noid recieved

[gregcrs2 1,778]

I didn't notice it anywhere in this thread but did she even have a home to go back to?    Why wasn't the spouse at the interview?  Seems everything that OP is stating is second hand information as I don't see where he was at the interview.  You need a number of documents to file so I'm not understanding how all necessary documents were available from her side as I have never ever heard someone traveling on a tourist visa with such things as their birth certificate.  MY BS meter is also pegged out on this one.

[SalishSea 18,144]

12 minutes ago, gregcrs2 said:

I didn't notice it anywhere in this thread but did she even have a home to go back to?    Why wasn't the spouse at the interview?  Seems everything that OP is stating is second hand information as I don't see where he was at the interview.  You need a number of documents to file so I'm not understanding how all necessary documents were available from her side as I have never ever heard someone traveling on a tourist visa with such things as their birth certificate.  MY BS meter is also pegged out on this one.

I wondered those things too.  Seemed as if it might partly be language/communication barrier of the OP.

[jlc201 47]

I agree that there was probably increased scrutiny at POE that flagged the case leading to the current state. From the OP:

"the letter says you entered united states under the visa waiver program feb 8 at that time you were interviewed by costoms agent and border agent. you told the agent you had no plans of moving to the usa. the agent contacted your spouse who stated there were no plans for you to move to usa. on march 15 you filled form i 485 and appread for an interview on june 5  during the interview you stated your purpose of traveling to usa was to live  with your husband and child. you testimony indicates that you had no intention of returning to your home country furthermore your failure to disclose your true intent at the time of your entry to the usa curtailed additional questioning for determining eligiblity as result of you are in admissible to the usa" (bolding mine)

 

From this description, it sounds like the agent at POE found out that this woman had a husband and 2 children living in the US, suspected immigrant intent, and referred her to secondary inspection where they contacted her husband (the OP). As both insisted that she had no intention of immigrating to the US on that visit, the officer decided to let her in (but presumably with a warning that attempting to adjust status on this visit would be a very bad idea), and all of this information would be clearly documented in the wife's record. 5 weeks later, they do just that, and when interviewed 6 weeks after that, the wife admits that she did, in fact, enter the US with intention to stay, validating the original IO's concerns and confirming that she was admitted to the US based on a material misrepresentation. While a lawyer may be able to argue that she did not understand the question, they will also have to overcome the substantial barrier of convincing a reasonable person that this timeline is consistent with their version of the story. And for that, I think it is much harder to prove, that only 5 weeks after swearing up and down to the IO at POE that she had no intention of staying in the US, she suddenly had a change of heart, assembled all of the documents for AOS, abandoned life in her home country, and filed her paperwork. Though I am sympathetic to the OP and his family, it seems like they have gotten themselves into quite a pickle.

[Amhara 460]

Yep, certainly a lawyer situation.  If the USCIS is saying she is inadmissible, would she even qualify for a visa now?  What kind of ban is she facing?  5 year, 10 year, lifetime?

 

I have no idea, but I agree that deportation/removal proceedings are the next thing that the OP's wife is facing.  I don't believe the lawyer would recommend that she travel back to her country unless it would result in a ban forgiveness.  I think the attorney would go different routes - asylum, medical needs, etc. - to develop a compelling case as to why the wife needs to remain in the US to prevent some impact to a USC.  Perhaps they can evidence the reasons why she was going to return back to Sweden.  She wasn't working, so maybe there are other reasons to return which can be backed up by documentation?

 

I do believe this will be a long-drawn out affair with an appeal, so I am sure at the end, the wife will stay and everyone will live happily ever after, but not before shelling out hefty sum of money to an immigration attorney or two.  There are several ways to fight this case, but if VWP is being scrutinized for circumventing immigration laws, then that will be interesting indeed.

[Boiler 46,113]

2 minutes ago, Amhara said:

Yep, certainly a lawyer situation.  If the USCIS is saying she is inadmissible, would she even qualify for a visa now?  What kind of ban is she facing?  5 year, 10 year, lifetime?

 

I have no idea, but I agree that deportation/removal proceedings are the next thing that the OP's wife is facing.  I don't believe the lawyer would recommend that she travel back to her country unless it would result in a ban forgiveness.  I think the attorney would go different routes - asylum, medical needs, etc. - to develop a compelling case as to why the wife needs to remain in the US to prevent some impact to a USC.  Perhaps they can evidence the reasons why she was going to return back to Sweden.  She wasn't working, so maybe there are other reasons to return which can be backed up by documentation?

 

I do believe this will be a long-drawn out affair with an appeal, so I am sure at the end, the wife will stay and everyone will live happily ever after, but not before shelling out hefty sum of money to an immigration attorney or two.  There are several ways to fight this case, but if VWP is being scrutinized for circumventing immigration laws, then that will be interesting indeed.

 

I am less than clear what has happened, seems most of the 9 pages are conjecture, but coming on the VWP  = Visa Waiver Programme which simplifies things not in her favour.

[Amhara 460]

4 minutes ago, Boiler said:

I am less than clear what has happened, seems most of the 9 pages are conjecture, but coming on the VWP  = Visa Waiver Programme which simplifies things not in her favour.

You're right.  Whatever caused the OP and wife to be married for 5 years and not living together may be able to produce a compelling reason why the wife was really planning on returning back to Sweden.  If the reason can be evidenced, then that may be able to help support the position that the wife mis-understood the question.

 

However, I know at my husband's ROC interview, we were video and audio recorded.  So if her response was not a simple "Yes" or "No" and the IO asked the question a few times in a few different ways, that may be difficult to contest.  These details should be shared with the lawyer.  I also don't recommend the OP explain that part on the internet.

[Dashinka 24,797]

41 minutes ago, Amhara said:

You're right.  Whatever caused the OP and wife to be married for 5 years and not living together may be able to produce a compelling reason why the wife was really planning on returning back to Sweden.  If the reason can be evidenced, then that may be able to help support the position that the wife mis-understood the question.

 

However, I know at my husband's ROC interview, we were video and audio recorded.  So if her response was not a simple "Yes" or "No" and the IO asked the question a few times in a few different ways, that may be difficult to contest.  These details should be shared with the lawyer.  I also don't recommend the OP explain that part on the internet.

I agree, whatever the reason for being married for 5 years with two children and another on the way and not filing for a visa is irrelevant in this case.  More than likely when entering the US she was asked for the purpose of her visit and assuming she was truthful, she would have said to visit her husband which is probably what sparked the intent question at that point.

[JFH 12,191]

1 hour ago, Boiler said:

 

I am less than clear what has happened, seems most of the 9 pages are conjecture, but coming on the VWP  = Visa Waiver Programme which simplifies things not in her favour.

Yep, no chance of appeal if AOS fails...

 

How did she get all her civil docs (birth certificate, etc) so quickly from her birth country? I am guessing she wasn’t born in Sweden so the birth certificate was from somewhere else. Arrived on February 8, filed AOS 5 weeks later. Let’s say it took 2 weeks to get the birth certificate. That means the decision to AOS was, at most, 3 weeks after arrival. It does happen. But it just seems odd. 

[debbiedoo 2,339]

8 minutes ago, JFH said:

Yep, no chance of appeal if AOS fails...

 

How did she get all her civil docs (birth certificate, etc) so quickly from her birth country? I am guessing she wasn’t born in Sweden so the birth certificate was from somewhere else. Arrived on February 8, filed AOS 5 weeks later. Let’s say it took 2 weeks to get the birth certificate. That means the decision to AOS was, at most, 3 weeks after arrival. It does happen. But it just seems odd. 

even with as much as paul and i had from our K1, it took 5 months to file for AOS after we got married. documents, his police report, birth certificate, deciding how we wanted to proceed, etc. all that stuff takes a pretty significant amount of time when youre not there to do it in person...

[SalishSea 18,144]

20 minutes ago, JFH said:

Yep, no chance of appeal if AOS fails...

Is that unique to adjusting from VWP?

[Amhara 460]

22 minutes ago, JFH said:

Yep, no chance of appeal if AOS fails...

 

How did she get all her civil docs (birth certificate, etc) so quickly from her birth country? I am guessing she wasn’t born in Sweden so the birth certificate was from somewhere else. Arrived on February 8, filed AOS 5 weeks later. Let’s say it took 2 weeks to get the birth certificate. That means the decision to AOS was, at most, 3 weeks after arrival. It does happen. But it just seems odd. 

Oh, I didn’t know that no appeal was available if AOS was denied.  Yikes!

 

Someone noted that CBP will search for these documents in luggage and will consider if this may imply they intend to stay.  But, if you mail the documents before traveling to the US, then that potential pitfall is avoided.  However, the husband may have had these documents or copies with him at his residence.  I know my husband isn’t too good with keeping track of such matters.

[JFH 12,191]

1 hour ago, Jorgedig said:

Is that unique to adjusting from VWP?

Yes... see page 4 https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/nativedocuments/2013-1114_AOS_VWP_Entrants_PM_Effective.pdf

[Nitas_man 3,100]

10 hours ago, JFH said:

Maybe they took the children thinking it would be good evidence of a bona fide marriage. It has been asked here before many times and I know of one forum where the chief moderator actually recommends that people have children together to “prove a bona fide marriage” (yep, they actually use the word “prove”). 

 

Just like the couple who sent pictures of themselves to USCIS  having sex to “prove” the

relationship was genuine... 

Now hold on - we bring the kids to the embassy and let em run around just to make a point.....LOL

Nothing to do with bonafide marriage but it helps move things along...

[belinda63 3,047]

Looks like she will be going home. I didn't think of it until I was reading tonight but yes, there is no appeal to the AOS if it is denied from VWP. People really should do things the proper way.

[The_Empyrean 733]

Of course it's a misrepresentation in USCIS minds. Also, they always allow people to have a lawyer or translator present during interview, and it's a responsibility of the person who comes to the interview, isn't it? Knowing the times, even if they got to the court, i don't think judge would look favorably at the whole situation. Short time between entry and AoS, then the Intent differences, VWP. It's just a big mess and i don't really think lawyer will have what to fix here.

I don't even think you can appeal the decision if you came on VWP. Previously i believe you couldn't even adjust from VWP ( at one point me and my wife were thinking to do that, but realized that it would cause more headaches down the line).

I agree to majority that she'll most likely will have leave and have some kind of bar as well for misrepresentation.

And yes, very likely she was pulled for secondary. My now wife was pulled to secondary last 4 or 5 times when she was coming here on VWP, difference is, last time she used VWP she told them that we not gonna adjust, and we're going the K-1 route regardless if thats the reason they were pulling her. Officer said that from first time they had it on file that she's my Fiance and she was flagged every time she tried to enter, and that she should've told that she was aware of K-1 and that would've saved the hassle of being pulled. Also they said that they appreciate us doing immigration the "right way" and "not to overstay the VWP as it would compromise the K-1" wished her the best. She said that it was so weird to see the officers so nice and understanding once she mentioned K-1.