Lied on my previous B2 visa application. HELP !!!

[Timona 4,208]

2 minutes ago, retheem said:

😂😂😂Number 3 you should know people in the high places. 

 

Yap. That will also do. You'll just have to grease some hands.

 

However, if you're a poor man's child,  River Road in Nairobi will suffice. And it's quicker than government office. 🤣🤣🤣

[retheem 568]

1 hour ago, Timona said:

 

Yap. That will also do. You'll just have to grease some hands.

 

However, if you're a poor man's child,  River Road in Nairobi will suffice. And it's quicker than government office. 🤣🤣🤣

😂😂😂😂you can't stop reggae😂😂

Edited June 17, 2020 by retheem

[Orangesapples 1,954]

14 hours ago, Jorgedig said:

And are inadmissible for US visas in the future due to obtaining a material benefit while lying under oath.  Many here on VJ have shown why it is not the smartest tactic.

Did he obtain the benefit? I think he was refused the visa, correct? 

[Allaboutwaiting 2,503]

1 hour ago, Orangesapples said:

Did he obtain the benefit? I think he was refused the visa, correct? 

Yes, the visa was denied. But, misrepresentation is considered when obtaining or seeking to obtain an immigration benefit. 

[geowrian 22,338]

4 minutes ago, Allaboutwaiting said:

Yes, the visa was denied. But, misrepresentation is considered when obtaining or seeking to obtain an immigration benefit. 

Yes. But for one to be inadmissible based upon a misrepresentation, it must be deemed material. If it did not change the result, it very arguably was not material.

But a CO makes that decision on materiality, not me (or anybody here).

Edited June 17, 2020 by geowrian

[Allaboutwaiting 2,503]

2 minutes ago, geowrian said:

Yes. But for one to be inadmissible based upon a misrepresentation, it must be deemed material. If it did not change the result, it very arguably was not material.

But a CO makes that decision on materiality, not me (or anybody here).

From the USCIS Policy Manual

 

Definition of Materiality

A “material” misrepresentation is a false representation concerning a fact that is relevant to the person’s eligibility for an immigration benefit. 

 

 It is about elegibility not outcome. 

[geowrian 22,338]

18 minutes ago, Allaboutwaiting said:

From the USCIS Policy Manual

 

Definition of Materiality

A “material” misrepresentation is a false representation concerning a fact that is relevant to the person’s eligibility for an immigration benefit. 

 

 It is about elegibility not outcome. 

Does being married effect one's eligibility for a tourist visa? More specifically, is being married, unmarried, or anything else make somebody eligible or ineligible for a tourist visa? (No)

Might it impact their ties to return home? Possibly. But if they didn't have sufficient ties already, then the false representation of their ties did not impact their eligibility for the visa.

 

Refusal under 214(b) is based upon the CO's evaluation of your entire set of circumstances.

That would effectively make any misrepresentation (at least for any visa subject to 214(b)) a material misrepresentation. "Do you like dogs?" is now a material question because it may have been part of the CO's decision.

Edited June 17, 2020 by geowrian

[Allaboutwaiting 2,503]

19 minutes ago, geowrian said:

Does being married effect one's eligibility for a tourist visa? More specifically, is being married, unmarried, or anything else make somebody eligible or ineligible for a tourist visa? (No)

Might it impact their ties to return home? Possibly. But if they didn't have sufficient ties already, then the false representation of their ties did not impact their eligibility for the visa.

 

Refusal under 214(b) is based upon the CO's evaluation of your entire set of circumstances.

That would effectively make any misrepresentation (at least for any visa subject to 214(b)) a material misrepresentation. "Do you like dogs?" is now a material question because it may have been part of the CO's decision.

We don't know the specifics regarding eligibility when adjudicating a visa as not all details are made public, particularly internal regulations. So you cannot say with certainty if being married or not impacts eligibility (as it can be -as you said- a set of circumstances, each being relevant).

 

The point here is not arguing if being married is considered relevant or not, but making clear that the outcome -obtaining a visa or not- has no impact on the adjudication of misrepresentation.

 

Procuring a Benefit under the INA

In order to be found inadmissible for fraud or willful misrepresentation, a person must seek to procure, have sought to procure, or have procured one of the following: 

-An immigrant or nonimmigrant visa;

-Other documentation;

-Admission into the United States; or 

-Other benefit provided under the INA.

The fraud or willful misrepresentation must have been made to an official of the U.S. government, generally an immigration or consular officer.

Edited June 17, 2020 by Allaboutwaiting

[geowrian 22,338]

1 hour ago, Allaboutwaiting said:

We don't know the specifics regarding eligibility when adjudicating a visa as not all details are made public, particularly internal regulations. So you cannot say with certainty if being married or not impacts eligibility (as it can be -as you said- a set of circumstances, each being relevant).

Eligibility for the visa is defined in the INA and clarified in the FAM. Both married and unmarried individuals are issued the visas - marital status does not determine eligibility.

The factors that go into decisions about elements of visa eligibility are not strictly defined.

Note that I am being very careful and precise with my wording above (especially re: "eligibility", "factors", and "elements"). These have specific meanings with immigration and law in general.

 

Quote

The point here is not arguing if being married is considered relevant or not, but making clear that the outcome -obtaining a visa or not- has no impact on the adjudication of misrepresentation.

There's no doubt that one can be deemed inadmissible due to fraud or misrep just by applying for a visa, even if denied. Outcome alone is not the determining factor, agreed. But can it impact it? Yes.

If, for instance, I present a fake passport then a misrep/fraud bar would very likely apply. Or if asked about my criminal history and I lie, that would likely apply as well. I say only "likely" because the CO makes the call.

 

My point was that lying about marital status may (again, the CO makes this call) not impact their eligibility for the visa. They were determined ineligible due to lack of ties to return home. Being married or not did not impact anything (there is no "very lack of ties" vs "slight lack of ties").

Whereas if they were issued the visa, one can argue that the lie pushed them over the threshold to actually impact eligibility for the visa.

 

Although this is a moot point since the lie is generally an issue for reasons other than a misrep ban. Namely, for many visas they will need to show that prior marriages were terminated, so until they can clear that hurdle, any inadmissibility for misrep would not apply. For the others, 214(b) usually applies and lying like that in the past pretty much kills any credibility that they would have had, so they are again deemed ineligible before determine if the inadmissibility applies.

Edited June 17, 2020 by geowrian

[Orangesapples 1,954]

I remember there used to be a consular officer user here and she/he specifically said that the above situation wouldn't count as a material representation because the visa would have been denied either way. 

[Boiler 45,966]

The ones I have seen have not been Misrep, would be much easier if they were, RFE for Wedding and Divorce papers.