aaron2020 11,651]

17 minutes ago, MarcusZoe said:

I'm not sure how it relates to the question, and process.

It matters because it's the reason why she is not allowed into the US.   The reasons for her inadmissibility and her deportation is what will hold up the immigration process.  Her entire travel history, having a baby in the US on a visitor visa, etc. relates to the reasons why she's inadmissible and was deported.  That's how it relates to the immigration process.  

 

Does your wife need an additional waiver for misrepresentation or something else.   It matters.  

 

 

[Mollie09 1,543]

10 minutes ago, MarcusZoe said:

This is my thought as well, and I would like to go with that, except that the 212(k) says the INV "may apply at the port of entry for a waiver under section 212(k) of the Act"

If she was in possession of an immigrant visa. She isn't, and won't be issued one.

[aaron2020 11,651]

At this point, you need an experienced immigration lawyer. 

 

Your wife used a visitor visa to have a baby in the US.  That's not what a visitor visa is for.

 

Your wife has 2 overstays.  Her visa was automatically void on the first overstay.  So, there is the question of what did she say to get back into the US after the first overstay.  

 

She has been found inadmissible and deported.  There are numerous issues that have to be addressed.  

 

This is not DIY.  

 

Understand that your wife will not be getting an immigration visa.  She's not showing up at the border with an immigration visa and then they are going to let her file an I-212 and all is good and she can come in. 

 

Go get good professional help from an immigration lawyer.  

Edited April 19, 2019 by aaron2020

[Boiler 45,761]

Sounds like she misrepresented herself and obtained entry with the voided visa after the first overstay.

[aaron2020 11,651]

33 minutes ago, MarcusZoe said:

This is my thought as well, and I would like to go with that, except that the 212(k) says the INV "may apply at the port of entry for a waiver under section 212(k) of the Act"

You are being selective with your quote.

 

"Any applicant for admission who is in possession of an immigrant visa, and who is inadmissible under section 212(a)(5)(A) or 212(a)(7)(A)(i) of the Act, may apply at the port of entry for a waiver under section 212(k) of the Act."

 

Your wife does not have an immigrant visa, so this does not apply to her.  This relief at the POE is for people who already have an immigrant visa.

 

Misquoting things doesn't help your wife.  

You are making the erroneous assumption that the US Embassy will have no problem giving your wife an immigration visa and you can deal with the inadmissibility and deportation.  And then you can deal with it at the POE.  That's not how immigration works.  Your wife will need a waiver of her inadmissibility and deportation before she can be issued an immigration visa.   This is what we have been trying to tell you.  Your wife is not gonna get an immigration visa while being inadmissible and having a 5 year bar due to expedited deportation, so there is no way she will be showing up at the POE seeking an I-212 waiver.

 

 

Edited April 19, 2019 by aaron2020

[geowrian 22,337]

Agreed - this is time to have a discussion with an experienced immigration lawyer. The potential misrep bar for the circumstances surrounding the visits with a revoked visa are potentially significant factors.

It also impacts the I-212...if she needs an I-601 for misrep as well, there's no point in filing the I-212 now. You would file both the I-212 and I-601 only after the interview once deemed otherwise eligible for the visa.

[aaron2020 11,651]

Yup, 601 may be in order.

[Boiler 45,761]

3 minutes ago, aaron2020 said:

Yup, 601 may be in order.

And it puts all the I212 discussions to one side.

[aaron2020 11,651]

2 minutes ago, Boiler said:

And it puts all the I212 discussions to one side.

If OP had shared why his wife was deported when first asked, he would have gotten proper help earlier.  Instead we had to go down this rabbit hole to help him. 

Edited April 19, 2019 by aaron2020

[Just Paul 4,595]

1 hour ago, MarcusZoe said:

She was coming to help her sister, as she was having rare excessive brain pressures causing sever migraines, and needed help with the children at times.

Ona tourist visa?   "needed help with the children at times" = unauthorized work

[blahblahblog 36]

1 hour ago, MarcusZoe said:

Really? What have I said that makes you think I don't believe you?  If you read everything I have written, nowhere do "I" say she doesn't need a waiver.  Only, that from the research I have done, the waiver is done at the port of entry.  If you know it is otherwise, please point me to the information.

There seems to be a massive misunderstanding on your part about the law. The 212(a)(7) is about immigrants at port of entry that lack proper documentation (either a passport or an immigration visa). The 212(k) waiver is for people that have an immigration visa but don't have the passport on them. Denial of entry under 212(a)(7) shouldn't trigger any 5-year bar. If you have a piece of paper saying that she's under a 5-year bar under 212(a)(7), get a lawyer.

[geowrian 22,337]

7 minutes ago, blahblahblog said:

Denial of entry under 212(a)(7) shouldn't trigger any 5-year bar. If you have a piece of paper saying that she's under a 5-year bar under 212(a)(7), get a lawyer.

The bar wouldn't be for 212(a)(7) specifically. That was the cause for being denied entry. The 5 year bar would be due to an expedited removal and fall under INA 212(a)(9)(A).

Although that point is kinda moot now given the potential misrep bar.

Edited April 19, 2019 by geowrian

[blahblahblog 36]

2 minutes ago, geowrian said:

The bar wouldn't be for 212(a)(7) specifically. That was the cause for being denied entry. The 5 year bar would be due to an expedited removal and fall under INA 212(a)(9)(A).

Although that point is kinda moot now given the potential misrep bar.

My point is that the OP's source of delusion is lack of understanding of the code and how it relates to the case. The denied entry was under 212(a)(7). He seems to think that the bar is under 212(a)(7) and thinks that 212(k) applies to her. I am explaining that that part of the code has absolutely nothing to do with a 5 year bar. Before they run to file an I-601, they should find out the specific reason why she's under the 5 year bar. There is a chance that the guy at CBP told her he was placing her under a bar to scare her, but didn't make any finding of misrepresentation and she's actually not subject to any bar. It's also possible that someone is lying and she had an order of removal on her which is the origin of the 5 year bar (I thought there was 3 and 10yr bars, didn't know there was a 5 year bar).

[Boiler 45,761]

Well I assume she was deported.

 

The Misrep issue would something for the Consulate to consider.

[aaron2020 11,651]

6 minutes ago, blahblahblog said:

My point is that the OP's source of delusion is lack of understanding of the code and how it relates to the case. The denied entry was under 212(a)(7). He seems to think that the bar is under 212(a)(7) and thinks that 212(k) applies to her. I am explaining that that part of the code has absolutely nothing to do with a 5 year bar. Before they run to file an I-601, they should find out the specific reason why she's under the 5 year bar. There is a chance that the guy at CBP told her he was placing her under a bar to scare her, but didn't make any finding of misrepresentation and she's actually not subject to any bar. It's also possible that someone is lying and she had an order of removal on her which is the origin of the 5 year bar (I thought there was 3 and 10yr bars, didn't know there was a 5 year bar).

A 5 year bar is for expedited removal at the POE. 

 

"Possible that someone is lying."  Where are you getting that from?  Pretty big jump when OP said she was expeditely removed at the POE.